|
Author
|
Topic: Constellation cancelled: NASA's new approach
|
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 02-08-2010 08:24 AM
   
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
This wasn't the plan; rather it was the recommendation of the Augustine Committee...
The $3B per year number was from the out-years 2008 NASA budget, which was of course released before the Augustine commission did its work.Any way you slice it, the President's proposal for NASA's manned space flight budget is a cut over previous plans. I am quite confident that Walt Cunningham is smart enough to be aware of (and to have read) the President's NASA budget proposal. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-08-2010 07:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
The $3B per year number was from the out-years 2008 NASA budget...
I misunderstood the $3 billion reference you were making. Not that you are suggesting otherwise, but to be clear, the Constellation out-year funding in the FY2008 budget wasn't from new money, but rather re-appropriation from within NASA's existing budget, such that Constellation would inherit the retiring space shuttle's allocation as well as money from further cuts to space and life science research. President Obama's budget proposal doesn't remove that funding from NASA, but does reallocate some of it in the out-years given the proposed "strategic pause" (as coined by a fellow journalist) to plan a fiscally and technologically-sound path beyond low Earth orbit. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-09-2010 07:05 AM
As someone who is a proponent of "Flexible Path", is there any provision for developing Single Stage To Orbit engines?NASA administrator Bolden speaks of "game-changing" technologies, and SSTO would be just that. |
cpd201
Member Posts: 14
From: North Carolina
Registered: Jan 2007
|
posted 02-09-2010 08:25 AM
As I prepare to take a group of middle-school children to Space Camp, I am sad and angry that our manned space program is being thrown away. On many levels this is wrong. It is national pride, it is the advancement of science and technology, it's something we could all be excited about. It's also thousands of jobs, both with NASA and the private sector, that will be lost. In a time when jobs are in peril and we are supposed to be looking for ways to make jobs for Americans, the President just ended many jobs by cutting the manned space program from the budget. So much for hope and change! NASA should be allowed to continue doing what they are best at, putting people in space! NASA should not become the newest "global warming department" for the government. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-09-2010 09:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
As someone who is a proponent of "Flexible Path", is there any provision for developing Single Stage To Orbit engines?
I don't know. But if we're talking about the need of a heavy lift vehicle, HLV, ("everybody wants it", said Bolden) in 15 years time (mid-2020s), SSTO will much further down the road.And by the way, don't the twin SRBs, the ET and three SSME actually form an HLV? It sounds like 15 years to reinvent the wheel. But then, when you do have an HLV, you need a vehicle and a destination... will those two be funded? If not it's like putting the carriage before the horse. In French, we would say "drowning the fish". At least until we get more information... |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-09-2010 10:30 AM
SSTO is the key to "routine access to space", NASA's original mantra for the Space Shuttle.But Bolden mentioned "reliable and redundant" access. This is where the commercial is ideally suited to provide ISS crew and cargo launches. Beyond LEO, will require either the man-rating of existing Delta IV or Atlas V launchers, developing Ares IV (which ATK had on its drawing board) or something like Jupiter Direct or Shuttle-C. It would be a major mistake to not let NASA be the vanguard of deep-space exploration. |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 02-09-2010 11:52 AM
America has been reduced to sending men into space aboard Russian spacecraft. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-09-2010 12:38 PM
Since we are making up history, I much prefer one more in line with what actually transpired. Picture this scene in the early sixties... President John F. Kennedy conveys word to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev that he envisions a time when both countries will work together, when Americans will ride on Russian spacecraft and Russians will work within U.S. outposts, and together with both nations' international partners they will reap the benefit of learning how humans can live and work in space while accomplishing the largest and most complex engineering feat in the history of spaceflight, if not the world itself. Because what spaceflight teaches above all else is that we are all Earthlings and that space exploration is not a competition but rather an endeavor that all nations should undertake together. |
Colin E. Anderton
Member Posts: 63
From: Newmarket, Suffolk, England
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 02-09-2010 12:56 PM
Sorry Robert - I agree with Rob! He's hit the nail right on the head.
|
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-09-2010 01:25 PM
Here's a very compelling editorial, for those members willing to look beyond the fact that it was published in The New York Times.Here's the key line, from my perspective: If done right, the president’s strategy could pay off handsomely. If not, it could be the start of a long, slow decline from the nation’s pre-eminent position as a space-faring power. The trick is going to be in doing it right. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 02-09-2010 01:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by robsouth:
"I envisage a time when the superior Russian system of socialism is responsible for launching men into space to an orbiting platform.”
Did this imaginary Khrushchev admit to the imaginary Kennedy that they had to rely mostly on American engineering, dollars, and spacecraft to build this orbiting outpost? Did he also admit that they would need to accept American dollars... and money from wealthy capitalist spaceflight tourists... to help fund the launch of their own rockets to this outpost?I prefer to believe the scenario that Robert lays out, because I believe international cooperation is the future of human spaceflight. If we have to continually keep dragging our borders up into space, we'll all be doomed to go nowhere. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-09-2010 01:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Colin E. Anderton:
Sorry Robert - I agree with Rob! He's hit the nail right on the head.
Except, of course, Rob would need to add that Khrushchev also envisioned that his government would be overthrown, and his nation is now a federal semi-presidential democratic republic (whatever that is).For what it's worth, I think Robert is closer to the fact. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-09-2010 05:06 PM
Robert, your example unfortunately uses the surreal "is not a" (space exploration is not a competition but rather an endeavor that all nations should undertake together) rather than the realistic "shouldn't be".As a nation, decisions need to be based on how things really are, not as we might wish them to be; American preeminence is as crucial in space as it is here on Earth. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-09-2010 05:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Since we are making up history, I much prefer one more in line with what actually transpired. Picture this scene in the early sixties...
I envision more of the truth - Kennedy in trying to save a major disaster early in his Presidency needed to try and turn the tide against or risk being a one term President. He sets a bold course in a slight if hand move in the hopes the US could actually pull it off.Had Mr. Kennedy not been murdered and served two terms, I doubt we would have gotten to the moon. His death was the rallying cry for the moon missions. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 02-09-2010 05:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
President John F. Kennedy conveys word to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev that he envisions a time when both countries will work together...
Kennedy's proposal to the USSR is, of course, an established fact. The unknowns are many. Was he being sincere (probably), or was he trying to force the USSR to be the "bad guys" by declining the invitation? What if the USSR had said "yes"? Would we have merged our lunar programs (unlikely)? The goal in counter-factual history should be to illuminate what did happen, not to try to speculate on what might have happened. There are simply too many variables in play, each of which would then have cascading effects on other related and unrelated events. Interestingly, following President Kennedy's UN speech, and following the ensuing internal US debate over the merits (or lack thereof) of such an international lunar plan, a measure was added into the NASA appropriation bill for the next three years prohibiting cooperation with ANY other country on a lunar program without the expressed permission of Congress. So, unless Kennedy had been willing to veto Congress' budget bills, his (possible) desire for a joint lunar program would have been challenging to pursue. Again, revisionary history is difficult (impossible?) to construct. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 02-10-2010 12:23 AM
There were a few things that transpired behind the scenes leading to Kennedy's extension of that olive branch. Both sides had began private discussions as Hugh Dryden and A. Blagonravov met prior to Kennedy's intention for a joint moon flight to hammer out some early details for science sharing and possibly participating in a joint space project. What ultimately came of those talks would eventually lead to ASTP.Politicians are funny things as nobody really knows exactly what they are thinking when they do something. That is why they are good politicians and likely good poker players. Maybe Kennedy was sincere about a joint moon flight or maybe he was trying to make the Soviets look bad. But Khrushchev was known for doing similar things and when one becomes president, they tend to have to learn on the job quick. Of course even if the Soviets under Khrushchev had wanted to take part in a joint flight, it likely would have become a moot point when he was removed from the Soviet leadership in 1964 during the flight of Voskhod 1. The leadership after that tended to take more of a harder line stance then Nikita did (although talks between Blagonravov and Dryden did continue). |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-10-2010 11:29 AM
Let's bring this thread back to its topic... The Boston Globe: Mission correction The pattern is typical, said David Mindell, an MIT professor and one of the authors of a 2008 report title "The Future of Human Spaceflight.""The fact is if you look at the history of major technologies, from mechanical manufacturing all the way to computers, it's often the case that the federal government is in the game for about 40 years and then it's time to go to private industry," Mindell said. "That's not why they made that decision, but it's typical. Is it risky? Yeah. Do we know how it's going to come out? No. I think it's exciting." |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-10-2010 12:25 PM
The MIT professor makes the valid argument that government nurtured what was a fledgling technology decades ago, only to let free-enterprise take the reins.Is it risky? No more than Virgin Galactic and SpaceShipTwo. The likes of Burt Rutan have been around for as long as some NASA veterans. But like Rutan, we need an injection of youth and new ideas. I for one am glad this US president is prepared to give Elon Musk and others that chance. |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 02-10-2010 01:21 PM
The comparison doesn't address the central issue at all; has government ever turned it's back on a field before when the private enterprise technology was so nascent? And critically in this case, so inferior in it's capabilities?For NASA to give way to private enterprise is one thing; for NASA to be stopped dead in it's task of manned exploration in order to create an artificial demand and thus kickstart the commercial sector is quite another. |
tegwilym
Member Posts: 2339
From: Sturgeon Bay, WI
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 02-10-2010 03:46 PM
I just got back from the launch of STS-130 and had a great time down there at Kennedy Space Center. I saw the new exhibit at the Visitor Center about the Constellation project. The exhibit was very nicely done, and kind of inspiring... then you remember that it's all done. Sad.Another question came to my mind, what will launch the James Webb telescope in 2013? Wasn't the Ares V going to lift that? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-10-2010 03:58 PM
The Webb telescope is slated to launch on an Ariane V from Guiana Space Centre in Kourou in 2014. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 02-10-2010 06:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Is it risky? No more than Virgin Galactic and SpaceShipTwo.
When the other technological examples gave way to private industry in the past, they had (in my opinion) two things in common: - There was a market for the product, and the product was developed to the point where it could be effectively marketed (the rise of the airline industry in the late 40's and 50's is an example).
- If the commercial companies failed, their failure did not place US interests at risk.
Neither of those conditions currently exist in the case of manned space flight.And if Virgin Galactic fails, the only thing lost will be the ability of some tourists to take a sub-orbital joy ride into the upper atmosphere. I sure hope outsourcing US manned space flight works. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-11-2010 09:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
I sure hope outsourcing US manned space flight works.
I keep reading that certain members of the US House and Senate will oppose the budget. Instead of being terrified about "outsourcing", shouldn't they lobby for the continuation of Orion? And also ask for additional funding to man-rate existing launchers such as Atlas V and Delta IV. The commercial guys can focus on supplying cargo to ISS and still plan for crew. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 02-11-2010 09:33 AM
Looks like Mike and Denise Okuda have come up with a rallying cry website to help people who want to write Congress to express their concerns about the killing of Constellation.This is about as non-partisan as it gets and there is no backing of the site from any government contractors. It is at least worth having a look. |
DChudwin
Member Posts: 1121
From: Lincolnshire IL USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 02-11-2010 12:38 PM
There is a good summary of NASA's predicament in an article in the Washington Post by Joel Achenbach. |
Apollo Redux
Member Posts: 346
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Registered: Sep 2006
|
posted 02-11-2010 05:16 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm sick and tired of anyone trying to say an extra billion dollars a year, for the exploration of Space (pretty big place, huh?!) is something to crow about.It's pathetic.  |
ozspace
Member Posts: 241
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2009
|
posted 02-12-2010 12:54 AM
This is an excellent piece on the Obama Administration's new space policy by former Senator and Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, worth a read if you care about human space flight. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-12-2010 06:38 AM
Charles Krauthamer: Closing the New Frontier: At the peak of the Apollo program, NASA was consuming almost 4 percent of the federal budget, which in terms of the 2011 budget is about $150 billion. Today the manned space program will die for want of $3 billion a year -- 1/300th of last year's stimulus package with its endless make-work projects that will leave not a trace on the national consciousness.As for President Obama's commitment to beyond-lunar space: Has he given a single speech, devoted an iota of political capital to it? Obama's NASA budget perfectly captures the difference in spirit between Kennedy's liberalism and Obama's. Kennedy's was an expansive, bold, outward-looking summons. Obama's is a constricted inward-looking call to retreat. Fifty years ago, Kennedy opened the New Frontier. Obama has just shut it. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-12-2010 10:15 AM
Here's an op-ed which weighs the pros and cons of the new plan in a balanced way. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-12-2010 01:40 PM
Krauthammer's article (Closing the New Frontier) is excellent, and nails what is really going on - Obama's plan, intentionally or not, will kill not just America's lead in space, but our ability (now, and permanently) to ever send humans into LEO or deeper space (unless we're just hitching rides with some other nations' space programs... and so what's the point of Americans going at all?).Considering NASA's miniscule share of the federal budget (especially when weighed against its share during the days of Apollo), this is the surrendering of American leadership on an almost unimaginable scale - the equivalent of selling Alaska back to the Russians for the original (i.e. non-inflation adjusted) price. Turning our space program over to the private sector, with its current capabilities, is like giving a contract to build Navy aircraft carriers to a startup company in Iowa... it makes the Obama plan the equivalent of closing the fuel cell react valves on Apollo 13; once closed it/they can't be re-opened again... it's effectively the aborting of America's mission of leading the world in space exploration. Anyone thinking this won't play a role in America becoming a second (or third) rate power in the world (with all that implies), had better think again. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-12-2010 02:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
Turning our space program over to the private sector, with its current capabilities...
Those "current capabilities" were to develop, build and operate Orion, Ares I and Ares V, so unless you were equally doubtful of Constellation's capabilities your concern is misplaced. The private sector is Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, ATK, United Space Alliance, United Launch Alliance, Oceaneering and every other NASA contractor you can list. The capabilities aren't changing; only the way of doing business and that change has been building momentum for at least the past two decades. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-12-2010 02:34 PM
I have a lot of respect for Harrison Schmitt, but I think he may be a bit swayed by partisanship here (he was a Congressman from the other party, after all). His entire argument is premised on the assumption that Obama is ordering an abandonment of US involvement in Human Space Flight.While this is a conclusion that many may be drawing, especially those with an axe to grind against Obama, it's not reflected in the actual budget request. One may speculate on the end result of the proposed change in direction, but it seems unfair to read something into it that isn't there. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-12-2010 03:10 PM
Yes, Robert, the private sector has always been involved, in that NASA never really built any of America's spaceships itself. But then, the directives always came from NASA - it wasn't as if Grumman or Boeing were going to build a Lunar Module or Lunar Rover in the absence of NASA's contracting for those vehicles.The Obama plan for NASA is the equivalent of assembling a group of musicians in a music hall and telling them all to just play their instruments, without a common piece of written music, or single leader with a baton, to guide them. How long would any musician agree to stay, and how long would any patron remain willing to fund such an "endeavor"? |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-12-2010 03:11 PM
I have no axe to grind with the President, nor was I a supporter of President Bush; nevertheless, in my opinion the proposed plan is an end to US manned spaceflight if the budget is passed exactly as written. If the commercial marketplace is to pick up the cost, where is the business model that supports the billions of dollars of investment required? I believe Airbus spent over $12 Billion on development of their jumbo jet, a deviation from a product they build every day and will sale to fly multiple times daily. One can expect a manned system to cost much more even by the most conservative measure. Which one of the contractors (Boeing, etc.), who have the capital, would risk it for the sale of a few flights to NASA a year, maybe four per year, to ISS? Plus, after the craft is be operational, ISS will be approaching the end of its lifetime, imposing more of a return on investment problem. If there is to be something after ISS, what? Again, it is business model! Manned (Human) spaceflight has a long path to go before it is remotely out of governments' domain.The major contractors are not the ones to build you say? Then use companies such as SpaceX? Let's count the number of successful rocket launches: 1. How many vehicles have they flown capable of carrying a crew to orbit? 0. How much experience do they have designing manned spacecraft? none. Is there any evidence to support a claim, regardless of how good an engineering company SpaceX many in fact be, that their company can build a craft and operate it at a profit? no. (This does not mean they cannot, it just implies the obvious: it's a huge gamble that will probably end bad.) Do you really believe they, SpaceX or any other "commercial" company, have the "silver bullet" that will suddenly make manned spaceflight "cheap"? There are many more fair questions to ask (about national security, US technolgy marketing, etc.). For more of a start of why concern is has nothing to do with not liking President Obama, watch the NASA Administrator's press conference at the Cape before the first planned STS-130 launch. I found it to be very depressing. I respectly question an opinion where the response, be it in support of the current or former administration, is that one has an "axe to grind." |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-12-2010 03:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The capabilities aren't changing; only the way of doing business and that change has been building momentum for at least the past two decades.
The capabilities will have to change in line with whatever adjusted nebulous objectives the administration has for NASA's human spaceflight mission. A major risk resulting from this shift in acquisition strategy is a decoupling of requirements from the industry offered solution (we see this all the time on the DOD side when there is an attempt to leverage COTS solutions for combat applications). There is often a mismatch in performance, reliability, interoperability which degrade rather then enhance combat effectiveness; and the fixes ultimately can become more costly then if a MILSPEC solution had been originally pursued.The capability delta would also extend to differences between the skill sets and resources either resident within NASA or automatically accessible to that organization as a result of its integration into the federal government. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-12-2010 03:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
I respectfully question an opinion where the response, be it in support of the current or former administration, is that one has an "axe to grind."
I didn't accuse you, or anyone else, of having an axe to grind. I merely said that many of those who have read more into Obama's request than is justified by the actual content of that request have an axe to grind. Read Schmitt's opinion again if you missed his explicit swipe at Obama. |
bobzz
Member Posts: 100
From: Batavia, Illinois
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 02-12-2010 04:50 PM
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.
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-13-2010 12:09 AM
My prediction... you'll be proven wrong next month when SIX Americans (and one Japanese) venture into earth orbit on an American vehicle on or about March 18. |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 02-13-2010 03:43 AM
Robert, you seem to be picking people up on fringe inaccuracies but not offering a clear answer to any of the central concerns being offered by pro-Constellation/anti-flexible path posters.Is your position based on an optimistic disposition or do you actually have specific insights into the issues raised over the last few pages that we're not privy to? |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 02-13-2010 06:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
My prediction... you'll be proven wrong next month when SIX Americans (and one Japanese) venture into earth orbit on an American vehicle on or about March 18.
Clearly, the post was meant for AFTER the freaking shuttle program ends. |
Topic Closed
advertisement