|
Author
|
Topic: State of the Union, NASA and Sputnik moment
|
bobzz
Member Posts: 100
From: Batavia, Illinois
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 01-28-2011 05:43 PM
  
Charles Krauthammer has an interesting take on the "Sputnik Moment". |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 01-29-2011 07:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by bobzz:
interesting take
He was perpetuating that canard and myth about Obama. NASA human spaceflight is in dire need of a rudder. But it's patently obvious even from my side of the Atlantic that NASA's previous leadership and some on Capitol Hill are the ones who left it without one. Obama was is no position to steer a course for NASA during his State of the Union address, nor should anyone have expected one. The "Sputnik moment" has also been deliberately taken out of context. But let's get one fact right: Constellation was not going to deliver anything that was promised. So it's irresponsible and outrageous for media commentators to keep saying the present incumbent of the White House, killed NASA's manned space program. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-29-2011 08:35 AM
Its correct that early on, Constellation was not properly resourced however Obama made the decision to terminate the program; his administration and congress elected instead to dump trillions of dollars of stimulus money down a black hole, a fraction of which could have been apportioned to keep Constellation and the VSE on the rails. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 01-29-2011 08:55 AM
Constellation had its chance to be reprieved by the Augustine Commission. But after being weighed and measured, it was found wanting.Time for the new kids on the block to have their turn. And are they showing it! |
bobzz
Member Posts: 100
From: Batavia, Illinois
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 01-29-2011 09:19 AM
More "Sputnik" moment analysis. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-29-2011 09:19 AM
Augustine (which had no mandate to decide/reprieve anything) found that the existing program of record was under-resourced and could not continue without an additional plus-up of 3 billion per year... they were thus compelled to consider alternatives which could be satisfied within perceived fiscal constraints. When measured against the total cost of the "Stimulus", an annual outlay of 3 billion supplemental to proceed with Constellation is relatively insignificant. The administration and Congress elected not to make it a priority and thus the US space program has come to its current predicament. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 01-29-2011 10:30 AM
I agree totally with Spacaholic. The administration has done little to help NASA. Killing Constellation was a mistake. Three billion is cheap when weighed with the benefits. Space flight has led the way in innovations in many areas. If we want to regain our leadership in science, the space program is a great starting point.NASA and the government need to do a better job of articulating the benefits of the program. People need tangibles when considering why we are spending the money. The new kids i.e. Space X, etc. can take some of the slack, however they are a for profit enterprise. They have to have programs that will show a profit. They are not the ones to go to Mars, back to the moon, and/or an asteroid. That has to be a government program or a very highly subsidized one. Once we reach these places, if their is profit potential, then the private sector can and will come in. |
bobzz
Member Posts: 100
From: Batavia, Illinois
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 01-29-2011 10:47 AM
Many good points expressed. There will have to be a change in the political will to fund spaceflight going forward. Right now the push is on "social justice" programs. The cancellation of Constellation was symbolic of that new focus as 3 or even 10 billion would be "chump change" in the big scheme of things. Having a commission do the dirty work of justifying a program's cancellation gives that decision an air of credibility, taking the heat off the administration. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 01-29-2011 11:10 AM
SpaceX already has the confidence of satellite operators to launch their birds on Falcon 9. The prime contractor of Constellation (whom I shan't name but everyone knows they build the shuttle SRBs) does not!Now it's time for US politicians to stop procrastinating and give the likes of SpaceX the chance to build the Space Launch System rather than tender it out to the usual suspects. He may be boasting, but I much rather believe Elon Musk when he says his proposed Falcon 10 or 20 can be built cheaper and quicker than a rehashed Ares V, which certain Senators seem to favour. |
bobzz
Member Posts: 100
From: Batavia, Illinois
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 01-29-2011 12:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
He may be boasting, but I much rather believe Elon Musk when he says his proposed Falcon 10 or 20 can be built cheaper and quicker than a rehashed Ares V, which certain Senators seem to favour.
I hope you're right. SpaceX is a positive leap forward. I hope they can be profitable. |
music_space
Member Posts: 1179
From: Canada
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 01-29-2011 02:08 PM
You're all so beautiful, you American posters here, with your political restraint. It lies in accordance with the rules of this forum, of course, but it has to be demanding on the patriotism of many members, especially since this is a topic devoid of astronautics relevance per say, started by the moderator himself, to boot.As Robert stated on radio a while back, "space exploration, for the most part, brings out the best out of people." |
mikepf
Member Posts: 441
From: San Jose, California, USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 02-01-2011 07:58 PM
I don't even want to get started here on my views on the broader meanings of Obama's speech, but pardon me for getting picky, wasn't Apollo a result of the "Gagarin Moment"? |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-02-2011 02:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by mikepf:
...wasn't Apollo a result of the "Gagarin Moment"?
Not entirely. |
Aztecdoug
Member Posts: 1405
From: Huntington Beach
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 02-02-2011 11:11 AM
quote:
Originally posted by mikepf:
wasn't Apollo a result of the "Gagarin Moment"?
It was the result of a Bay of Pigs moment in my humble opinion. As for the Sputnik moment I think that term was thrown around like the old saying that if we can land a man on the moon we can ... fill in the blank... or using Einstein’s name in vain when somebody does something stupid... or the term it ain't rocket science... etc. I wouldn't read anything too deeply into it myself. Actions speak louder than words, so let’s see some action, or as they say walk the walk.
|
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-02-2011 01:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Aztecdoug:
It was the result of a Bay of Pigs moment in my humble opinion.
Not entirely this either.  |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1586
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 02-02-2011 07:51 PM
This President is not a fan of manned spaceflight. Even Sen. Nelson has stated that NASA has enemies in the White House. But is Obama really different that most President's since 1969? Circumstances, like the budget and the retirement of the shuttle, may allow for this Chief Executive to quietly and slowly pull the plug. |
advertisement