Community
On Orbit => Real NASA Space Shuttle Missions => Topic started by: Admin on March 08, 2010, 08:01:11 PM
-
'nuf said.
/Admin
-
wow, have you got an article? or inside source ;)
so far I've found this
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/10/03/06/1427256/Shuttle-Extension-amp-Heavy-Launcher-Bill-Proposed?from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashdot%29
and this:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/03/lawmakers-bill-extend-shuttle-2015-hlv/
-
Obama is going to conduct a conference in Florida on April 15. He is going to announce a timeline for a future crewed mission to Mars and a heavy-lift vehicle.
They may add one more mission to STS, but NASA certainly won't have the Shuttle's flying beyond that if Obama announces the heavy-lift vehicle, as they have to get rid of old and expensive structures before they can do something else seriously.
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100307/NEWS0204/3070319/Obama-to-talk-space-in-Florida-visit
-
Hehe cool. Thanks for the links man. :3 :D :D :) :)
-
Obama is going to conduct a conference in Florida on April 15. He is going to announce a timeline for a future crewed mission to Mars and a heavy-lift vehicle.
They may add one more mission to STS, but NASA certainly won't have the Shuttle's flying beyond that if Obama announces the heavy-lift vehicle, as they have to get rid of old and expensive structures before they can do something else seriously.
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100307/NEWS0204/3070319/Obama-to-talk-space-in-Florida-visit
I suggest to wait for the votes. Some already know the outcome, with an accuracy of 90%, but of course, until the news is out any speculation is legitimate ;D
I am not sure however if I should be happy or sad when the announcement is made.
1. Happy because the US will still be in Space with an amazing platform, bridging a future US Space Program, or...
2. ...sad (or better said, "worried") that there are only 3 fatigued Shuttles left and that is not a good reason for optimism. One thing I know, I will be watching TENSLY every Shuttle liftoff and landing beyond the planned retirement of 2010.
/Admin
-
Well, an STS extension to 2015 would not really bridge a future program, but rather continuing to eat up a lot of budget and prevent innovation. It would be just a giant political job machine and a delay of the unpreventable gap, with NASA still facing not an "own" manned future.
Guess what Obama will announce if his conference happens after the "successful" (who knows) Falcon 9 launch... ;)
-
Its a strange feeling really America without a manned launch vehicle and our astronauts being delivered by the Russians...what if Russia says ok no more Americans the station is ours now... :o
-
As I said to Uri_ba just last night, " It aint over till it's over...."
I'm betting for an extension....
-
...With each mission having a very tight pre check of all of the Shuttle structure. If I was a betting man, I would say they run endavour and have discovery as a backup for each mission, which would be one, maybe two missions a year
-
Its a strange feeling really America without a manned launch vehicle
The USA already was without a flying manned launch vehicle and without any manned access to space for 6 years (from 1975 to 1981). And that also whilst they had a station in orbit (Skylab), but just unmanned and by the time out of control.
This time the remaining benefits are permanently not only for the USA (which Apollo was not): the hugest and most modern manned system humans have ever build and put into earth orbit, that is manned 365 days a year. The USA does not enter a gap of manned space flight this time: because they will just travel into space by a different system for a while. Only people which suffer from the old nationalistic "not invented here" mentality will have a hard time :P
and our astronauts being delivered by the Russians...what if Russia says ok no more Americans the station is ours now... :o
Don't be afraid. That's by all means (first of all politically, then fiscally and logistically) an impossible, fictive scenario. Beside the fact that this would not make any single spark of sense, Russia would also not have much money in future to do "big" things in space, and it would also immediately divide the world into "east" and "west" again. That's something no politician is interested in these days, already because it simply could mean serious economical and political problems which especially Russia would suffer really bad from. Russia is just in the beginning of becomming something like rich and "free" (basically freedom of opinion). But most importantly: the ISS is not a Russian station, nor a US station. It's an international station that is internationally operated and serviced ;)
The world is not going to become worse these days like one might tend to think or "feel". It's just a pessimistic "structural depression" some people suffer from because they watch and read too much onesided bad news and media. It is just moaning on a high level. If one looks closely, the times especially in Europe, the USA and other developed regions, are as good as almost never before if we talk about wealth and freedom (I think that almost nobody wants to go back sixty-five years...). Also manned spaceflight is as progressive and as amazing as never before. Just because the USA won't ride on its own "invented here" toy for a while does not mean the end of the world ;D
I'm betting for an extension....
My entire wealth and fund goes to: maximally two more missions i f a t a l l.
-
There is nothing wrong with patriotism and legitimate national interests (not "nationalistic" as you label them). Despite globalization, each nation is entitled to have its own interests, just as any individual is entitled to have his/her own ideals and personal/private goals.
Can you explain why, while every nation that contributed to the ISS proudly displays this achievement with little flags in prominent places throughout the ISS, the US should not aim for same pride of achevement? Aren't pride, patriotism and national interest legitimate rights of the US too?
Pride, patriotism and legitimate national interests are some of the more powerful ingredients which push a nation to achieve more, and faster. US, just like any other nation, should not be snared at for having them, under any circumstance, especially since most of the recent history technological and scientific achevements have been reached either by, or with American crucial assistance - including, and especially the ISS.
Today more nations can join the Space Club thanks to "nationalistic" space race between USSR and USA. ESA, JAXA, and other Space Agencies owe their creation to space programs initiated, largely funded and supported by the US - just like the pathetic UN.
So a little respect and humbleness are in order here, regardless of political opinions.
/Admin
-
Thank you Admin, my eyes had glazed over ;) Very well said, thanks.
-
There is nothing wrong with patriotism and legitimate national interests (not "nationalistic" as you label them). Despite globalization, each nation is entitled to have its own interests, just as any individual is entitled to have his/her own ideals and personal/private goals.
Patriotism looks different in this context, because it is partly the "not invented here syndrome". Some people are afraid of using Soyuz because it is not a US system, not operated by the US, that is "not invented here" (and in some cases because it's from ex-communists). This is a form of nationalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Invented_Here
Can you explain why, while every nation that contributed to the ISS proudly displays this achievement with little flags in prominent places throughout the ISS, the US should not aim for same pride of achevement? Aren't pride, patriotism and national interest legitimate rights of the US too?
If they use Soyuz for ISS support and US crew transport, there is nothing wrong or worse to use Soyuz "only" whilst NASA does not manage to get a STS replacement.
Times have changed anyway. Look to Boeing: the new Boeing 787 is not really an American airplane anymore for the first time. It's a global product. Boeing does just the final assembly. Just like the ISS also is not just a US program solely. There is no reason to be afraid of using Soyuz.
European astronauts do travel into space by "foreign" systems for decades. And there is nothing wrong if US astronauts do travel into space only by "foreign" systems as well. In future we will see more international partnership, not only for the ISS.
Sputnik was a shock, just like for Russia Apollo was a shock because it was "not invented here". But that does not fit into the 21st Century anymore.
US, just like any other nation, should not be snared at for having them, under any circumstance, especially since most of the recent history technological and scientific achevements have been reached either by, or with American crucial assistance - including, and especially the ISS.
The ISS would not have been possible the way it is in orbit, without the Proton launches and all the Soyuz and Progress support flights, and most importently without the significant Russian space station and long term mission experience of which the USA had none until the late 1990s. Mir was in orbit for 15 years. That was something the USA and the rest of the ISS partners could build on.
The US progress in space is often overrated, especially because of Apollo and the collapse of the Soviet Union (which led to the Buran program cancellation). Russia was the first nation to send a satellite and a human into orbit for the very first time. And, before the ISS program, the only nation to operate a space station for 15 years, including the quite successfully Soyuz program which until today survived 3 US programs (actually 4 - Gemini, Apollo, Skylab and the STS).
Today more nations can join the Space Club thanks to "nationalistic" space race between USSR and USA.
Especially thanks to the German Reunification (and espcially to Margaret Thatcher, François Mitterrand, Helmut Kohl, Michail Gorbatschow etc.) and the collapse of the Soviet Union which at the end made the international work politically possible ;) But the Ariane launches into space since the late 1970s already.
ESA, JAXA, and other Space Agencies owe their creation to space programs initiated, largely funded and supported by the US - just like the pathetic UN.
Nope. The Ariane program for example, which is actually the core of ESA, is not supported by the US. It is solely a commercial European program, just like ESA is funded by its European members (national budgets, related to gross domestic product) and not by the US. Europe (ESA) funds the ISS program by 8 billion Euro (41% of that money is comming from Germany by the way), and support is done by the Ariane and the European Automated Transfer Vehicle (development and operation of the ATV costs more than 4 billion Euro).
I don't know about JAXA but the agency actually exists since the 1960s and I can't imagine it's funded by the USA. The USA already has enough problems with proper NASA funding.
There is another thing some people often forget in this context when they talk about the amazing "US" progress in the 20th Century: the Concorde, the only supersonic passenger aircraft that could carry 100 passengers with twice the speed of sound without reheat (reheat or the "after burner" were just used for acceleration up to Mach 1,7). Initially Concorde did not get a permission to land in the USA, because it was called to be too noisy. So far the initial conclusion, until they had to admit that some US aircraft at that time were even more noisy. The actual reason for the initial landing prohibition was just the "not invented here" mentality back then (even Henry Kissinger, a frequent Cocnorde passenger, still likes to mention this).
-
Thank you Admin, my eyes had glazed over ;) Very well said, thanks.
Don't worry. I'm just trying to explain that there is nothing wrong in case US astronauts ride into space on top of a foreign system ;)
The actual wrong thing is NASAs current program structure which is not sustainable, led into the Constellation cancellation and so fails to replace the STS on time. And since Obama has passed his health care reform, NASA is not facing a better future if not restructured soon. Remember that especially in manned space flight costs are proportional to the number of employees. And NASA is a big political job keeping program (instead of an efficient project keeping and replacing program). I know it does not sound nice but that's sadly the situation.
-
I said what I had to say about patriotism and legitimate national interest and reject your claim that its context is "not invented here". You are talking about a local syndrome which some of the NASA managers have suffered of, but you cannot stick that to a whole nation or to the legitimacy of a national space program. That is superficial, narrow minded, not to say unfair.
Now I prefer to allow Astronaut (ret) Scott Parazynski to voice his opinion:
http://www.saratogian.com/articles/2010/04/06/news/doc4bbaac8663f31963771722.txt
I think he doesn't suffer from any "not invented here" syndrome.
/Admin
-
You are talking about a local syndrome which some of the NASA managers have suffered of, but you cannot stick that to a whole nation or to the legitimacy of a national space program. That is superficial, narrow minded, not to say unfair.
You are absolutely right that one can not stick the not invented here syndrome to a whole nation. That's why I wrote that "only people which suffer from the old nationalistic "not invented here" mentality will have a hard time" and "some people are afraid of using Soyuz because it is not a US system." I did never stick it to an entire nation ;)
You are also absolutely right as for the legitimacy of a national space program.
But: the ISS is not a national space program ;) It's an international space program, that is hugely dependant on international crew support by Soyuz. And there is nothing wrong in case the USA will have to buy seats on Soyuz (just because it is the USA), just like there is nothing wrong that European astronauts do also travel by Soyuz as usual. Soyuz (and Progress) is an inherent and reliable part of the ISS program -> the basic crew transportation, crew support and crew rescue system for the ISS.
The national space program of returning to the Moon and go to Mars is a different matter of course. But for now NASA has to stick with the ISS and its international partnership for at least another decade...
Now I prefer to allow Astronaut (ret) Scott Parazynski to voice his opinion:
http://www.saratogian.com/articles/2010/04/06/news/doc4bbaac8663f31963771722.txt
I think he doesn't suffer from any "not invented here" syndrome.
Of course he doesn't. But he also did not seem to realize that Constellation was not going to become "a program that could pay such huge dividends." The only huge dividends would have been to keep thousands of jobs to satisfy senators and its voters. But it would have been a short program like Apollo. Already Ares I was going to become way more expensive than STS.
We can only hope that NASA gets the chance to develope a future system on a more economical and intelligent way...
-
I think moon walkers post has got to be the longest post on this forum to date. A year or so ago I had a thought, which kind of fits here in this discussion;
we've got the international space station, why not the international crew/launcher. This could be operated from any of the space ports, sections can be made across the globe and flown to the launch site for 'final' assembly and launch. I think that would drive costs down, plus you've got a design and system that everyone is trained and familar. It's almost a no brainer. As an example (not the best, but it works) eurofighter, airbus and like mentioned before Boeing now have international partrners. Co-operation, it's the future! :)
-
Sadly, the only "international" LEO crew transportation option is Russian, and not because the other Space Agencies and commercial entities didn't have enough time to develop one. They didn't have the resources and know-how, and rather preferred letting NASA (and Russia) to conquer these frontiers for them.
Now, after STS is retired, everybody suddenly realize that the only option is Russian, and with all due respect, even ignoring the political issues, it us not so smart to have no alternate way of getting to and off the ISS. I can hear the screams of all those who dance today on the STS and Constellation graves, when for this or that reason, the ISS crew will be forced to spend many months in space, as it has already happened before.
/Admin
-
Sorry that I'm writing long posts, but it's actually a complex topic.
Sadly, the only "international" LEO crew transportation option is Russian, and not because the other Space Agencies and commercial entities didn't have enough time to develop one. They didn't have the resources and know-how, and rather preferred letting NASA (and Russia) to conquer these frontiers for them.
Well, European scientists and engineers didn't have less know-how than American and Russian scientists and engineers at all. Quite the opposite if we go back in history.
Actually it started during World War two in Germany, with Wernher von Braun and his team in Peenemunde (the most modern rocket research institute in the world back then, and the first place to launch a vehicle into space). Not really something to be proud of, because von Braun actually was a war criminal, but on the other hand still a phantastic visionary and engineer, who significantly influenced the US space program not only by designing the Saturn V (he also became the director of the Marshal Space Flight Center). He talked about space stations that are being supported by "Space Shuttles", long before NASA orbited the Moon manned for the first time in 1968.
Of course European engineers did not get the resources and budget to compete with Russia and the USA in space in the 1960s, simply because they did not get such an assignement politically. But the know-how was there, on the same level. The Concorde was developed in the 1960s by French and British engineers as one example. It was the first civil aircraft that used fly-by-wire (and also thrust-by-wire), and most importantly: that could fly with Mach 2 for more than two hours without using reheat. This was and still is something no other airplane can do, while also carrying 100 passengers. Concorde was even more successful than its only, Russian competitor, the "Concordski" (Tupolev Tu-144). Another example is Airbus, which is more than just a serious competition to Boeing. Airbus meanwhile sells more aircraft per year than Boeing. A few American airlines even completely change their fleet by Airbus aircraft, because it is the most modern commercial jet aircraft (now the A380, which is without competition). The US government even was looking for the A380 for their Air Force One, but Airbus denied because of understandable reasons (selling their technology to the US government might not be the best idea in terms of competition to Boeing...).
If we talk about ESA: with the tiny budget ESA gets, ESA is amazingly productive, not only because of the Ariane launchers (just look at the research fields and contributions to manned and unmanned space flight technologies, not only "Columbus"...). ESA engineers do not have any less know how than Russian and American engineers. They just don't get the budget and assignment to develope a manned system. It's a political issue, not a know-how issue.
In future Europe will operate both, the Ariane and Soyuz at Kourou, and possibly also the smaller Vega rocket. The ATV, which already services the ISS, is planned to be changed into a manned system.
If we look how Europe and meanwhile Russia and the USA manage space flight and aviation industries, I think that desktopsimmer is rather right: co-operation is the future. Also for NASA, because its current program structure is not promising at all. I doubt they will get the chance to operate a new manned system within this decade. But just like for Europe: the reason is not a know-how issue, but a political and budget issue. In fact, the most amazing outcome of NASA research and development took and takes place in the unmanned space flight and earth sciences, not in the manned space flight. something a lot of people don't think about or don't even know. The manned part of NASA is just the part that gets the most attention. But there is way more that NASA does, beside launching manned rockets in Florida. This is something the USA still can be really proud of, in terms of a national space program. Loosing Constellation is not so hard as it seems to be to some people. Constellation was canceled just early enough, before it turned into a real disaster...
-
... and the Greeks invented Mathematics and the Arabs expanded Astronomy...
Regarding knowledge and application, the proof is in the pudding. The rest is speculation and wishful thinking.
My claim is still valid Moonwalker - until that "future" comes, we are all stuck with the Soyuz and that's NOT a pretty picture.
/Admin
-
Despite globalization, each nation is entitled to have its own interests, just as any individual is entitled to have his/her own ideals and personal/private goals.
So true.
until that "future" comes, we are all stuck with the Soyuz and that's NOT a pretty picture.
And so true again.
-
Regarding knowledge and application, the proof is in the pudding. The rest is speculation and wishful thinking.
What I've mentioned about Concorde, Airbus and ESA are checkable facts, not speculation and wishful thinking. European space flight and civil aviation technologies keep up with Russian and American technology already for decades (and in case of Concorde and Airbus we even lead internationally). That Europe does not operate a manned space flight system is no proof for missing know-how. It's a political issue, not a know-how issue. But manned space flight is not the be-all and end-all anyway. It's actually a quite minor "scientific" part of space exploration and astronomy.
My claim is still valid Moonwalker - until that "future" comes, we are all stuck with the Soyuz and that's NOT a pretty picture.
Well, Soyuz already is the basic crew transportation system for the ISS for years, and the most reliable manned system (and "we all" are using it for decades already). The problem that exists is related to NASA and the corresponding policy, not related to Soyuz. It's a national US issue.
The ISS will continue to work and to do what it was intended to do without any Shuttle and Orion. And if ESA does not get the chance and budget to convert the ATV into a manned vehicle, we will see further co-operations between Russia and Europe in future, which is not a problem at all. The Cold War luckily is over :)
-
Developing an airplane is different than a Space Program and with all due respect, the Boeing didn't develop a "Concorde" because it never made any commercial sense, not because they didn't know or didn't have the resources. It is good you don't compare cars manufacturing ;)
As for the Airbus, well, it took about 10 countries to join in and build a plane which can compete and today, almost beat Boeing - a single company. Regardless, you cannot compare commercial companies building airplanes having a totally different sets of priorities and goals (and customers) with building a manned Space Program which is still a national, gov-led endeavour.
If EU didn't have the resources and know-how (based on hard-data and experience), do you honestly believe that commercial entities will be willing to invest the necessary resources in manned Space Exploration (not transportation)?
I like your optimism and forward-looking claims about the Cold War - I hope you are right, but sadly facts seem to indicate otherwise - but that is not the only consideration.
What if Russia decides that it is not economical to maintain the Soyuz program AND go for the Moon AND Mars? What is they say, "Screw ISS, we put our money on the Moon and beyond?". And what if they also say "If anybody wants our transportation to the ISS, then pay double or triple etc." (and finance part of the Moon program? And what if a Soyuz disaster happens, disaster which will ground the program for months if not more, until they fix the issue? What if terrorists destroy a Soyuz launcher? Too many "what ifs" and you cannot promise anybody that none of the above can happen. Nobody can promise that. That's why the need for alternatives - and NOT until EU finished playing the catch-up game. Remaining without a backup for LEO transportation and without a national manned Space Exploration goal, is not a good thing - definitely not today.
Internally, NASA blames itself for assuming that the US public knows and understands what the STS and Constellation really are. This assumption led to Obama's easy move to try and castrate it. NASA blames itself for not passing the message good enough to a large enough audience, and focused instead on a few politicians whose set of values, as it usually is with many politicians, is questionable at best. NASA blames itself for this "marketing" flop - a flop which will cost NASA and the US the future of an American manned Space Exploration (not transportation) program and will leave the US in the second, or even third or fourth place. And just wait and see how this "cooperation" will breed new Space Exploration leaders (China, Russia and maybe EU) which will take as much credit for their achievements in Space as they can, not caring at all about "cooperation".
This will certainly happen if The People allow their Prez to rob the US of its current and future achievements.
/Admin
-
Developing an airplane is different than a Space Program
Indeed. But the European aviation industry nevertheless shows that European know-how is by no means behind American or Russian know-how. And I also mentioned ESA, which shows the same, and is the reason that it supports the ISS program by budget and hardware.
and with all due respect, the Boeing didn't develop a "Concorde" because it never made any commercial sense, not because they didn't know or didn't have the resources. It is good you don't compare cars manufacturing ;)
I didn't say that Boeing didn't develope supersonic passenger jet because they didn't not know how to do so. I used it as another example that European know-how is by no means behind American or Russian know-how ;)
By the way: Concorde was quite profitable since the 1980's, exactly from that moment on, in which Concorde was operated by Air France and British Airways only, and not by their governments anymore (which kept a huge amount of profit).
As for the Airbus, well, it took about 10 countries to join in and build a plane which can compete and today, almost beat Boeing - a single company.
The USA is a big powerful country, and a significant amount of Boeings profit is comming from the government (for military innovations). A small European nation could not just compete. They had to join (and of course they also depend on military innovations). But still the fact remains: the know-how is by no means behind American know-how. Since the early 1990s Airbus does sell the most modern civil pasenger airplanes (it began with the A330).
If EU didn't have the resources and know-how (based on hard-data and experience), do you honestly believe that commercial entities will be willing to invest the necessary resources in manned Space Exploration (not transportation)?
No. Industries will invest in transportation, and governments in exploration. SpaceX for example does offer the launch vehicle, just like Arianespace does.
What if Russia decides that it is not economical
They don't, because it is quite economical. It is that much economical that ESA will operate it as well.
to maintain the Soyuz program AND go for the Moon AND Mars?
They don't have enough money to go alone, just like NASA for sure won't go alone. Costs will explode. Compared to that, Constellation would just be a peanuts.
What is they say, "Screw ISS, we put our money on the Moon and beyond?". And what if they also say "If anybody wants our transportation to the ISS, then pay double or triple etc." (and finance part of the Moon program? And what if a Soyuz disaster happens, disaster which will ground the program for months if not more, until they fix the issue? What if terrorists destroy a Soyuz launcher? Too many "what ifs" and you cannot promise anybody that none of the above can happen. Nobody can promise that. That's why the need for alternatives - and NOT until EU finished playing the catch-up game. Remaining without a backup for LEO transportation and without a national manned Space Exploration goal, is not a good thing - definitely not today.
NASA could also abandon ISS and leave Europe and Russia alone. Many quite unlikely ifs, and, as you often like to say: just speculation ;)
But it seems that people are still afraid of Russia...
Internally, NASA blames itself for assuming that the US public knows and understands what the STS and Constellation really are. This assumption led to Obama's easy move to try and castrate it.
Nope. The administration had to take the step, based on valid concerns. Constellation was a program that got so much criticism inside and outside NASA, from lots of engineers and qualified persons, like no other program before. The program was dramatically over-budget, and the engineering issues made it unreasonable from the standpoint of exploding operating costs and reliability.
NASA blames itself for not passing the message good enough to a large enough audience
I think that the audience has realised that the program will swallow a lot of tax money for a giantic but short Apollo on Steroids show ;) Constellation was not something for the wide future. We need a different, more efficient approach...
-
NASA has already abandoned the ISS transportation and this is WRONG. That's exactly what I'm saying - it is wrong to do this and leave ISS without an alternative transportation system. To make things worse, Obama also cut the rest of the manned Space Exploration and I claim that he did that all for the wrong reasons. For now, I see that we are in agreement on most of the points from my previous post concerning EU, "cooperation" etc.<g>.
As for the Concorde, again it is irrelevant since it does not prove anything about ESA. I don't understand why you say "no" when you comment about SpaceX and Arianne and the ESA lack of resources to raise a feasable manned program alone. You've actually agreed with my point <g>.
Iffing the US policy is not quite the same as iffing the Russian one, considering the significant differences between their respective political systems and the way their governmental institutions are run.
"Nope. The administration had to take the step, based on valid concerns."... well, you are quick to dismiss my claim categorically, without really knowing who I talk to and to what sources I am connected. I stand behind my satements above as they are based on hard (internal NASA) facts. Sorry to disappoint but there is a huge amount of "self-flaggelation" going on at NASA these days and with good reason - regardless of why Obama decided to castrate it and the timing for this painful operation.
The "Audience" you refer to is not the "US public" by far. It is a limited group of NASA insiders, politicians and lobbysts and well, they have their own agenda and ambitions. Many of them realized that they can obtain more (political) power or better job by just bending over and doing the Prez dance, until the next Administration comes along. I read many of their reports and feedback and many sounded too much like "my tongue is deeper in Prez's @$$ than yours, so move over". Some of them sounded very much like a USSR Communist Party member reciting the Party line while the Chairman is watching him/her very carefully.
AMOF, only a tiny minority of the American public actually understands what NASA does with the Shuttle and what it planned to do with Constellation, and that's NASA's fault (or by extension, US gov's fault). While NASA is quite visible in schools, it largely ignored the 25 and 40+ "audience" and that's the audience which can put pressure on the Gov and Prez.
/Admin
-
Well, all I'm trying to say is that ESA does not get the resources to start a manned program because they do not get the assignment to do so. If the European leadership would decide to start a European manned program, and increase the ESA budget, we could be pretty sure they would be very well able to build a manned system that would be no less advanced and reliable than previous US and Russian systems. The know-how is there. There are quite a lot well qualified engineers and scientists working for ESA who already do amazing jobs, as far as possible regarding their assignments and budget. Of course it is very sad for such a modern place like Western Europe, that we still do not have own manned access to space. But that's a political fault, not a know-how fault. I have already mentioned what Europe is able to do an does if politicians just take decisions.
As for Constellation: the sad fact is that Constellation would have gone nowhere, not even to the Moon, less than ever to Mars. It was simply in a deadlock. AresI wouldn't have lifted off within the initially planned lifetime of the ISS. The issues related to AresI dramatically reduced the capabilitis of Orion, well the LEO version. The lunar version wasn't even on the table really. AresV had no funding, just like the lunar lander and lunar surface hardware. AresV would not have been available until the late 2020s, and the first lunar landing not until the 2030s. Even if the government would have pumped menaingless much more money into it, it would have remained a program not for the wide future simply because of the colossal costs. NASAs current program structure is anything but effective. This is definately not the way to go to the Moon and Mars in the long term. That is exactly the reason why Obama, just like any other President in his stead, simply does not have any other chance than to abort the Bush-agenda soon enough.
I still remember when Constellation and the Ares rockets were announced. The space flight forums and blogs were full of disappointment and criticism (because of the missing innovation and likely colossal costs which became true). The Constellation proponents were minor from the beginning. At that time I was still blinded by the expensive 3D videos and Apollo on steroid advertisement by NASA, without looking closely to the issues and the potential outcome which at the end indeed became sad reality. And don't forget Chris Bergin from nasaspaceflight.com who chimed in here, and what he wrote about AresI when I was still convinced of Constellation (two years ago he already said that AresI isn't going to survive) ;)
-
Yes, you are right - in so many words you only confirm everything I say about ESA and other agencies. What you say just proves my point that NASA should not cancel any future manned Space Exploration and base its future on unrealistic commercial endeavours or it's international partners.
Currently NASA lack of manned Space Exploration is everybody's loss, especially ESA's and JAXA, less so for the Russians and for the Chinese who will do their thing and take the lead without sharing anything in the name of "cooperation".
What we are looking now is a period of false starts and global stagnation in manned Space Exploration. Sad. Very sad.
/Admin
-
Well, China is another nation that now has manned access to space, but they do not take a leading role. They fly too rarely, plus it is an open secret that their manned program is not in the very best shape in economical terms. As long as China does not fly very often and does not do any science in space, China plays anything, but not a big role, less than ever a leading one. But since I'm not an opponent of China just because it is a different political system (and a dignified ~4000 years old culture) and because it is a sovereign and powerful state, I whish them good luck in space and more progress.
The nations which lead space are still the USA, Russia and Europe, not only by operating the largest artificial object in earth orbit, which can be called the most modern technology humankind has build for now. The amount of space and earth sciences that comes especially from the USA and Europe is amazing and remains leading. But manned space flight is just a small "scientific" part of ESA and NASA. It is the part which just gets the most attention because it is humans that ride on top of rockets, and not just "boring" scientific equipment, probes and satallites. But in fact, the science aboard the Shuttle, Soyuz and even aboard ISS remains relatively minor in compariosn to all the other scientific fields NASA and ESA do work at in the unmanned space exploration and especially earth bound sciences.
Anyway, Soyus is an inevitable part of the ISS from the beginning of the entire progam conception. The Shuttle and Russian Proton are the basic transportation vehicles for the modules, while the Shuttle also is a basic assembly tool. But Soyuz remains the basic crew transportation and crew support system. Anything additional like Orion for example, would have been a future benefit of course, but not an urgent necessity. Russia is a worthy and trusty partner for a long period of time already. Not relying on Soyuz because it is not a US-made and/or European-made and operated system (or "not invented here" again), is a kind of thinking that goes into the wrong direction that is to say: back in history.
The late 20th and the 21t Century is about cooperation and powerful partnerships in both, commercial and governmental space flight and aviation stuff. The STS retirement, and even more so the Constellation cancelation, is basically a US loss. STS did not become what it was intended to be, plus its costs were colossal (and a far worse sitution would have been the case for Constellation). Basically Hubble and the ISS have thrown a bright light on STS "yet again". But the dark shadows remain: Challenger, Columbia and the massive eating up of budget and resources and the resulting massive delays. NASA has to change its expensive structure. The retirement of STS and the Constellation cancelation is a chance rather than a loss. I can only hope the government and NASA managers do take the chance right. Meanwhile, the European ATV and Progress will service the ISS and Soyuz will carry crews. Nothing wrong with that. SpaceX will join in quite likely, potentially together with NASA. The only future that looks quite dark for now is the future of American astronauts.
Meanwhile the European and Russian cooperation continues, whilst Soyuz will continue to take its historical and successful journey right into the 21t Century...
-
But I think we should stop it here. There are basically two sides: people who are still afraid of Russian technology and depending on it, and those who are not afraid but rather excited by Soyuz the same way as for the Shuttle and another past manned programs. So the discussion actually is an infinite loop.
Soyuz is as worthy as the Space Shuttle. And as I did theoretical for SSM2007, I would also give another five fingers away for a comparable Soyuz Mission simulator ;D
To get back on topic: I can only hope NASA and the government wouldn't be so naive as to waste another years and billions of budget by extending the STS program. This would not restructure NASA at all, and would not bring any new program on the table.
-
I know you probably want to close the subject as what has been siad, has been said. However, I wonder why US/NASA and Russia haven't tried two options: the resurrection of Buran (1K destoryed, but 2K I believe is in storage) and the Kilper project. Kliper did look rather promising, especially it is resuable and appears to be a cheaper option and on similar running cost of a soyuz, just expensive to get it through development. If NASA/US throw a few bucks and development resources towards Russia as a joint project, maybe, just maybe, that could be the answer to the midterm problems.
-
The Challenger and Columbia disasters exposed massive NASA management failures, a less than ideal transporation concept (crew "capsule" behind the rockets), but did not expose the Shuttle as a totally failed system. Current Shuttles are totally different from the first Columbia on ALL aspects, as their reliability, efficiency and cost/performance ratio have sky-rocketed (pun intended) by any standards. The only issue marring the STS is general fatigue which is a direct result of the loss of two Shuttle. Costs are much lower than ANY alternative today, and since Soyuz cargo capacity is not comparable to that of the Shuttle, comparing the two is irrelevant.
I suggest that the failure to pass Constellation (or alternative Moon and beyond programs) expose again a massive NASA management/marketing failure (as they agree now internally), and a suicidal political attempt by the Obama administration that might cost the US leadership in Space Exploration in the long term.
I hope that The People will prevent the move to kill any future NASA-led/initiated manned Space Exploration program and will force the Administration (and NASA) to use the huge amount of knowledge it has accumulated from the first stages of the Constellation program and adapt it to a more realistic, cost-efficient, but no less bold approach that should take NASA and its less-endowed partners to the Moon and beyond.
As a closure of the thread, I think that despite the huge amount of bandwidth used by Moonwalker, the thread is interesting and exposes positions and arguments that will go on forever. This thread is on of thousands which discuss the issue, with respectable members of the Space Exploration community supporting and rejecting Obama's move.
Ultimately, we'll see what happens regardless of what we say here. We live in interesting times, and this is not necessarily a good thing ;)
/Admin
-
The Challenger and Columbia disasters exposed massive NASA management failures, a less than ideal transporation concept (crew "capsule" behind the rockets), but did not expose the Shuttle as a totally failed system. Current Shuttles are totally different from the first Columbia on ALL aspects, as their reliability, efficiency and cost/performance ratio have sky-rocketed (pun intended) by any standards. The only issue marring the STS is general fatigue which is a direct result of the loss of two Shuttle. Costs are much lower than ANY alternative today, and since Soyuz cargo capacity is not comparable to that of the Shuttle, comparing the two is irrelevant.
Well, the requirement for the OBSS, the backflip maneuver and STS-400, shows how "reliable" the Space Shuttle is and that today it is not different in "ALL" aspects. There was updates already after Challenger. But the Space Shuttle, its original design and technology, is basically still the same beside all the tiny changes here and there that combined are called lots of changes. Especially the External Tank continues to be a risk of what had caused the loss of Columbia...
The Shuttle is that much expensive because of various reasons. First of all it carries crew and payload at the same time. And there is that costly NASA infrastructure, plus the reusability causes massive costs as well (also for the SRBs). Even without carrying a huge paylaod or a payload at all, the Shuttle still causes massive costs for one launch just to carry 7-8 astronauts into space. Most Shuttle payloads beside Hubble (just 50% mass of what the Shuttle can carry) and ISS components, were quite low in relation to its capacity. But each time you launch a Shuttle, you have that massive launch costs in any case. Another fault for that, beside the STS concept itself, is NASAs structures which is big national job keeping programs. The costs for AresI and Orion for example would have been even higher than for the Space Shuttle, just to bring twice as much astronauts to the ISS as Soyuz does, and just for the sake to pass that design and make it fly. It doesn't work that way, which is why politicians are not willing anymore to pump billions of Dollars into such programs.
If we talk about payload capacity we should also have a look to the Russian Proton rocket (up to 22 tons). Another story of success, because it is one of the most successful rockets, and the latest versions one of the most economical rockets in the world. It launched more than 350 times for now, both commercially and for the government (and we remember it was used for ISS assembly as well).
Ultimately, we'll see what happens regardless of what we say here. We live in interesting times, and this is not necessarily a good thing ;)
As an optimist, I say that it is a rather good interesting times ;D
I know you probably want to close the subject as what has been siad, has been said. However, I wonder why US/NASA and Russia haven't tried two options: the resurrection of Buran (1K destoryed, but 2K I believe is in storage) and the Kilper project. Kliper did look rather promising, especially it is resuable and appears to be a cheaper option and on similar running cost of a soyuz, just expensive to get it through development. If NASA/US throw a few bucks and development resources towards Russia as a joint project, maybe, just maybe, that could be the answer to the midterm problems.
I think that a joint project is one of the best solutions in many directions. It reduces costs and also contributes to a friendly political atmosphere, and most importantly enables things that would not be possible as a solo effort. Present example: ISS. The times of big national solo efforts are actually over. Politicians and tax payers don't want to bother with expensive shows like Apollo or Constellation while there is work to be done on earth, which is really understandable in some aspects.
The Russian and European cooperation works quite good, just like the international cooperation on ISS. And beside Kliper, I also like the "Euro-Soyuz" proposal: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz_acts.html
But I don't think that a resurrection of Buran would be a realistical scenario. It certainly would cause colossal costs. Maybe as a joint project it would be worthy, but then we would have to abandon any manned plans beyond low earth orbit. If we want to fly to the Moon and Mars in future, we need a lot of efforts that are almost impossible to do as a solo effort, especially in case something like the Shuttle or Buran is still in use. I even claim that a reasonable Mars and even lunar program is not sustainable in the long term without cooperation. Apollo was not at all sustainable in the long term, just like Constellation wouldn't have been. Even the ISS program is still a colossal program if we talk about money, but basically because of the expensive Shuttles and its required infrastructure. I don't think that reusable spacecraft like the Shuttle or Buran are the future. Reusability in space has turned out to be expensive, rather than economical.
That being said, I will now safe my bandwith a little more ;D
-
The US contribution to the ISS exceeds all the others' combined. US just like the USSR/Russia could have built a station of its own, smaller, but still could have done it, and reap all the benefits of the research and experiemnts there, without any cooperation or owing anybody anything. If credit should be given, the US should reap the full credits for planning, managing and covering most of the ISS financial, operational and technological aspects. The international partners are credited for allowing for a BIGGER station. Without this contribution, nobody except for Russia and the US would have had a LEO outpost. So ISS is not really a proof of something being possible only due to the international contribution - it is merely a proof that something could be done on a bigger scale. For the international partners the choice was to contribute or have nothing. I guess they made the right choice <g>
As for the need for belly dancing and tile inspection, I don't see how that reflects on a worse reliability regarding to ... what? Is there any active-duty Shuttle-like alternative with the same capacity? Don't compare something to something which does not exist.
/Admin
-
There are basically two sides: people who are still afraid of Russian technology and depending on it, and those who are not afraid but rather excited by Soyuz the same way as for the Shuttle and another past manned programs. So the discussion actually is an infinite loop.
What??
-
The US contribution to the ISS exceeds all the others' combined. US just like the USSR/Russia could have built a station of its own, smaller, but still could have done it, and reap all the benefits of the research and experiemnts there, without any cooperation or owing anybody anything. If credit should be given, the US should reap the full credits for planning, managing and covering most of the ISS financial, operational and technological aspects. The international partners are credited for allowing for a BIGGER station. Without this contribution, nobody except for Russia and the US would have had a LEO outpost. So ISS is not really a proof of something being possible only due to the international contribution - it is merely a proof that something could be done on a bigger scale. For the international partners the choice was to contribute or have nothing. I guess they made the right choice <g>
Freedom (USA) and Mir 2 (Russia) would have been way smaller. But Freedom was very much in doubt since the 1980s already because of budget reasons and massive STS costs. You forgot Columbus by the way, initially planned as the first European space station. Because of budget reasons on all three sides, and due to the lucky circumstance of the German Reunification and collapse of the Sovjet Union, all three sides decided to combine all three space station proposals to one big project.
As for the need for belly dancing and tile inspection, I don't see how that reflects on a worse reliability regarding to ... what? Is there any active-duty Shuttle-like alternative with the same capacity? Don't compare something to something which does not exist.
If you talk about payload capacity, you have to look to Proton. It can carry almost as much as the Shuttle (up to 22 tons).
-
And if we just have a closer look to the histroy of Freedom, Mir 2 and Columbus, i.e. ISS:
all three proposals became more and more unlikely by the time. Mir 2 had been dramatically cut and lost capability, even more after they had to end the Buran program and take assembly over to Soyuz and Proton only. Almost the same was the case for Freedom regarding cuts: at the end it even lost most of its scientifc capabilites due to several redesigns which made the entire project questionable. The European Columbus proposal was a potential competitor even for the USA, as expected by NASA already in the mid 1980s (also remember that ESA already had designed and build the Spacelab). A US outpost in LEO was quite unlikely at the end. Freedom became a failed program. And Mir 2 also was in doubt. The preparation phase of Columbus was completed (in 1987 already), and development time was expected to last until the late 1990s. Because of the dramatical cuts and financial problems with Mir 2, Europe and Russia started to discuss about a joint project. Shortly after that, the discussions expandet to the other side of the Atlantic Ocean as well. That was in 1993. And only 5 years later the first module was in LEO, carried by the Proton rocket. That's why cooperation is that much important in times without a cold war and without the possibility of big national solo efforts.
All that glistens is not gold.
-
Answers to all these questions may come soon....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041304043.html?hpid=topnews
-
I'm very curious especially about the "new" NASA architecture. At least it sounds like in Washington they have understood the NASA architecture issue. I can only hope they don't continue to keep a big national job program. If they don't reduce the number of eomployees, NASA won't go anywhere again without pumping way more budget into it as palnned for now.
I'm also still very curious about the nearby asteroids proposal. A heavy lift launcher, returning to space quicker than with Constellation, and that cheaper... sounds more political for now rather than reality.
It will be an interesting speech, and hopeflly not just one another speech regarding NASAs future...
-
"Not everything that glistens is gold" - not even a s****d plan to nowhere. Obama will soon realize that he is alone in his quest to destroy something which he doesn't understand.
Moonwalker, the reason I stopped answering your posts on the subject is because I noticed that you keep bringing in too many irrelevant and out of context claims and arguments as to why the US shouldn't have a national and bold manned Space Exploration Program. It is a waste of time arguing like this. Needless to say, I'm far from convinced - on the contrary. Since thankfully, more and more people realize today that Obama is making a costly mistake, I really hope that reason will prevail.
I expect a nice, vibrant but completely demagogical, irrelevant and empty speech (read "eulogy") about "achievements", "future", "curageous" and yes, "yes I can" (not "we"). I wonder if, like during his many election speeches, somebody will faint at a certain sign and he will be there to offer the bottle of water.
He will then board his plane and attend another burial - that of the late Polish President, may he rest in peace! Obama will be leaving a trail of graves allright.
/Admin
-
Obama better bring some good security personnel, otherwise there might be a riot <_<
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YeI4cPepjdg/S8NDziuqpII/AAAAAAAAABY/YRSeRfYGtZk/s1600/parkerobamavisit.jpg)
-
Moonwalker, the reason I stopped answering your posts on the subject is because I noticed that you keep bringing in too many irrelevant and out of context claims and arguments as to why the US shouldn't have a national and bold manned Space Exploration Program. It is a waste of time arguing like this.
Just like I never stick the "not invented here syndrom" to an entire nation, I also never said that the USA should not have a national and bold manned Space Exploration Program. My entire statement is, I quote it from page one: "because the USA won't ride on its own "invented here" toy for a while does not mean the end of the world". That NASAs program structure does not allow for an own system, is no argument against NASA or against a national program, it is a sad fact which is why Constellation is canceled. That Europe has no or less know how, and who contribues most budget to the ISS and so on, indeed is like you say: irrelevant and out of context ;)
NASA has a problem, and depending on Soyuz is the only chance for the USA to get their people into space. Anything else has to be decided by the government now. And Obama is not going to make the situation better for now I fear. But again, that is no argument against a national US manned Space Exploration Program. It's a sad fact.
-
...
NASA has a problem, and depending on Soyuz is the only chance for the USA to get their people into space...
EXACTLY - and that's EXACTLY why the US should have its OWN manned SE program and not depend on others to do it for them. And yes, Obama will make it worse! Unless this is a very smart move on his part to shake NASA out of its many inefficiencies and make it work as it should. But I'm afraid that's not the case. The cancellation of Constellation and mothballing ANY alternative, says that this is not the case.
Now to the subject of relevancy: the EU knowledge is irrelevant to the US own need to have a national manned SE program.
The Russian Soyuz is irrelevant to the same.
The fact that there are commercial companies aiming for space transportation is still, irrlelvant to the same.
The fact that fire has been invented in Africa (or so they say) is irrelevant to the same.
There are a lot of irrelevant arguments you raised, yet not one of them is valid for explaining why the US should not have its own manned, nations SE program. On the contrary - all of them point to one fact - the US MUST have its own national manned SE Program. It must not depend entirely on anybody. This does not preclude cooperation - it avoids dependency - and that's the main issue here.
And of course you did say (in so many words) that US should not have a manned national Space Exploration program - you claimed that it has to go commercial - that's not "national". You also claimed that the US CANNOT have its own national manned SE Program and that it must cooperate in order to get its astronauts in Space.
You made so many claims why US should not have a manned national SE program that it is hard to remember them all, but the main idea comes through very clearly.
Unless I grossly misunderstood you after all these posts, and in this case, I apologize ;)
/Admin
-
the EU knowledge is irrelevant to the US own need to have a national manned SE program.
The Russian Soyuz is irrelevant to the same.
The fact that there are commercial companies aiming for space transportation is still, irrlelvant to the same.
You criticised that the only crew transportation option is Russian because the other space agencies and commercial entities didn't have the resources and know-how to develope another one. Now you say it's irrelevant. I have no problem that you relativise your statements. I'm just wondering.
SpaceX, talking about the commercial companies: it's significant rather than irrelevant because it is going to become an ISS supporter and beside Soyuz a potential second manned chance for the US, which is why it is hugely supported by NASA (6 billion USD).
There are a lot of irrelevant arguments you raised, yet not one of them is valid for explaining why the US should not have its own manned, nations SE program.
I did not say that the USA should not have its own manned program. I mentioned, and I do it again, that NASA can not have such a pogram at the moment, because its program structure does not allow to do this in an economical scale. This is neither an irrelevant argument, nor invalid. It is the most relevant fact within the entire debate of Americas future of manned space flight. NASAs program structure has to change if they want to get manned access less costly than by AresI/Constellation. Unless this doesn't happen, they will have to depend on commercial companies, which they already started to do. If Obamas plan and the NASA management fails again, SpaceX will be the only chance beside Soyuz in case SpaceX manages to operate the Falcon 9 properly.
That commercial is not "national", and that this obviously is an issue to some people, points clearly to the not invented here syndrom. It does not matter if astronauts ride into space on top of rockets made by NASA, SpaceX or somebody else. It will happen under equal, if not same rules. If NASA manages to get own access again: fine. Why not, if it finally works efficiently. If that's not the case, I repeat: the world is not going to end just because NASA does not launch manned rockets ;)
-
Here we go again... I'm not baiting anymore ;)
/Admin
-
Okay, private companies will always do better than government agencies, so why dosen't Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, United Technologies, SpaceX, General Dynamics, L3 Communications Holdings, Honeywell International, Parker Hannifin, Computer Sciences Corp, US branch of Thales Group, and SpaceDev all team up and buy out all of NASA, save the "space jobs" and make space flight cheaper than NASA as a government agency?
-
Okay, private companies will always do better than government agencies, so why dosen't Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, United Technologies, SpaceX, General Dynamics, L3 Communications Holdings, Honeywell International, Parker Hannifin, Computer Sciences Corp, US branch of Thales Group, and SpaceDev all team up and buy out all of NASA, save the "space jobs" and make space flight cheaper than NASA as a government agency?
Greed.
-
Okay, private companies will always do better than government agencies, so why dosen't Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, United Technologies, SpaceX, General Dynamics, L3 Communications Holdings, Honeywell International, Parker Hannifin, Computer Sciences Corp, US branch of Thales Group, and SpaceDev all team up and buy out all of NASA, save the "space jobs" and make space flight cheaper than NASA as a government agency?
That is one of the basic issues which is being discussed in all levles for many years already, from the guy like me who just sits in front of his PC to simulate space stuff, up to real astronauts and engineers and highly ranked NASA/space flight persons who have a real clue.
NASA is in a deadlock already since Apollo. That program was amazing, yes, but also amazingly costly and just a temporaray political goal. STS also was an expensive deadlock behind the curtain of Spacelab, Hubble and ISS. It just lasted longer. It eats up resources and budget like hell due to NASAs structure. The only thing that saved the Shuttle program in the 1970s was the miscalculation and promise -> that the Shuttle would be still profitable (behind criticism back then) and fly "routinely" 600+ times until the end of the 1990s, and capable of flying missions up to one month of duration. None of it became reality. It also was a political proposal like Apollo, but this time justified/fundet because of military usage behind the smoke screen called "science". But the airforce resigned before there was any launch from Vandenberg AFB since they can go into space quicker and more efficiently.
I may sound like I don't like NASA and what it does. This is not the case at all. Everything what NASA does in the manned sector was amazing and groundbreaking from the technological and breathtaking point of view. It just is way too costly and sadly driven by politicians who have no clue and make things worse. NASA has to be open to industries, share know-how and technologies, if it really intends to do amazing long term programs in the future and do something for an entire nation and for the humankind really. If it stays a big bloated bureaucracy, dependant on fiscal politics and political programs like Constellation or the new Obama improvement for the worse, we will be always disapointed by gaps and dramatic cuts. A state never is a good businessman. NASA has to be restructured. Otherwise they never will operate a LEO system that costs only 50 million USD per seat like the Russian Soyuz. Instead it will continue to cost billions just to keep jobs and satisfy senators and its voters...
With the money already used for the AresI program structure, SpaceX could have developed Falcon 9 about 24 times. That's the difference between commercial and governmental.
-
I see that another one fell into your trap Moonwalker. This thread may never end and may suck in everybody who participates, like a black hole 8)
/Admin
-
What would politics be without never-ending, mindless debate?
-
I see that another one fell into your trap Moonwalker. This thread may never end and may suck in everybody who participates, like a black hole 8)
/Admin
Haha :D
-
I see that another one fell into your trap Moonwalker. This thread may never end and may suck in everybody who participates, like a black hole 8)
Well, it's a hot topic not only in this forum. It's quite calm here actually. I've seen different places in which my voice/bandwith is very minor compared to other posts ;D
But I can tell you when this thread will end: soon, at the latest together with the STS program ;) We will talk about historic facts of the Space Shuttle basically, not too long from now...
I don't think Obama and the others in washington really manage to get NASA on a proper track anyway.
-
I see that another one fell into your trap Moonwalker. This thread may never end and may suck in everybody who participates, like a black hole 8)
Well, it's a hot topic not only in this forum. It's quite calm here actually. I've seen different places in which my voice/bandwith is very minor compared to other posts ;D
But I can tell you when this thread will end: soon, at the latest together with the STS program ;) We will talk about historic facts of the Space Shuttle basically, not too long from now...
I don't think Obama and the others in washington really manage to get NASA on a proper track anyway.
I think that the topic of what America will/should do in space will never die, especially after many will discover the "loneliness" after the Shuttle retirement.
And we finally fully agree on something: Obama doesn't really understand that a nation needs real and tangible inspiration, not empty slogans and sweet talk.
/Admin
-
And we finally fully agree on something: Obama doesn't really understand that a nation needs real and tangible inspiration, not empty slogans and sweet talk.
Yes.
NASA has no focus anymore, and I do not see Obama giving NASA a new rational and feasible focus and inspiration. No Moon, no Mars, but instead nearby asteroids and a heavy lift launcher ::) I think that this is the worst nonsense NASA has been ever forced to do. I think the chance that it might end like Constellation is big.
The current situation of manned space flight at NASA is really serious. And I think it is time to restructure it and make it more independent from fiscal politics and changing administrations, of whom one after another had no clue, including Obama.
-
And we finally fully agree on something: Obama doesn't really understand that a nation needs real and tangible inspiration, not empty slogans and sweet talk.
Yes.
NASA has no focus anymore, and I do not see Obama giving NASA a new rational and feasible focus and inspiration. No Moon, no Mars, but instead nearby asteroids and a heavy lift launcher ::)
Quote from Washington Post.
"In addition, Obama will outline concrete plans to send astronauts to nearby asteroids, to the Earth's moon and the moons of Mars, and to Mars itself."
For all those concerned, The Obama Administration will give NASA a budget of 6 Billion to fund new projects... In my opinion, thats plenty.
And we finally fully agree on something: Obama doesn't really understand that a nation needs real and tangible inspiration, not empty slogans and sweet talk.
Yes.
NASA has no focus anymore, and I do not see Obama giving NASA a new rational and feasible focus and inspiration. No Moon, no Mars, but instead nearby asteroids and a heavy lift launcher ::) I think that this is the worst nonsense NASA has been ever forced to do. I think the chance that it might end like Constellation is big.
The current situation of manned space flight at NASA is really serious. And I think it is time to restructure it and make it more independent from fiscal politics and changing administrations, of whom one after another had no clue, including Obama.
>:(
Neither of you have a clue of what your talking about at this point. I suggest ADMIN you lock this thread before it turns into a total flame war.
-
Lock? There is no reason to do it. No obscene language, no personal attacks, no sex :(, no racism, no hate-talk, and everything is relevant to the board and forum... (and, as Moonwalker correctly pointed out, quite civilized too).
The fact that people disagree with each other is no grounds for locking (unless they disagree with me - who is KING OF THE FORUM! - Damn! Forgot to take my medication again!)
(besides, I'm having fun watching, and so should you) ;)
/Admin
-
For all those concerned, The Obama Administration will give NASA a budget of 6 Billion to fund new projects... In my opinion, thats plenty.
6 billion is plenty of money, yes, but not enough to fly beyond low earth orbit manned if NASAs program structure remains costly.
I suggest ADMIN you lock this thread before it turns into a total flame war.
No need to lock it. Just stop claiming that neither of us has no clue without giving a rational explanation why (it's a troll-comment) ;)
-
The fact that people disagree with each other is no grounds for locking (unless they disagree with me - who is KING OF THE FORUM! - Damn! Forgot to take my medication again!)
;D
-
But anyway, does somebody know when Obama is going deliver his speech and if there is a chance to watch it live?
-
Maybe NASATV will show it?
/Admin
-
Only granting NASA 6 billion more over 5 years? NASA still has only a little more than .5% of the federal budget <_< And that .5% goes to a lot more than *Just* the manned spaceflight programs. The government was pretty fast to dish out more than a billion for Haiti relief though. Manned spaceflight will never advance much if the government is afraid to spend money on it.
-
Maybe NASATV will show it?
Luckily yes :)
For anybody interested: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/spaceconf.html
-
Coverage Starts about 1:30pm EDT On NASA TV...
Richard R
-
At least 500,000 people will watch the event: all of them NASA and subcontractors employees.
/Admin
-
Cool thanks, will be checking this out today.
-
I'm not sure if we would see this today: but it would be great to see a concept of that proposed heavy lift launcher and its [various?] payload capability...
-
Check this! No need to waste time and bandwidth to see the new "Horror Picture Show" later today.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ostp/press_release_files/NASA%20OSTP%20Joint%20Fact%20Sheet%20FINAL%202020.pdf
I must say I'm not surprised! No extension of Shuttle flights - no more STS flights, only support if schedule is extended to 2011 - i.e. if due to weather, technical, logistical etc. problems the current launches to not happen during 2010.
Constellation is cancelled (pending Congress, etc.)
Obscene $B invested in researching the New Zealand Cow Fart Syndrome (AKA "Global warming")
Even more obscene 6B invested into retiring Constellation, re-structuring NASA and firing about 10-15% of the NASA workforce - to be replaced by other jobs somewhere else. I am sure that a lot of NASA employees just LOVE this!
I won't be watching Obama doing the rhetoric limbo.
/Admin
-
So at least I have won a bet: no more Shuttle flights :P ;)
But seriously, I would have been very surprised if they would have decided the other way. Wouldn't have make any sense at all. But that chapter is now closed finally.
Re-structuring NASA and firing 10-15% of NASA employees is not a bad concept as I always say. Costs are proportional to employees, and NASA is [still...] a big governmental job keeping program. If they re-structure NASA the rational way, this would be a benefit for the future of manned NASA programs rather than a loss. It is understandable that employees will be shocked. But you always have that conflict whenever you have to decide for rationalization. And if NASA intends to do a big and sustainable program, there is simply no other way.
I'm now just curious how exactly the new manned programm is going to look like...
-
Even more obscene 6B invested into retiring Constellation, re-structuring NASA and firing about 10-15% of the NASA workforce - to be replaced by other jobs somewhere else. I am sure that a lot of NASA employees just LOVE this!
I won't be watching Obama doing the rhetoric limbo.
/Admin
Was it really a good idea to deliver that speech at a NASA center?
-
Hmmm, I don't remember a bet and I don't see one in the thread. Let's see what happens as we get closer to September ;) The budget and backups allow for more STS flights after 2010 ("carefully and safely"), just in case the Russians decide to flex their muscle, get greedy or both.
Yes 10-15% is "not a bad concept" if you are lucky enough not to be among the fired. About 10,000 families will "have a problem". They will definitely think that this is a "bad concept".
So all the "new jobs" he was talking about were actually replacement jobs and not really NEW jobs. Typical!
And the new NASA manned space flight will not look like anything - there really is no NASA manned Space Program - at least for the next 5 years!
/Admin
-
I had some friends whose families worked at KSC. The way they described it, after the shuttle program ends, their whole neighborhood will be virtually abandoned. Some where planning to move back after Constellation started up, but oh wait...
Good deal...
-
Jebus. :(
-
This will kill more than just one neighborhood :( That whole area, heck counties were built and directly supported by the manned space program for decades now. This is a very sad day.
-
Typical obama unite the world one big happy new world order...he don't care for the space program no president since Kennedy gave a crap about manned space flights,all he talked about was unmanned projects.their will be thousands out of work as much as I hate the thought and forgive me but i hope Russia does do something s****d race the price try to hijack the station just so we can say told you so.I am sorry I just don't trust anyone to get our men and women up and back from space but Americans.least of which Russia I don't get it we had the Saturn Vs and we have everything we need to build rockets (tanks SRBS)why does it take so long and so much more money?compared to the shuttle were the Saturn Vs cheaper? if so dig out the blue prints and use them, or modify them I am sorry like the election he talks a big game bit will fall flat.I am sad really and feel empty that we will have nothing but talk and blueprints for years to come obama lost a lot of votes in Florida. 8 years (lets pray for 4) he will be gone then someone else with different ideas Comes and we start all over again.may be even longer. JUST MY 2 CENTS AND OPINION dont bite my head off.. ::)
-
Hmmm, I don't remember a bet and I don't see one in the thread.
Well, not officially but:
I'm betting for an extension....
My entire wealth and fund goes to: maximally two more missions i f a t a l l.
;)
About 10,000 families will "have a problem". They will definitely think that this is a "bad concept".
Of course they will think that way. And its their right. But it's a kind of business. You can decide between keeping a big job program and losing capability if not increasing budget, or cut jobs, restructure the program and gain capability.
And the new NASA manned space flight will not look like anything - there really is no NASA manned Space Program - at least for the next 5 years!
Which is the result of operate something on its final breaths under huge efforts and additional huge costs in order to fulfill an assignment (assemble the ISS). Apollo also was costly and the Shuttle development was costly as well and suffered from some significant issues. The result was a 6 years gap between Apollo and STS.
History does not repeat, but sometimes it looks similar. This time they at least realize that not only programs, but also NASA has to change.
-
Typical obama unite the world one big happy new world order...he don't care for the space program no president since Kennedy gave a crap about manned space flights,all he talked about was unmanned projects.
Kennedy also didn't care for manned space flight. Without the Russian "threat", NASA wouldn't have get only one cent from Kennedy ;) Kennedy was what Obama is as well: a great rhetorician and last but not least just a politician.
Obama today did talk about both, unmanned and manned proposals. But people really have to understand that the main task and work of NASA and its scientific research is not manned space flight. There is always that mistake. Manned space flight just gets the most attention and excitement within the public eye. The science NASA does on Earth and in space unmanned is much more than the Shuttle and ISS program does and did. Not to talk about Apollo and the pre-programs. Science in space was minor those days.
i hope Russia does do something s****d race the price try to hijack the station just so we can say told you so.I am sorry I just don't trust anyone to get our men and women up and back from space but Americans.
So you might see what I mean from page one: Not invented here syndrom. It's still there, on many people, and also on you obviously ;)
Times and political situaions have changed. There is no Russian threat, nor is or will Russia become "evil" to its space partners.
we had the Saturn Vs and we have everything we need to build rockets (tanks SRBS)why does it take so long and so much more money?compared to the shuttle were the Saturn Vs cheaper?
The Apollo Program costs was, in today dollars, more than the entire US contribution to the ISS for now, just to send 3 men to the Moon 9 times (6 landings).
NASA is simply too costly/inefficiently. Norman Augustine was just talking about that on NASA TV by the way. He, just like Obama and any other smart person, is aware of the fact that sustainable programs are only possible for NASA by increasing commercialization and change the way of distributing money.
if so dig out the blue prints and use them, or modify them
Too expensive. What is needed is innovation. New stuff and a restructured NASA. Old technology and structures won't go anywhere.
-
Too expensive. What is needed is innovation. New stuff and a restructured NASA. Old technology and structures won't go anywhere.
LOL! Ok I'll bite. How old is Soyuz technology Moonwalker?
-
...
Of course they will think that way. And its their right. But it's a kind of business. You can decide between keeping a big job program and losing capability if not increasing budget, or cut jobs, restructure the program and gain capability.
...
Which is the result of operate something on its final breaths under huge efforts and additional huge costs in order to fulfill an assignment (assemble the ISS). Apollo also was costly and the Shuttle development was costly as well and suffered from some significant issues. The result was a 6 years gap between Apollo and STS.
...
History does not repeat, but sometimes it looks similar. This time they at least realize that not only programs, but also NASA has to change.
The cause-> effect chain of events that you describe are still speculations designed to prove your point. So what if Apollo was costly? So what if STS was costly? Exploration is costly! Exploration is chronically over-budget, because exploration and its results cannot be foreseen with the precision of a Swiss watch. Exploration budgets are mere guidlines to keep over-enthusiastic scientists at bay - unlike clueless politicians of course. You're repeating this "costly" thing over and over. Get over it - it doesn't hold water. If every costly exploration would be canceled or "restructured" every time it goes over budget that some shortsighted bean-counter decided on, we'd go nowhere.
And calling this a "restructure" is a gross understatement - it's a decapitation and castration of NASA - nothing more, nothing less, and it will cost Obama in the long run, no doubt about it! NASA has been restructured many times - what gives you the assurance that this "restructure" will be better?
You too are falling for the cheap "CHANGE" slogan that moved so many clueless masses during the last elections. Voting for "change" without knowing the substance behind it, is irresponsible, as many realize it now as Obama' popularity drops steadily and surely. You know who shouts "The King is dead, long live the new King" <g>
Not convinced by your claims, but still amused at the energy you invest in trying to shape reality according to your beliefs.
/Admin
-
It has nothing to do with it was not built here I dont trust the Russian program simple their more outdated than us they have lost way more astronauts than us they care about $$$$ thats all not safety its all about $$$ to them.if a group gave them 10x more $$ to blow that souez up on the pad they would and say it was something faulty or an accident.(yes my opinion just how i feel sorry) let ANY other European agency launch our people i would feel better, Germany, France,japan,UK just NOT Russia of other than the middle east Russia always has been a threat mostly due to they will do anything for a quick buck because their broke.Even now today right now we spy on each other STILL..so no i feel the USA steps lightly around them lets not forget I am talking about the governments NOT individual people.What ever happens I just hate we are loosing our shuttle and our system to get our men and women up and down.
-
...
Of course they will think that way. And its their right. But it's a kind of business. You can decide between keeping a big job program and losing capability if not increasing budget, or cut jobs, restructure the program and gain capability.
...
Which is the result of operate something on its final breaths under huge efforts and additional huge costs in order to fulfill an assignment (assemble the ISS). Apollo also was costly and the Shuttle development was costly as well and suffered from some significant issues. The result was a 6 years gap between Apollo and STS.
...
History does not repeat, but sometimes it looks similar. This time they at least realize that not only programs, but also NASA has to change.
The cause-> effect chain of events that you describe are still speculations designed to prove your point. So what if Apollo was costly? So what if STS was costly? Exploration is costly! Exploration is chronically over-budget, because exploration and its results cannot be foreseen with the precision of a Swiss watch. Exploration budgets are mere guidlines to keep over-enthusiastic scientists at bay - unlike clueless politicians of course. You're repeating this "costly" thing over and over. Get over it - it doesn't hold water. If every costly exploration would be canceled or "restructured" every time it goes over budget that some shortsighted bean-counter decided on, we'd go nowhere.
And calling this a "restructure" is a gross understatement - it's a decapitation and castration of NASA - nothing more, nothing less, and it will cost Obama in the long run, no doubt about it! NASA has been restructured many times - what gives you the assurance that this "restructure" will be better?
You too are falling for the cheap "CHANGE" slogan that moved so many clueless masses during the last elections. Voting for "change" without knowing the substance behind it, is irresponsible, as many realize it now as Obama' popularity drops steadily and surely. You know who shouts "The King is dead, long live the new King" <g>
Not convinced by your claims, but still amused at the energy you invest in trying to shape reality according to your beliefs.
/Admin
BRAVO! That was incredibly well said thank you! I wish I was so eloquent.
-
Also if it all becomes private start opening your wallet to have your GPS work or access to that google map at least if tax payer money is used its for the public make it private company guess what THEY own it. Nasa has given us more that most other agency's in the way of science and space exploration if private company can do it cheaper and better where are they? other than space X and their small time still if its so cheap and easy their should be all sorts of company's right now ready with out Nasa we would still be looking up wondering whats their "this whole situation is the administration talks a lot about a lack of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) graduates from colleges. Yet when given the opportunity to put money towards projects that get people excited about these fields decides to cut them. It's no wonder why the US will continue with the brain drain as it outsources NASA to Russia, India and China." I took that from another post he said it well i feel the same how much is blown on the wars and what benefit are we getting from that other then my brothers in the forces killed? Obama had a chance to become a hero but today came out a Zero and took the space program with him.
-
O.K. After reading this statement from Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX, I stand possibly moved a bit and open minded. I'm still skeptical of an aerospace plan brought forth by a man barely qualified to be president, much less bringing forth a major sweeping new focus for an organization like NASA. Regardless, and this is my opinion only so don't shoot me, I still think mistakes have been made today that will be costly in the short term versus the long term. In regards to manned space flight by the US of course.
At any rate, I wouldn't expect Elon to be less than exuberant with today's speech by the POTUS, seeing as how his company has the first and most lucrative contract with NASA for developing systems.
Statement from Elon Musk
The Apollo Moon landing was one of humanity's greatest achievements. Millennia from now, when the vast majority of the 20th century is reduced to a few footnotes known only to erudite scholars of history, they will still remember that was when we first set foot upon a heavenly body. It was a mere 66 years after the first powered airplane flight by the Wright brothers.
In the 41 years that have passed since 1969, we have yet to surpass that achievement in human spaceflight. Since then, our capability has actually declined considerably and to a degree that would yield shocked disbelief from anyone in that era. By now, we were supposed to have a base on the Moon, perhaps even on Mars, and have sent humans traveling on great odysseys to the outer planets. Instead, we have been confined to low Earth orbit and even that ends this year with the retirement of the Space Shuttle.
In 2003, following the Columbia accident, President Bush began development of a system to replace the Shuttle, called the Ares I rocket and Orion spacecraft. It is important to note that this too would only have been able to reach low Earth orbit. Many in the media mistakenly assumed it was capable of reaching the Moon. As is not unusual with large government programs, the schedule slipped by several years and costs ballooned by tens of billions.
By the time President Obama cancelled Ares I/Orion earlier this year, the schedule had already slipped five years to 2017 and completing development would have required another $50 billion. Moreover, the cost per flight, inclusive of overhead, was estimated to be at least $1.5 billion compared to the $1 billion of Shuttle, despite carrying only four people to Shuttle's seven and almost no cargo.
The President quite reasonably concluded that spending $50 billion to develop a vehicle that would cost 50% more to operate, but carry 50% less payload was perhaps not the best possible use of funds. To quote a member of the Augustine Commission, which was convened by the President to analyze Ares/Orion, “If Santa Claus brought us the system tomorrow, fully developed, and the budget didn't change, our next action would have to be to cancel it,” because we can't afford the annual operating costs.
Cancellation was therefore simply a matter of time and thankfully we have a president with the political courage to do the right thing sooner rather than later. We can ill afford the expense of an “Apollo on steroids”, as a former NASA Administrator referred to the Ares/Orion program. A lesser President might have waited until after the upcoming election cycle, not caring that billions more dollars would be wasted. It was disappointing to see how many in Congress did not possess this courage. One senator in particular was determined to achieve a new altitude record in hypocrisy, claiming that the public option was bad in healthcare, but good in space!
Thankfully, as a result of funds freed up by this cancellation, there is now hope for a bright future in space exploration. The new plan is to harness our nation's unparalleled system of free enterprise (as we have done in all other modes of transport), to create far more reliable and affordable rockets. Handing over Earth orbit transport to American commercial companies, overseen of course by NASA and the FAA, will free up the NASA resources necessary to develop interplanetary transport technologies. This is critically important if we are to reach Mars, the next giant leap in human exploration of the Universe.
Today, the President will articulate an ambitious and exciting new plan that will alter our destiny as a species. I believe this address could be as important as President Kennedy's 1962 speech at Rice University. For the first time since Apollo, our country will have a plan for space exploration that inspires and excites all who look to the stars. Even more important, it will work.
–Elon–
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20100415
For the record, I cannot stand Obama nor his audacity and ego. Let's not even get into his meager qualifications to hold the office he does. Meh.
-
Not convinced by your claims, but still amused at the energy you invest in trying to shape reality according to your beliefs.
You obviously do not seem (or don't want) to realize the situation NASA and STS was facing for many years already, which has become reality (non-shaped). The retirement of STS and the cancellation of Constellation are logical results of well known structural and political issues. I can not do more than mention the facts and situation, just like Bolden, Obama, Augustine and all the others also can not do more than mention the situation. I will finally stop doing so at this point and accept that this is a place of Space Shuttle fans where mentioning certain sad circumstances might not be appreciated and/or understood well enough.
I dont trust the Russian program simple their more outdated than us they have lost way more astronauts than us
You do not trust them because your thinking seems to be based on belief/preconception rather than on knowledge and interest.
If we would talk about ground staff: Russia has lost many due to rocket faults. If we talk about astronauts: Russia has lost less (not way more) than the USA: 5 (on Soyuz). The USA has lost 17 astronauts (3 on Apollo, 14 on STS). Russia has not lost any astronauts for 39 years. The USA has lost 14 astronauts within the last 24 years due to mismanagement and design flaws of the Space Transportation System.
The Soyuz rocket and spacecraft are being constantly updated (not outdated). The latest Soyuz TMA spacecraft technology is about 8 years of age. The next one is going to be the Soyuz TMAT. The very latest Soyuz launch vehicle will be operated by ESA at Kourou.
Regarding your post you trust Germany, France, and UK, i.e. ESA. So you should be aware that ESA trusts Russia as an absolutely worthy partner (just like NASA does as well). ESA officially calls Soyuz the most reliable manned system, based on hard historical data. It is also the most used manned system. The Proton is one of the most successful unmanned boosters (more than 350 launches). Soyuz and Proton are both part of the ISS program because of the mentioned reasons. Beside NASA, Russia is the second biggest cooperation partner of the ISS program. Soyuz won't stop being reliable after 39 years just because STS will be retired.
if private company can do it cheaper and better where are they?
Still hugely integrated into the expensive NASA structure.
Commercial space flight does not mean that companies start to sell rockets to private people. It does mean a different, more efficient way of distributing money. The European Arianespace is a working example. It operates the Ariane rocket. The yearly sales is more than a billion USD. SpaceX is another working example. The development cost of the Falcon 9 including the Dragon capsule is only 400 million USD. Wouldn't work at NASA with such low costs because of the massive jobs and structure.
-
The STS program is not and will not be extended. There are NO extra external tanks to use for another two years. AND it would take another 2 to 3 years to ramp to build any new ETs.
-
OK moon walker you win all hale moonwalker the space expert no man knows more and I elect you to run Nasa :P as i said before my PERSONAL OPINION ok i was wrong about the # of deaths i will admit but 90% was OPINION and personal feelings.i really don't think it will matter next president will has his own plan and we will start all over.I suspect america will be grounded at least till my grandkids are my age.
-
OK moon walker you win all hale moonwalker the space expert no man knows more and I elect you to run Nasa :P as i said before my PERSONAL OPINION ok i was wrong about the # of deaths i will admit but 90% was OPINION and personal feelings.i really don't think it will matter next president will has his own plan and we will start all over.I suspect america will be grounded at least till my grandkids are my age.
+1
I'm pretty tired of reading the rhetoric.
-
You obviously do not seem (or don't want) to realize the situation NASA and STS was facing for many years already, which has become reality (non-shaped). The retirement of STS and the cancellation of Constellation are logical results of well known structural and political issues. I can not do more than mention the facts and situation, just like Bolden, Obama, Augustine and all the others also can not do more than mention the situation. I will finally stop doing so at this point and accept that this is a place of Space Shuttle fans where mentioning certain sad circumstances might not be appreciated and/or understood well enough.
Well, in return, you obviously can't convince me/some of us because you're re-using the same arguments over and over, some irrelevant, some out of context and some even agreeing to mine, but all resulting in YOUR logical conclusions. You even make false/distorted claims about my reasons for holding to my opinions. You claim that this happens because we basically are STS fanboys. Well this may be easy for you to think, but superficial, insulting and a bit arrogant, if I may say so. You're basically saying that I/we are too s****d to see the "big picture" because we are in love with the Shuttle. At least in my case, this is far from the truth. I've said it too many times here that the STS closure is logical, and also necessary technologically (fatigue, the ISS construction is finished, NOT COST, etc). Basically, the retirement of the STS is part of the initial STS schedule. STS had to be retired at some point anyway!
My main (almost only) complaint is that the US has no active, national and inspiring manned Space Exploration Program. I hope that the commercial entities can eventually (like very soon!) provide a CHEAPER and SAFER space transportation alternative, but one thing is clear: they will never provide an alternative to exploration. And being dependent on ANYBODY, especially the Russians, is not a good thing. You cannot brush away political realities and present them as narrow-mindedness - that is irresponsible and dangerous, as history has been proving all the time. This won't work. Russia has a very long way to go to prove its reliability as, say, Germany did. If you have't noticed, Germany, like most European countries, is a proven US political ally, and beyond. Russia is NOT! On too many instances and situations, quite the opposite is true. You cannot discuss any kind of cooperation without taking this context into account. If you do, you're distorting and this is frankly beginning to annoy. Once you do this, all your other arguments and logic become questionable, and generate reluctance.
Live with it Moonwalker: the repeated arguments of cost, mistakes, etc. etc. are not convincing, and the logic acrobatics and convolutions don't hide the fact that you're
simply re-cycling. If you want to convince somebody - at least on this subject - avoid the Obama style, and bring relevant arguments and facts, do not try psycho-analyze others, dismiss them as simpletons guilty of a Shuttle fetish, and present them as incapable of grasping the grandeur of what YOU think is logical.
Give us some credit: with the right approach, people are more receptive, and maybe, just maybe, despite of your obvious knowledge, some of us may have more information and knowledge on the various subjects than you do.
/Admin
-
/standing ovation!
-
Nobody has to believe me, or to be convinced by me. Without my existence and posts, the facts and figures are still there, politically, historically and technologically. Everybody can search for the corresponding informations and have a look. I won't mention those things anymore. Bolden has, Obama has, the Augustine Commission has, Elon Musk and countless other well qualified persons within the business have in relation to Constellation and the current NASA situation (for STS you just have to read and understand the Columbia investigation and conclusions and the history of the STS behind the curtain). It's up to everybody to either listen, look at it, agree and admit and be honest, or to ignore facts and complain about the right decisions at the right time for the sake to see NASA continuing to fail properly sustainable programs, as it does for decades. But beside those wise decisions to retire STS finally and cancel Constellation, NASA still is politically forced to fail properly sustainable programs. The new HLV and Moon, Mars and asteroids goal will be another epic fail. Just lean back and wait until Obama leaves the office...
That's it ;)
-
My main (almost only) complaint is that the US has no active, national and inspiring manned Space Exploration Program. I hope that the commercial entities can eventually (like very soon!) provide a CHEAPER and SAFER space transportation alternative, but one thing is clear: they will never provide an alternative to exploration. And being dependent on ANYBODY, especially the Russians, is not a good thing. You cannot brush away political realities and present them as narrow-mindedness - that is irresponsible and dangerous, as history has been proving all the time. This won't work. Russia has a very long way to go to prove its reliability as, say, Germany did. If you have't noticed, Germany, like most European countries, is a proven US political ally, and beyond. Russia is NOT! On too many instances and situations, quite the opposite is true. You cannot discuss any kind of cooperation without taking this context into account. If you do, you're distorting and this is frankly beginning to annoy. Once you do this, all your other arguments and logic become questionable, and generate reluctance.
Thats MY point exactly I never said it was wrong to retire STS I agree its costly just better than being without nothing. Nasa has a long road ahead..ok back to landing my shuttle..
-
Nobody has to believe me, or to be convinced by me. Without my existence and posts, the facts and figures are still there, politically, historically and technologically. Everybody can search for the corresponding informations and have a look. I won't mention those things anymore. Bolden has, Obama has, the Augustine Commission has, Elon Musk and countless other well qualified persons within the business have in relation to Constellation and the current NASA situation (for STS you just have to read and understand the Columbia investigation and conclusions and the history of the STS behind the curtain). It's up to everybody to either listen, look at it, agree and admit and be honest, or to ignore facts and complain about the right decisions at the right time for the sake to see NASA continuing to fail properly sustainable programs, as it does for decades. But beside those wise decisions to retire STS finally and cancel Constellation, NASA still is politically forced to fail properly sustainable programs. The new HLV and Moon, Mars and asteroids goal will be another epic fail. Just lean back and wait until Obama leaves the office...
That's it ;)
I reject your claim that if somebody does not agree with whatever you or Obama or whomever claims on the subject, is "dishonest" (at least that's how I read "It's up to everybody to either listen, look at it, agree and admit and be honest, or to ignore facts and complain..."). Previously you implied that these people (and some of us too) are narrow-minded, now "dishonest".
If this is what you say, then there are an awful lot of narrow-minded and/or dishonest people around the World/USA - some of them significantly more scientifically and Space Exploration endowed than either Obama or some members of the "August" Augustine committee and their political fanboys. Luckily, the Prez is extremely open minded (amphasis on "extreme"), but he will be "judged" by his voters. IMHO he's aiming for a one-term run anyway.
Now, after I've been indirectly labeled as narrow-minded, a Shuttle fanboy and dishonest, I can safely go back and play with my Shuttle 8)
/Admin
-
Does somebody need a moderator here... ? ;)
I hope not, I have different things to do... :D
-
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/04/15/obama-lays-out-bold-and-visionary-revised-space-policy/
-
Does somebody need a moderator here... ? ;)
I hope not, I have different things to do... :D
LOL! Not yet! And what are YOU doing here?! You have things to do, you know - ;)
/Admin
-
Does somebody need a moderator here... ? ;)
I hope not, I have different things to do... :D
LOL! Not yet! And what are YOU doing here?! You have things to do, you know - ;)
/Admin
I just tried my Multitasking-Mode ;D
-
Does somebody need a moderator here... ? ;)
I hope not, I have different things to do... :D
LOL! Not yet! And what are YOU doing here?! You have things to do, you know - ;)
/Admin
Yes, it is working perfectly - LOL!
/Admin
I just tried my Multitasking-Mode ;D
-
OK. I see that this thread has reached its natural end, and since we don't decide on what's going to happen with NASA and/or the US Space Program anyway, I guess I will lock it and wait to see how things will be moving in the "real world". I still hope to see "something" American on the Moon and beyond during my lifetime.
/Admin