Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents


Thread Closed  Topic Closed
  collectSPACE: Messages
  Exploration: Moon to Mars
  Constellation cancelled: NASA's new approach (Page 10)

Post New Topic  
profile | register | preferences | faq | search


This topic is 22 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Constellation cancelled: NASA's new approach
issman1
Member

Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005

posted 02-13-2010 07:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for issman1     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by bobzz:
NO American will venture into earth orbit on an American vehicle for at least 10 years.
Before Constellation was axed, Orion CEV would not have flown with crew until 2017 (but without ISS as a destination).

That was with Ares I. NASA's own study in 2009 suggests the Delta IV could be man-rated after 5 years. While it's been stated Atlas V could be ready to launch crew after just 2 years.

If Shelby, Gifford, Nelson and Kosmas care about NASA human spaceflight (instead of being lobbyists), then a compromise could be reached whereby Orion is salvaged. And one of the aforementioned EELVs could become Orion's launcher well before 2020.

Space X, Orbital and the others can still offer redundancy.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-13-2010 09:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Matt T:
...not offering a clear answer to any of the central concerns being offered by pro-Constellation/anti-flexible path posters.
Thus far, in my opinion, most of the concerns raised have not been based on any specific insight but rather politics, pessimism and premature assumptions.

Those who claim that the private sector cannot possibly meet the requirements are ignoring several decades of the industry moving in that direction.

Those who say that the nation needs a heavy-lift vehicle (a position I agree with, by the way), ignore that a heavy-lift capability is part of NASA's plans going forward.

Those who say that no astronauts will fly on an American spacecraft for a decade are making blanket assumptions, and therefore merit being nitpicked.

All this naysaying is not very constructive. Here's an idea: I challenge the "pro-Constellation/anti-flexible path posters" to propose how the new plan could work without simply saying "restore Constellation." The pieces are "on the table," now build a program that fits a square air scrubber peg in a round hole.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-13-2010 11:50 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Space News: NASA Warned Against Constellation Stoppage
Two dozen members of the U.S. House of Representatives are warning NASA Administrator Charles Bolden not to shut down any part of the Constellation program this year, citing a provision included in a 2010 omnibus spending bill that bars the agency from terminating any part of the space shuttle replacement effort without formal congressional approval.

"We have become aware of the formation by NASA Headquarters of at least five 'tiger teams,' the job of which is to shut down Constellation and transition to the new program," states a Feb. 12 letter to Bolden spearheaded by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) and signed by 19 other Republicans and four Democrats.

The letter also instructs Bolden to reinstate an unspecified "major contract related to Ares 1" that was put on hold Jan. 23, adding that any disruption to Constellation contracts will be viewed as a program termination.

bobzz
Member

Posts: 100
From: Batavia, Illinois
Registered: Aug 2007

posted 02-13-2010 07:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for bobzz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by bobzz:
Bottom line.... my prediction is, NO American will venture into earth orbit on an American vehicle for at least 10 years.
Post shuttle of course.

My post was not meant to "poke a finger" in anyone's eye. I am a huge supporter of manned space flight. My prediction is conservative at best and looking at the realities of putting a manned vehicle in orbit against today's commercial (read profit) ventures, I just don't see a huge rush to "getter done". Unless the Russians start to gouge us for orbital services or begin to play politics we will outsource the ride to space, just my humble opinion.

Mercury7
Member

Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 02-13-2010 09:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mercury7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Although I doubt there will be enough support to actually win, I thank God for the members of Congress that are at least doing enough saber rattling to draw attention to this abomination.

Wow it would be so cool if Congress saved Constellation.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-13-2010 09:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury7:
Wow it would be so cool if Congress saved Constellation.
If that happens, I truly hope Congress doesn't only supersede the President's plan and maintain the status quo but also allocates $3 billion more per year (at least).

Otherwise, Congress will not have "saved Constellation," but rather only delayed the program's inevitable failure.

To quote former astronaut Fred Gregory who was NASA's Deputy Administrator when Constellation was born: "The shortage of funding would not allow the program to ever be successful."

cspg
Member

Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006

posted 02-14-2010 12:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for cspg   Click Here to Email cspg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
For the sake of discussion, what do we mean by saving "Constellation"? Ares + Orion + Altair? Or as suggested by issman1, a part of it- Orion aboard an EELV? We can keep the Constellation's name, but change the program's contents, no?

chet
Member

Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 02-14-2010 01:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for chet   Click Here to Email chet     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Thus far, in my opinion, most of the concerns raised have not been based on any specific insight but rather politics, pessimism and premature assumptions.
Robert, your assertion that "politics, pessimism and premature assumptions" are what's guiding the (majority of) comments here is only partly right, and therefore somewhat mistaken. Though I'll admit I am guilty of letting the "3-P's" you mentioned color my opinions, I also believe there is some common sense involved too (which is NOT to say that those who view the issues differently than I necessarily lack common sense).

Put simply, the President's "flexible" plan MUST succeed for NASA itself to realistically survive. On the other hand, if Bush's "plan" to return to the moon by a stated date were continued by the current administration, NASA would continue to exist to "fight another day", even if the specific date goals weren't met (since even an underfunded NASA would still continue doing what it exists to do and does today; the same can't be said if the "flexible-private-sector" plan fails and NASA has already shriveled into a state of non-functioning irrelevance).

It isn't just anti-Obama axe-grinding to state this administration has so far stumbled badly. Given that political reality I would posit it's less pessimism than it is sober assessment driving the dissatisfaction with Obama's pronouncements regarding NASA's future.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-14-2010 03:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
Put simply, the President's "flexible" plan MUST succeed for NASA itself to realistically survive.
Even if you ignore that NASA exists to do more than just human spaceflight (as if the Hubble Space Telescope, Chandra X-Ray Observatory, Mars Exploration Rovers, Cassini, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, New Horizons, Solar Dynamics Observatory and numerous other unmanned missions are somehow to be discounted), the new plan calls for NASA to expand its research and development efforts such that it serves a national interest even if for some reason the entire U.S. commercial industry cannot apply its long history of building and operating NASA spacecraft to building and operating one, if not multiple commercial crew launch services.

What I find most interesting is that when the decision was made a couple of years ago to hand off space station resupply to the U.S. commercial sector -- a role traditionally filled by both NASA using the space shuttle and by purchasing space on international cargo carriers -- I don't remember hearing the same cries of defeat. I don't recall anyone here claiming the commercial sector couldn't possibly succeed in such an endeavor, nor that their timeline to do so, by 2014, was unrealistic.

But now, when the same is proposed for crew services and the companies involved reach beyond just the start-ups (not to suggest that there is anything wrong with being a start-up), there is this uproar. Granted, human systems are more complex, but NASA will be sharing its expertise and serving in the same oversight role that it has with its history of contracted services.

And then there is the fact that this isn't the first time that the U.S. has tried to move forward with passing the nation's human spaceflight program to private industry. The X-33, which fell victim to NASA's own cutting-edge technology requirements, was intended as a demonstrator for a commercially-operated spacecraft that was envisioned to replace the space shuttle, and, were it not for the loss of Columbia, the shuttle fleet itself may have been fully privatized, with NASA purchasing seats and cargo space on a mission to mission basis.

Neither of those efforts, nor past others, inspired the same level of rebuke from the space community, which brings me back to my belief that it is the three Ps -- politics, pessimism and premature assumption -- that is driving the current debate. Otherwise, what has changed?

issman1
Member

Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005

posted 02-14-2010 04:50 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for issman1     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
For the sake of discussion, what do we mean by saving "Constellation"? Ares + Orion + Altair?
Orion can be launched as it was originally designed on either Delta IV or Atlas V. Both rockets are HLLVs.

Similarly, Altair does not require Ares V. Ares was always the weakest link in Constellation.

Makes me wonder why Olson is really making a fuss?

Mercury7
Member

Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 02-14-2010 10:44 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mercury7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
For me, I am endorsing saving the moon. I strongly disagree with Robert suggesting that without the additional $3 billion a year that Constellation will inevitably fail. It will only be delayed until we can elect a pro-space president, We get another shot at that in three years. So if Constellation survives then we still have a good chance of returning to the moon, probably delayed another five years.

So given the option, I will take saving Constellation with minimum funding over its complete cancellation... to me this is about keeping the dream alive, the next president may very well have the vision to jump start it.

By the way, if Constellation is saved I am sure that most likely Ares will be salvaged. However I personally do not care whether Ares survives or not. Orion is the most important piece that needs funding to completion right now, Lockheed just needs to share the necessary information and I can almost guarantee the commercial folks will be able to launch it to LEO. NASA will still be tasked with the heavy lifter to get both Orion and Altair in to lunar orbit.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-14-2010 01:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury7:
I strongly disagree with Robert suggesting that without the additional $3 billion a year that Constellation will inevitably fail.
Just so we are clear, that is not my sole assertion but that of the Augustine committee as well as numerous others inside and outside NASA, and even some members of Congress.
quote:
Orion is the most important piece that needs funding to completion right now...
So why not turn over ownership of the vehicle to Lockheed Martin (their existing contract already allowed certain proprietary technologies to remain theirs) and have them fund its completion through their own funds, coupled with a NASA investment and intention to purchase seats when Orion is ready to fly...

cspg
Member

Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006

posted 02-14-2010 01:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cspg   Click Here to Email cspg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Orion can be launched as it was originally designed on either Delta IV or Atlas V. Both rockets are HLLVs.
But only the Delta IV Heavy has been launched. There is no heavy lift version of the Atlas V, is there?

And we can't compare Ares V and Delta IV payload capacities... unless you name Ares V a Super Heavy Lift Vehicle.

I guess it all depends on the destination and the necessary hardware needed to reach that destination.

chet
Member

Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 02-14-2010 01:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for chet   Click Here to Email chet     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If NASA's tasks were primarily the launching of satellites and unmanned probes it would make sense to fold the tent altogether and increase funding to JPL. If NASA's main purpose was the planning and contracting for heavy-lift rockets why not just lock down and instead fold those tasks into the DOD?

NASA is identified in the public's mind with manned space flight, and what has changed is Obama not just pushing back a stated date for a moon or Mars mission, but stating flat out we won't be returning to the moon, or going to Mars anytime soon. If this doesn't take the air out of NASA's tires, I don't know what does. Contrarily, Obama is perfectly free to consider the findings of any study group and still recommend a different course. That's called leadership, as opposed to just kicking a can down the road.

I can certainly understand the desire to put a happy face on the President's plans, but when those plans do inspire such pessimism and rebuke from many otherwise supportive quarters, and even the generally optimistic crowd here, there's probably a pretty good reason.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-14-2010 02:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
...fold the tent altogether and increase funding to JPL. ...lock down and instead fold those tasks into the DOD?
NASA's human spaceflight program accounts for approximately one-third of its budget. To suggest the other two-thirds can just be written off or folded into other agencies is to discredit the important work being done in unmanned exploration and aeronautics research.
quote:
...what has changed is Obama not just pushing back a stated date for a moon or Mars mission, but stating flat out we won't be returning to the moon, or going to Mars anytime soon.
The timelines haven't changed that much, both Constellation and the new plan target the capability of lunar missions in the mid- to late-2020s (the "by 2020" goal was lost long ago as a result of budget constraints).

Further, Constellation had no set timeline for Mars (there were references to circa 2050), whereas Bolden has said a manned Mars landing is possible by 2030 if we forego the Moon first (nothing says we couldn't go back to the Moon after Mars).

Frankly, I don't know if I believe either set of dates but I don't think the timeline put forth by Constellation was any more reliable.

328KF
Member

Posts: 1388
From:
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 02-14-2010 02:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 328KF   Click Here to Email 328KF     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Thus far, in my opinion, most of the concerns raised have not been based on any specific insight but rather politics, pessimism and premature assumptions.
And for good reason. Human spaceflight is and always has been about politics. Politically astute people with the vision for making their country recognized as global leaders in technology and exploration utilize space programs to further this perception. Military leaders carry out the will of the government by expanding their efforts to the highest ground known.

Special interest groups like this community choose their leaders based, in part, on their views and promises (if you can call them that) to expand, finance, and support the issue of interest. When that leader says one thing, gets elected, then does an about-face on the issue, those who believed in him are quite deservedly disappointed, disillusion, and dejected (the three D's).

Pessimism exists in this community due to the real uncertainty in what lies ahead. It's great to be hopeful, but it is a bitter pill to swallow when a program was coming together (though underfunded) with real hardware to go do what everyone here thinks should be done. If Obama has his way, that effort is now over.

There is a BIG difference between cutting metal now to go to the moon and starting over with unproven technology from unproven companies at some distant point in the future. Grand, generalized statements about "fanning out across the solar system" does not carry the reassurance of seeing Apollo veterans giving their input to Altair engineers in designing a lunar lander.

If our elected leader really believed in human space exploration, he would step up and say so, and provide the necessary funding to get the program back on track, not because it's the best approach, but because it is one which can make real near-term progress. No one can say with certainty that Constellation was not fixable.

The current position of this administration puts this real progress very far off in the distance, and relies on a great many assumptions of success on the part of the commercial providers. This is not unlike the roadblock to ISS construction which occurred when partner countries were allowed to build "critical path" hardware for that program, and may very well have the same result.

As far as the outcry goes, previous programs were never intended to replace the shuttle without a track record of success, and NASA would not be sitting in the bleachers waiting for that success to come before we could go fly again. X-33 was canceled long before the Columbia accident and the retirement announcement. Commercial transportation would be pursued as a complimentary development program, not a sole-source provider. The stakes here are much higher.

Premature assumption exist on both sides of the argument. Some may prematurely assume that the commercial providers will not be able to do what is asked of them. Others prematurely assumed that Ares was the wrong rocket for the job at hand. The fact is no one really knows until the program is in the history books.

What really kills me are the folks who don't have the willpower to pick a position and stick with it. If you were a vocal supporter of Ares 1/V/Altair prior to the announcement, why would you change your position after? Do you want to see real near-term human space exploration or are you willing to put it off to some undetermined date (possibly beyond some of our lifetimes) because it sounds like a better way to go, or because of your own political leanings?

I, for one, felt that Constellation was the best shot we had at getting out of LEO in my lifetime. I will not blindly follow some politicians' radical departure from this path just because I think he's a great guy.

If the opinion is now that this was such a better way to go, then why was there no outcry from those people prior to the current programs' cancellation? I don't recall anyone saying that Constellation was a miserable waste of resources, or that we'd be better off handing the effort off to these start-up's.

I hope Congress sees the benefit of near-term success, without relying on an excess of the unknown.

chet
Member

Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 02-14-2010 02:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for chet   Click Here to Email chet     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Beautifully put, 328KF.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-14-2010 02:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by 328KF:
...because it is one which can make real near-term progress.
I don't disagree; Constellation had the potential to move forward if funded properly but it is not the only approach that can have near-term progress (at least as "near-term" was defined by the underfunded Constellation program).
quote:
The current position of this administration puts this real progress very far off in the distance...
The new plan adopts a similar timelime to that of Constellation, it just goes about it in a different way.
quote:
The stakes here are much higher.
Granted, but the payoff is also potentially much greater: for the first time, the nation could end up with multiple vehicles capable of sending many more humans to orbit and beyond. Is that worth the risk? Some feel it is.

Could the plan fail? Sure, but the chances are roughly the same as Constellation failing for political or technical reasons (see: X-33, Orbital Space Plane).

quote:
If you were a vocal supporter of Ares 1/V/Altair prior to the announcement, why would you change your position after?
There is a significant difference between placing support behind the program of record and allowing consideration for a new plan. They aren't mutually exclusive: if Congress were to fund Constellation properly and the President sign-off on such a plan, then I would expect many would support it going forward (myself included). But if everyone always remained steadfast on supporting the status quo, progress would never be made.

Matt T
Member

Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001

posted 02-14-2010 03:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Matt T   Click Here to Email Matt T     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The issue at the centre of the new vision for NASA isn't an opposition of optimism or pessimism. It is the lack of funding. If the US can't afford Constellation then fair enough - it can't afford Constellation, and telling it straight is an act of some political courage. If we were told it straight that is.

But no - instead we're told that a budget deemed entirely insufficient for the current exploration program IS actually sufficient if we increase the magnitude of the goals dramatically and rely on the commercial sector to pick up all the technological and financial slack. And we're now also asked to believe it won't even take longer?

It makes me angry to have my intelligence insulted by such tepid fluff while my hopes for manned space exploration are dashed.

P.S. I'm equally sure that anyone still reading this thread knows what I think now (likely to the point of tedium) so I'll continue to read this thread but I can't keep posting this stuff any longer. I feel like I'm in the last reel of the Stepford NASA Fans.

BNorton
Member

Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005

posted 02-14-2010 03:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for BNorton   Click Here to Email BNorton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Thus far, in my opinion, most of the concerns raised have not been based on any specific insight but rather politics, pessimism and premature assumptions.
Then I would like to ask the following: how is the "flexible plan" any more flexible than, say, properly funding Constellation with the "commercial" development fund "help" continuing?

Why is the belief that a private company can build a manned spacecraft and turn a profit (please remember, it's "commercial" craft that are being pushed by the so called flexible path) not a premature assumption?

Please allow me to argue from another non-spaceflight point. Imagine, if you will, that the only company that built commercial passenger aircraft was Boeing. Let's say they build the craft very well (which they obviously really do), are extremely expensive to operate, you fly them frequently, and believe they do an excellent job. However, it's now time to buy a new plane.

Boeing will sell you one of their well-built, expensive-to-build-and- operate jets.

Now someone comes along with some PowerPoints and claims they can build a commercial jetliner that costs half as much to build, will operate with 1/10 the life cycle cost, and they can have a plane in operation with these stats in four years. While this company's head used to work for Piper Aircraft (a builder of private, one to four seat aircraft), his company has never built a plane of any type. Would you buy into their company? Would you believe them? Would you throw away your option to buy a Boeing plane for the upstart's PowerPoint plane knowing that Boeing would go out of business if you did?

The above is, in my opinion, very similar to what the "flexible path" does to the U.S. manned spaceflight program.

The real premature assumption here is that the "flexible path" will result in any U.S. manned spacecraft.

There are no politics in this argument.

Pessimism? The NASA administration says the U.S. needs heavy-lift BUT will develop it in 15 to 20 years (or more)! Does not everyone find need for pessimism with statements such as this?

The flexible path is for Congress to fully fund the Constellation program, provide funds for appropriate operation of the Space Station for a reasonable period of time, and fund the other required and necessary activities of NASA. If not, then I believe there is no point in the continued waste of taxpayer dollars on a so-called "flexible path" and probably another new "flexible path" and yet more PowerPoints when the next administration arrives in DC.

We do not need the Administrator to see it as a goal to start a scholarship program, not to mention other questionable proposals. (This statement is not about politics; please watch the Administrator's STS-130 launch news conference.)

We need to start on a realistic path to Mars (i.e. 15 to 20 year from now, in stone, landing date plus), with no flowery claims about developing warp drive like propulsion.

Please stop the waste of money by underfunding or making more changes. Make a decision, make technology adjustments as required but stick with it.

I believe it is finally time to say: Either do it or end it. I hope the reply that comes back is "let's do it."

Let's go to Mars.

Thank you. (The plane company names used above are used to try and make a point. They are not used to reflect upon their actual products or abilities. Hope this makes some sense.)

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-14-2010 04:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
We should probably get our terminology and analogies correct before really confusing the issues.

The "Flexible Path," as coined by the Augustine committee, has little to do with who provides the vehicles. Rather, it refers to an approach whereby the goal is not to go one place and stop but rather go multiple places.

The primary allure of the "Flexible Path" from a budgetary viewpoint is that most of the proposed locations would not require a lander, e.g. near-Earth asteroids, Mars' moon Phobos, lunar orbit and the Lagrange points (the latter for the construction of fuel depots).

So, let's not confuse commercial crew and cargo services with the "flexible path".

Secondly, your analogy has a couple of flaws: it assumes that (a) those offering the alternative "plane" have never built a jetliner before, ignoring that the "Boeing" in your comparison is one and the same offering the new vehicle, competing against others; and (b) that some of those competitors are well beyond PowerPoint, with rockets almost ready or already flying (at least one has had multiple boosters flying for decades).

As for your other points:

Pessimism: Constellation was on a 15 to 20 year timeline to deliver heavy-lift as well.

Warp drives: No one is being flowery when talking about VASIMR, a real ion engine that is ready to be tested in space.

Mars: I believe you and Bolden are in agreement then. Bolden wants to go to Mars too, and believes it possible, given Congressional approval, by 2030.

BNorton
Member

Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005

posted 02-14-2010 04:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for BNorton   Click Here to Email BNorton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I am not aware of any plan within the Constellation program for heavy lift in 15 to 20 years. The plan was to be on the moon by 2020. Heavy lift would obviously have to be developed by then.

Please note that I am not referring to plans, which keep getting pushed back because of funding shortfalls. There is no reason to believe any "flexible path", which will need additional funds, would not meet a similar fate, then the proposed 15 to 20 years. I never said I was happy with the current Constellation situation. Heavy lift existed in the early 60's. Very sad, and not reasonable, that it would take so long to do again.

As far as my plane analogy, I obviously do not agree. Again, where is the company with the experience who will put up the money to build? Please show a business model that works.

Maybe a better statement here about Constellation would be "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Granted, not the best argument, but to the point.

I do not believe anyone will ever commit to going to Mars to land on one of its moons. This weak objective does not justify the risk nor the cost. If you travel that far and spend the resources required, a landing is the only justified outcome.

Also, I am not aware of any Obama Administration funding document that lists a landing on Mars by 2030 as a goal. It would be greatly appreciated if you could provide a link or pointer to any such written administration plan or point to remarks made by President Obama that confirm this goal. Also, I have not seen an approved written plan put forth by the NASA Administrator either with this date. Again, a reference please.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-14-2010 05:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
The plan was to be on the moon by 2020. Heavy lift would obviously have to be developed by then... I am not referring to plans, which keep getting pushed back because of funding shortfalls.
I don't understand the purpose of citing expired plans. The "by 2020" goal became impossible several years ago. No amount of funding today can reclaim the time needed to produce the tooling and parts needed to build Ares V. Michael Griffin, Constellation's greatest supporter, was clear about this point.
quote:
There is no reason to believe any "flexible path", which will need additional funds, would not meet a similar fate
There is a very important difference: the 'flexible path' was created to match the funds available to NASA, whereas the Constellation program was underfunded from the start. That's not to say there wouldn't be other reasons for delays, such is life, but it is important to recognize what separates the programs.

(It should be noted that the President's plan is not the 'flexible path,' at least not as defined by the Augustine committee, as that too would require more money.)

quote:
Again, where is the company with the experience who will put up the money to build? Please show a business model that works.
See: United Launch Alliance.
quote:
I do not believe anyone will ever commit to going to Mars to land on one of its moons.
I would suggest then reading this article: Destination Phobos.
quote:
I have not seen an approved written plan put forth by the NASA Administrator either with this date.
I believe I noted that Congressional approval was needed. See the Adminstrator's comments here: NASA chief: Mars is our mission
"I am confident that, when I say humans on Mars is a goal for the nation, not just NASA, I'm saying that because I believe the president will back me up."

Mercury7
Member

Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 02-14-2010 05:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mercury7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The "by 2020" goal became impossible several years ago.
This is complete hog wash, If the President committed the nation to landing on the moon by 2020 it would happen.

It is sad that so many here are giving the administration a pass on this. Anybody that deeply cares about space exploration probably makes there way in here to gauge our reaction to their plan. If we give them a pass then why should they believe the general American public won't.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-14-2010 05:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury7:
This is complete hog wash...
Can you share why you believe you know better than Mike Griffin, Charlie Bolden, Norm Augustine, Sally Ride, Leroy Chiao, Fred Gregory, Bill Gerstenmaier, and many others who work or worked for NASA and its contractors who have said that 2020 was no longer achievable by Constellation?

chet
Member

Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 02-14-2010 06:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for chet   Click Here to Email chet     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well I guess I'll have to just come out and say it; there is one overriding factor for my views on Obama's "new direction" - and that is CYNICISM:

I simply don't trust this President's motives, and it really does pain me to write that.

Mercury7
Member

Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 02-14-2010 08:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mercury7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
No amount of funding today can reclaim the time needed to produce the tooling and parts needed to build Ares V.
This is the part I called hog wash. All of those people you mentioned including yourself simply do not believe. America has already proved in the past that it can develop an entire lunar program in 10 years given the mandate and the funding. You have said over and over here that Apollo could never be repeated and I simply disagree. If Obama or any president could inspire the country and get Congress to fund it, we could make the 2020 deadline with room to spare.

You can not argue with fact and the fact is we went from zero to landing on the moon in 10 years and President Bush already gave these guys a six year head start.

BNorton
Member

Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005

posted 02-14-2010 08:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for BNorton   Click Here to Email BNorton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
There is a very important difference: the 'flexible path' was created to match the funds available to NASA, whereas the Constellation program was underfunded from the start...
I am under the impression that the "fexible path" proposed by the Augustine panel is also underfunded. (I believe this has been pointed out by you, making the above statement, and others.)

Yes, ULA builds and successfully launches unmanned craft. The key word here is "unmanned". Where is their experience to design and build a manned craft and more importantly (I cannot stress this enough) where is the business model that allows them to do this at a profit? They (ULA) operate as they should: for profit.

There are many Mars proposals that go around. The only justified outcome of an investment is a Mars surface landing. Any approval of a Mars moon landing is doomed to failure because the investment of resources vs. risk and reward viewpoint will ultimately end such a program. The resources (e.g., cost, percentage difference) will ultimately differ going to a Mars moon. That is, the lander and associated cost will be small when compared to total program cost and the reward from a high risk moon landing would be very small. (Obviously, a planet surface landing, if someone would pay for it, would be a great thing. I, for one, hope it's the U.S. that arrives first.)

Again, there is nothing in the budget proposal by the Administration that says Mars in 2030 is the goal. In fact, unless I somehow missed it, there is no goal in the proposal. The technology investments proposed as the core of NASA with no clear goal will ultimately make it easier to cut their funding as budget problems continue in the federal government. I can point, unfortunately, to many off-the-cuff remarks by Administrators (and, yes, Presidents too) about programs that are not policy and never happen.

Finally, I believe placing the panel of the Augustine report as the ultimate authority on what NASA can and cannot do is a serious error (the "How do you know better than they?" argument). Why do they know THE answer? I am sure almost anyone can assemble a panel of "experts" that would come to a completely different conclusion... and I know that the next Administration, be they Democrat or Republican, with this one as an example, will probably do just that to justify their plans whatever they may be.

Nevertheless, didn't the Augustine report have other plans (and didn't the first Augustine panel "sign-off" on the Constellation program at its start)? It seems the discussion going on here is that the flexible path is THE plan and you are wrong if you do not agree with the flexible path or Constellation. Well, what if I agree with the Augustine report's other plans and not the flexible plan?

In my opinion, the path proposed by the current Administration is a weak one, much more so than that any of previous "space age" administrations. NASA is underfunded and has been for some time. The proposal continues NASA's funding problem, not only in manned space flight but aeronautics, such as hypersonics, sciences, and robotic missions. There is money out there if there is the political will to make it happen. Now, I let others make better use of this posting forum. Thanks again.

issman1
Member

Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005

posted 02-15-2010 03:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for issman1     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
I simply don't trust this President's motives

I would surmise that nearly all of those criticising the new plan here are of that persuasion.

What they fail to acknowledge (out of political bias) is that Obama wants to create the baseline technologies which will make deep space exploration by astronauts a possibility.

chet
Member

Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 02-15-2010 06:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for chet   Click Here to Email chet     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I respectfully contend that at this point in his presidency it requires a greater political bias to take President Obama at his word, than not. Or perhaps you're simply confusing "mistrust" and "misunderstanding"; I acknowledge and understand fully what Obama SAYS; I simply don't have any trust in it.

jimsz
Member

Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 02-15-2010 07:10 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jimsz   Click Here to Email jimsz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury7:
If the President committed the nation to landing on the moon by 2020 it would happen.
Yes.

The US did it once in less than 10 years and it could easily do it again if we had people in power who had a desire and a NASA that was not bloated, wasting money and directionless.

KSCartist
Member

Posts: 3047
From: Titusville, FL
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 02-15-2010 09:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for KSCartist   Click Here to Email KSCartist     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I believe there is merit to the President's plan to encourage private industry to develop launch vehicles and spacecraft.

I also want to see us return to the Moon towards developing the technology and hardware we will need to venture to Mars.

Why can't we do both?

We all agree that NASA has been underfunded for years, trying to do too much with too little. Other federal agencies spend billions on space. Has there been a review of eliminating duplicate efforts? Can't developing a reliable heavy lift vehicle be beneficial to the DoD?

Let the commercial sector build their rockets, create jobs, maybe even develop "game-changing" technological advances. We should encourage that. But let's not put all of our eggs in one basket. Man-rate the Delta 4, the Atlas 5, build the Ares 1. Let's also help the Falcon 9 fly. Let the goal become to never again be in the position where the ending of one program or one tragic failure grounds us for years.

The problem with space-advocacy organizations is our failure to cooperate on the larger picture. It shouldn't be "Constellation" vs "Flexible Path" - it should be "assured access to space".

But the responsibility should not be the United States or Russia's (or China's) alone. ESA - you've done a fine job of building the Ariane class of vehicles, of contributing to the ISS program. If you want to go to the Moon or Mars you better build a spacecraft and an Ariane 6 HLV. C'mon there are ten of you - certainly you can pool resources and accomplish that!?

My biggest concern besides seeing U.S. workers laid off while we launch Americans aboard a Soyuz is that we are relying on one vehicle to get to space. If the Russians suffer a major failure the crew is likely to survive because of their LES - but then we're grounded until the cause can be found and corrected.

Let's build an Orion that can carry six people - not four. Put it on multiple launch vehicles. Let's also resurrect the X-38 to allow for ISS science to be returned in a less stressful non-ballistic reentry to preserve the results - oh and have an additional CRV.

You want to inspire students in the STEM subjects? Give them many options, give them an exciting future to be apart of.

We did go to the Moon "before that decade was out" because we had the will to do so. We CAN do it again at the same time we encourage "game-changing" advances to make a trip to Mars faster. There's a lot to be done put for the love of God let's stop arguing about it and get to work.

Mercury7
Member

Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 02-15-2010 09:27 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mercury7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
So why not turn over ownership of the vehicle to Lockheed Martin...
This statement has a lot of assumptions but it seems to me Lockheed Martin has zero reasons to continue to develop a vehicle that was meant to go to the Moon and Mars when all they need is basic transport to the ISS. I would think as a business decision they would scrap it immediately because they simply will not be able to compete building a spacecraft as complex as Orion when cheaper lighter vehicles such as Dragon come online.

This is my prediction, NASA has created no incentive in the new plan that I can see that would make companies start developing spacecraft designed for exploration. You would have to show me the money for that one because if it is there I missed it. It's certainly a big stretch to try to connect it to the developing new technologies goblygook.

Mercury7
Member

Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 02-15-2010 09:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mercury7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by KSCartist:
We did go to the Moon "before that decade was out" because we had the will to do so. We CAN do it again at the same time we encourage "game-changing" advances to make a trip to Mars faster. There's a lot to be done put for the love of God let's stop arguing about it and get to work.
Well said... but Obama killed that dream and that is what the argument is about.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-15-2010 09:50 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury7:
Obama killed that dream
He did nothing of the sort. The President may have killed a vehicle architecture (still to be seen, pending Congress and the contractors' future response), he proposed a different path forward, but no President has the ability to kill dreams.

Dreams are what we do when our eyes are closed. It's time to wake up and look at what is actually being done.

jimsz
Member

Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 02-15-2010 12:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jimsz   Click Here to Email jimsz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
He did nothing of the sort... no President has the ability to kill dreams.
The President can't kill dreams but he can make it so they are not realized. That's what Obama did.
quote:
It's time to wake up and look at what is actually being done.
The gutting and pretty much end of a US manned space program for many years, maybe decades and possibly forever.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-15-2010 12:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Florida Today: New vision for NASA

by Roger Launius, former NASA Chief Historian and senior curator at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum, and Michael Green, senior planner at NASA headquarters.

...the rhetoric about future dangers being spread, however, too often approaches nonsense. One observer overstated that "left to their own devices, (commercial firms) tend to produce unreliable hardware that explodes."

Amazingly untrue; over two decades, commercial launchers have delivered critical services with excellent reliability.

This new path need not abandon human exploration; it could provide the U.S. with a sustainable and executable space exploration plan indefinitely. It furthers human activities on ISS, and opens translunar space sooner than other approaches and on American rockets built by commercial providers.

cjh5801
Member

Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009

posted 02-15-2010 02:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cjh5801   Click Here to Email cjh5801     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I was a proponent of the Program of Record, but I've changed my mind since the President released his proposed budget. Is it because of blind faith in Obama's word? No, since there are a number of things he's done since taking office that I disagree with.

It's because since the budget was released I've done the background research on the Constellation program that I neglected to do when all I was really supporting before was the idea of returning to the Moon.

The more I've learned about the Constellation program in the past few weeks, the more I realized that it would not succeed--not as originally envisioned, and not anywhere near the timeline proposed. It might have eventually got there, if enough money was thrown at it, but the will to spend that much money just isn't there.

Yes, we went to the Moon within one decade back in the 1960s. But we spent 10 times the budget, and got there in a Volkswagen. Constellation was trying to get us there in a Cadillac, but without spending the money necessary to do so. It isn't a matter of will, or leadership, it's a matter of money.

The old way wasn't working. A new path is needed. I don't know that the President's proposal is the new path that we need, but at least it's shaking things up. Whatever comes out of this, I hope it's something new.

chet
Member

Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 02-15-2010 06:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for chet   Click Here to Email chet     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Many excellent points by Tim (KSCartist) (and others who also point out) that the U.S. previously went from drawing board to lunar landing in 10 years - with '60's technology! ...so it makes little sense to say returning to the moon by 2020 isn't possible. I acknowledge the will isn't there, but if it were the money would be too.

Another excellent point by Tim... that the focus should be on "assured access to space". Unfortunately Obama's "flexible" plan leaves that focus on the trash heap. As pointed out, a Russian failure would leave Americans in the lurch, spacewise, for God knows how long. In relegating the U.S. to hitchhiker status, applying the word "flexible" to Obama's plan becomes an all-out laugher.

chet
Member

Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 02-15-2010 06:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for chet   Click Here to Email chet     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If I may supplement some of what Roger Launius wrote:
This new path need not abandon human exploration;
No, it NEED not, but Launius' own statement makes clear that for now, AT LEAST, it essentially does (abandon, by America certainly, human exploration).
It could provide the U.S. with a sustainable and executable space exploration plan indefinitely.
Or it could fail badly, leaving America having to ramp up again nearly from scratch.
...and opens translunar space sooner than other approaches and on American rockets built by commercial providers.
Again, only IF successful, but this last bit is especially just hopeful conjecture... who knows what the world will look like 30-50 years from now?


This topic is 22 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22 

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Open Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 2023 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement