|
Author
|
Topic: Constellation cancelled: NASA's new approach
|
StarDome
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 03-03-2010 04:13 AM
   
There was a very interesting discussion about this and the future of US manned space exploration on "Russia Today" this morning, it's a news station I get on satellite. Interestingly three Americans participated including Anousheh Ansari. Some of the "ticker tape news" mentioned that China's plan to land a person on the moon by 2017. The panel seemed to come to the conclusion that whilst the Chinese government may not want to collaborate with the USA in a political/NASA relationship, the panel seemed to beleive that they may well be open to collaboration with private space companies, the like of Virgin Galactic etc. It was an interesting discussion to say the least. I'm not sure what time it started but I taped about 20 minutes of it. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 03-03-2010 04:20 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
HE (Obama) has to convince THEM if he wants other vehicles man-rated in place of Constellation
They didn't do such a good job of persuading him before the budget announcement. In fact, they did nothing. The Augustine panel weighed, measured and found Constellation wanting!Obama had no choice but to pull the plug. Now it's up to those politicians to salvage elements of the programme. |
Apollo Redux
Member Posts: 346
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Registered: Sep 2006
|
posted 03-03-2010 12:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...even if Constellation is canceled, Orion development may still continue as a commercial project by Lockheed.
As they should.Then they should sell it to whomever is willing to pay for it. Including foreign entities that may not be in lockstep with American foreign policy. Just like the armament industry does. |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 03-03-2010 01:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Apollo Redux:
Just like the armament industry does.
Incorrect (for the US armament industry in any case); little things like ITAR tend to get in the way... |
jhtech2
Member Posts: 21
From: New Mexico
Registered: Feb 2010
|
posted 03-03-2010 02:40 PM
I sure am sad about the proposed canceling of the Moon, the most logical, reachable goal for space. For a science base and for commercial and tourism opportunities, it is a goal to which destiny calls and which the nations will definitely take, hopefully the nations of the West. I think it's not too late to call the Senate and House Committees as they wrangle their bills together, I believe. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 03-03-2010 09:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Obama had no choice but to pull the plug. Now it's up to those politicians to salvage elements of the programme.
Obama, of course, had (still has) all the choice, and could propose taking the space program in any direction he thinks the U.S. should go. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 03-04-2010 06:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
Obama, of course, had (still has) all the choice
His "choice" was to end Constellation based upon the assessment of the Augustine panel. Constellation was not the be all and end all for US human spaceflight. NASA will go on in a new (and better) direction, one that I'm confident leads towards Mars. When? That's the job for those concerned politicians to impress upon Obama and also those tax-payers who see human spaceflight as irrelevant. Trying to save Constellation is not only foolish but won't get American astronauts out of LEO anytime soon. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 03-04-2010 07:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
Obama, of course, had (still has) all the choice, and could propose taking the space program in any direction he thinks the U.S. should go.
Obama has, in fact, little choice. He is restricted by outside factors (the international and domestic economic situation) as well as his own beliefs as to where available funds should be spent.I admire Chet for his tenacity in pursuing the Constellation dream, but, as has been explained elsewhere in this thread, it just ain't going to happen. It is time to move on. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 03-04-2010 07:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Obama has, in fact, little choice. He is restricted by outside factors (the international and domestic economic situation) as well as his own beliefs as to where available funds should be spent...
I italicized the part of your post which is undeniably correct.The President does not seem to be restricted by the economy when it comes to his proposal for health care reform, for example. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 03-04-2010 08:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
The President does not seem to be restricted by the economy when it comes to his proposal for health care reform, for example.
That's because the American people voted for him to do that. They did not vote en masse for Constellation. Few, if any, did so. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-04-2010 08:21 AM
Wall Street Journal: NASA Chief Bolden Seeks 'Plan B' for the Space Agency NASA chief Charles Bolden has asked senior managers to draw up an alternate plan for the space agency after members of Congress indicated they wanted to reject a White House proposal to hire private companies to ferry U.S. astronauts into orbit and beyond.In an internal National Aeronautics and Space Administration memo viewed by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Bolden ordered officials to map out "what a potential compromise might look like" to satisfy critics on Capitol Hill. By calling for an alternative plan, Mr. Bolden threatened to undercut White House efforts to get its proposed NASA budget through Congress. ...the memo suggests the NASA chief and his team were more inclined to try to pacify lawmakers than wage a tough battle to end multibillion-dollar contracts signed under the previous administration. It was written by Michael Coats, director of the Johnson Space Center. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 03-04-2010 09:10 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
NASA will go on in a new (and better) direction, one that I'm confident leads towards Mars.
I thought that there were legislation in Congress banning NASA from studying any human Mars mission. quote:
When? That's the job for those concerned politicians to impress upon Obama and also those tax-payers who see human spaceflight as irrelevant.
When? Never say never but not in our lifetime (unless you believe in miracles from a technological standpoint). I'm not sure tax-payers (and future ones) find human spaceflight irrelevant, simply outrageously expensive. In the late 80s, a Mars mission was estimated at $500 billion. Everybody focused on the figure, not the timeline... $500 billion over 25 years. So we're back at how to sell the space program to the general public. quote:
Trying to save Constellation is not only foolish but won't get American astronauts out of LEO anytime soon.
Throwing it all away is even more foolish and will certainly give ammunition to the ones who think the government is wasting their tax-dollars. I thought that Constellation was the stepping stone to getting out of LEO. No Mars mission without LEO and NEO missions. Keep the bits and pieces of Constellation that serve that stepping stone: for a Mars mission, you'll need an Orion type vehicle, you'll need a HLV, and you'll need all the research proposed in the FY11 budget too (water recycling, spacesuits etc.). |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 03-04-2010 10:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
That's because the American people voted for him to do that.
I think everyone can see your political leanings, as they can see mine.The point is, the poster I referred to said that the President was, in essence, forced to make the decision he made regarding Constellation because of internal and external economic pressures. His actions with regard to health care, bailouts of various corporations, etc, show that this position is unfounded. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 03-04-2010 10:45 AM
I'll freely admit to being liberal or left-wing, but I'll also support any US president supportive of a human mission to Mars.If you read earlier posts on this and other threads, you'll see I favour Orion in its original blueprint - carrying upto 6 crewmembers. My main problem with Constellation is that it bypassed ISS and deferred a Mars landing until well after 2030. Ares I was also a weakest link. I maintain that NASA must send astronauts to the Mars system first. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-04-2010 12:07 PM
Space Politics shares NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver's comments from a breakfast this morning regarding restoring Constellation: She also had a word for those seeking to preserve Constellation. She said she did not begrudge their efforts to try and save the program, but warned them of the budgetary consequences of preserving Constellation, noting that it would take an additional $5 billion a year to get the program back on track. "If Constellation is put back into that budget without that $5 billion a year increase, where will we cut the budget?" she said. "We need to talk honestly about these programs without at all being derogatory about the very, very capable workforce who have spent their time, energies, and lives working on this.""If we are not successful with this budget," she warned, "I think there is a very real risk that the growth that is proposed in this budget... will not be sustained if we aren't able to come together at some point over the next few months and work towards common ground." |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-04-2010 01:24 PM
"If Constellation is put back into that budget without that $5 billion a year increase, where will we cut the budget?" she said. Reapportioning outlays from Earth Science to human spaceflight would be a great start (there is 1.5 to 2 billion per year available for harvest)... let ESA and the rest of the international community assume more of the burden for Earth Sciences... |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-04-2010 01:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
let ESA and the rest of the international community assume more of the burden
While I certainly agree that more spending is needed worldwide, it is interesting to see the case be made that the United States needn't lead the world in science. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-04-2010 02:18 PM
In my opinion, a mis-characterization of the argument... under circumstances in which we have to prioritize our resources, the US may not be able to lead in every area of science. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-04-2010 02:30 PM
Of course, "limited resources" is the reason cited by those who argue the U.S. needn't a human spaceflight effort, government, commercial or otherwise. They say we should let others go to the Moon because we need the money for other priorities and we've already "done enough."Besides, we have already demonstrated why a human spaceflight program funded solely by re-purposing NASA's existing budget is a bad idea, i.e. Constellation. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-04-2010 02:47 PM
NASA chief Charles Bolden has asked senior managers to draw up an alternate plan for the space agency... In a statement, Bolden has disputed this claim: "The President’s Budget for NASA is my budget. I strongly support the priorities and the direction for NASA that he has put forward," Bolden said in a written statement. "I’m open to hearing ideas from any member of the NASA team, but I did not ask anybody for an alternative to the President's plan and budget. We have to be forward thinking and aggressive in our pursuit of new technologies to take us beyond low-Earth orbit, and the President's plan does this. After years of underinvestment in new technology and unrealistic budgeting, we finally have an ambitious plan for NASA that sets the agency on a reinvigorated path of space exploration." |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 03-04-2010 11:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
My main problem with Constellation is that it bypassed ISS and deferred a Mars landing until well after 2030. Ares I was also a weakest link. I maintain that NASA must send astronauts to the Mars system first.
You might be disappointed then...no man or woman will walk on Mars before humans first step foot on the moon again. quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
I admire Chet for his tenacity in pursuing the Constellation dream, but, as has been explained elsewhere in this thread, it just ain't going to happen. It is time to move on.
Not without a say from Congress, first; and my concerns have less to do with Constellation specifically, and more to do with an abdication of a leadership role for America in space. quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
While I certainly agree that more spending is needed worldwide, it is interesting to see the case be made that the United States needn't lead the world in science.
I'd be quite satisfied having other nations lead the world in "science", thanks (at least in the sense of the way the "study" of Earth science has been conducted recently). It's of much greater importance, in my opinion, that the U.S. lead the world in technology, where there's no "consensus" necessary to see whether something does or doesn't work. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 03-05-2010 09:11 AM
Delta IV proves its versatility again. If there is some compromise reached, my hope this rocket will be entrusted to launch NASA astronauts. |
ross426
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 03-05-2010 10:33 AM
I know this will sound outrageous, but didn't Kennedy's plan to go to the Moon in '61 seem crazy to some?Terra-forming Mars is a goal. I realize it would be an incredible achievement to send people to Mars and get them back in one piece, as it was for the Moon 40 years ago, but my thinking is, why spend trillions of dollars to send people without gaining something beyond exploration and scientific research. Zinc-sulfide will react with a carbon-dioxide atmosphere to create oxygen, similar to photosynthesis. Finding and dispersing that much zinc-sulfide could be a wee bit of a challenge! |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-05-2010 10:40 AM
Before any talk of terraforming, I think it is paramount we answer definitively (or at least as best as we can) the question if microbiological (or perhaps larger) life existed/continues to exist on Mars and if it does, whether it was transposed (i.e. panspermia) or native to the Red Planet. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 03-05-2010 12:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I think it is paramount we answer definitively (or at least as best as we can) the question if microbiological (or perhaps larger) life existed/continues to exist on Mars...
Yet another reason why the Administrator's remarks about the agency's Mars objective do not add up. This, the possibility of present biological activity is a potentially huge problem. To understand if it is a real problem will most likely require several sample return missions, each with a turn-around time of two years. Some will likely fail, which will require additional flights, more time, and large sums of money. This part of a Mars venture could easily take 10 years alone (and lots of money). Then there is the high data rate Mars communication infrastructure that needs to be established, etc., all of which will require time, most likely heavy lift, and lots and lots of money... and the Administrator is going to Mars by 2030 with not even the money to build heavy lift 'till a few years before then? Yet one more reason the proposed change in NASA direction is heavily flawed. |
jhtech2
Member Posts: 21
From: New Mexico
Registered: Feb 2010
|
posted 03-05-2010 01:23 PM
I especially appreciate BNoroton's level headed words and Chet's passionate position on this forum.The last crew to explore the surface of the Moon, Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt, are also strongly opposed to the proposed changes. And, in a story from Jay Barbree, Neil Armstrong himself called the President. (We have to keep working on Buzz though!) I was wondering if Chet and BNoroton might be interested in just defending the clear and solid Moon-Mars vision, the VSE, instead of necessarily defending the VSE via Constellation or SSDHLV etc. Also, this is kind of wild, and I know issman cares a lot about this topic but, to help the budget, to help us continue with this obvious and more attainable goal of the moon, is there any possibility that ESA would be able to take ISS control at their facilities, or take over more of it even here in the states? This would be to financially aid the vision we have spent so much effort building for. Also, thank you very much for the Orion discussion. Not far away from me here in New Mexico, we have a launch test coming up related to Orion. An exciting test launch of the abort system with an Orion capsule in a month or so. Thanks again. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-05-2010 01:37 PM
Is this the article to which you refer? Apollo 11 Neil Armstrong Calls Bolden |
jhtech2
Member Posts: 21
From: New Mexico
Registered: Feb 2010
|
posted 03-05-2010 01:51 PM
That's the one, with Neil Armstrong and Bolden. I was kind of thinking of your discussion above about apportioning NASA's budget when I made the earlier comment. I posed the unusual question of offloading some of the ISS to ESA (if they would even support that) so that the US can continue its pathfinding work toward the Moon. Also, it's a thorny matter wanting to take from R&D, as you were discussing above, Spaceaholic. But, for myself anyway, I really agree wiht you that continuing to hold other things down a bit in the budget to help get us to the Moon and beyond soon, may be the right thing to do. I think it's that important, with other nations going there and with three major lunar landing missions slated this decade. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 03-05-2010 02:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
whether it was transposed (i.e. panspermia) or native to the Red Planet.
Panspermia? Now there's posh!  |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-05-2010 03:46 PM
NASA Watch: Message from the Administrator During a Strategic Management Council meeting on Tuesday, I asked JSC Director Mike Coats and MSFC Director Robert Lightfoot to put together a very small team to help me develop an accelerated plan for research and development on a heavy lift launch vehicle for future exploration, in support of that element of the President's FY11 NASA budget. Regrettably, this was subsequently reported by the news media as a request for a "Plan B" alternative to the President's budget. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 03-06-2010 12:14 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jhtech2:
I was wondering if Chet and BNoroton might be interested in just defending the clear and solid Moon-Mars vision, the VSE, instead of necessarily defending the VSE via Constellation or SSDHLV etc.
I support an announced clear goal and timeframe for returning to the moon, because of all an undertaking such as that would entail, and produce; shooting for Mars at this stage is, in my opinion, the same as someone calling for sending men to the moon only moments after the Wright Bros. first flight at Kitty Hawk. |
DChudwin
Member Posts: 1121
From: Lincolnshire IL USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 03-06-2010 07:18 PM
Former shuttle manager and NASA blogger Wayne Hale has written a fascinating blogpost about what it takes to man-rate a spacecraft. This is an important topic with respect to NASA's proposed new approach because commercial companies will have to follow these excruciatingly detailed procedures if their rockets or spacecraft are going to carry humans to space. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 03-07-2010 12:57 AM
Thanks for the link. If anybody reading that thinks a commercial firm can design, build and man-rate a multi-person spacecraft in 2 years, they are nuts!I like this quotable line from Wayne: “Six years after the loss of Columbia, I’m not sure that we can make a spacecraft safe, but I have empirical evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we can make it expensive.” |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 03-07-2010 08:35 AM
What I find truly depressing is that there is more of an effort to build rockets to carry all manner of weaponary, but none to launch people into orbit.Once again, it comes down to political will. And what we are seeing is Kosmas, Shelby, Hutchinson, Giffords, Olson, Nelson and the rest making a pitch on behalf of America's aerospace monopoly. And where was their criticism of Bush and the Republican-led House and Senate when Constellation was starved of funding? Not only are these Congressional and Senate lobbyists unwilling to give the commercial guys a chance, but they also want the Shuttle to fly till 2015! |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 03-07-2010 09:06 AM
Coincidentally Aviation Week has an article about future Chinese launchers, including a Saturn V-class booster. I know it's Aviation Week but... |
bobzz
Member Posts: 100
From: Batavia, Illinois
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 03-07-2010 10:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
What I find truly depressing is that there is more of an effort to build rockets to carry all manner of weaponary, but none to launch people into orbit.
Providing a defense shield for the free world is an expensive and a heavy moral responsibility. No one else is up to the task. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-07-2010 10:09 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
What I find truly depressing is that there is more of an effort to build rockets to carry all manner of weaponry, but none to launch people into orbit.
Most peaceful space launch capabilities have been spawned or benefited from systems which were originally developed for weaponry or other military space support missions (i.e. launch of communications/intel/weather satellite). Too, major aerospace companies in the field simply could not remain in business exclusively focusing on human space flight as it represents an insubstantial component of their revenue stream. Rather then being depressed, you should take heart the DOD's requirements for space access continues to stand in the way of complete atrophic loss of the industry. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 03-07-2010 10:34 AM
I'm not concerned if Boeing, Lockheed Martin or ATK want to build missiles for the Pentagon.But why should they have a clique-like role in NASA's evolution? That's what the whole Obama proposal is about - opening human spaceflight to a whole new genre of companies. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-07-2010 10:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
That's what the whole Obama proposal is about - opening human spaceflight to a whole new genre of companies.
Actually, that is not what the President's proposal is at all: the commercial cargo services contract was limited to start-ups, but the commercial crew services contract, as proposed, would be open to all companies. During one of its meetings, the Augustine committee specifically highlighted that it was the likes of Boeing, Lockheed and ATK that should be selected for their years of experience building and operating manned spacecraft.That start-ups are taking part only illustrates that how far along they have come in the short time they have been around but for NASA's purposes, the goal is to change the business model, not necessarily the businesses. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 03-07-2010 10:58 AM
quote:
Originally posted by DChudwin:
what it takes to man-rate a spacecraft.
One needs to recall this discussion in the days of Apollo. What is an acceptable loss/failure rate? Do you test a part millions of times to find its failure rate or do you design it and build it right so that it won't fail? The choice has huge cost implications. For Apollo the failure rate was set at 999 for getting a crew back safely (or 999 times out of 1000). The rate for completing a set mission was set at 99, i.e 99 times in a hundred. A shift in the decimal point one place to the left would have made the mission so expensive as to be unaffordable. Hence, the components of the moon vehicle were designed and built with these safety constraints in mind. As far as the Saturn V was concerned, von Braun was asked how reliable the rocket was. He asked, "Is there any reason why it won't work?" Four of his lieutenants answered "Nein", where upon von Braun said that the Saturn had a reliability of four 9's. |
Topic Closed
advertisement