|
Author
|
Topic: [Discussion] The President's revised plan for NASA
|
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 04-29-2010 12:01 AM
   
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
And no more NASA budget to the tune of 5% of total Federal expenditures.
Hey we can't get it even to 2%. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1388
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 04-29-2010 08:02 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
I think the new timelines specified by Obama (2025 for the asteroid flyby and 2030s for a Mars flyby) give NASA lots of margin to avoid error. In many ways, it's much more challenging than Constellation.
I know there is no convincing the "believers" of this new course, but you have basically made my point for me. It DEFERS any real exploration for decades to come, and in the absence of a real program with real goals and a real timeline, leaves NASA vulnerable to the whims of future politicians. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-29-2010 08:25 AM
You want a deadline not a timeline. But hasn't NASA history (post-Apollo) shown that deadlines bring their own complications and are unrealistic?Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. But if it's any consolation, a future US president might amend the initial destination (lunar instead of asteroid). And that's space exploration however you look at it. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1388
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 04-29-2010 09:17 AM
No, no deadlines, just a real plan that actually involves flying astronauts in space and going someplace in our lifetimes.Read through the ESMD plans and see if you can find any mention of manned space exploration anytime in the near future. Some of these "enabling technologies" may never pan out, so why are we putting them up as a roadblock to exploration? Yes they need to be developed and that will take years, but I'd rather be using the technology we have today to go to some of these destinations while we wait for those to come along. Pushing a decision on heavy lift out five more years is a prime example of this "foot dragging" policy. With the right goals and the right leadership we could be cutting metal on a big rocket in that time or less. Commercial crew transportation may never pan out, so why are we holding ourselves hostage to the Russians and allowing them to set the market on ISS access? If Falcon 9 fails on it's maiden flight (I'm not expecting it to) how will that change the current discussion? I think that reality for the "believers" will set in only after the shuttle is retired and many long years begin passing without the U.S. flying a manned flight. Occasional updates on the latest incremental step in what was it? Oh, "game changing technologies" will wear thin after awhile with politicians and taxpayers alike. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 04-29-2010 09:17 AM
Why are goals and timelines so bad? We use them every day in our personal lives and in business. Every federal agency has one -- so should NASA, unless of course there is a hidden agenda. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-29-2010 09:38 AM
So let's compare timelines as they stand today...Around 2025: - Constellation: lands a crew of four on the Moon;
- President's plan: flies a crew to an asteroid (spacecraft doesn't land but crew interacts with the asteroid either by robotic arm or EVA or both);
Around 2035: - Constellation: continues to land a crew on the Moon, four people every six months, as they work to build an outpost (i.e. space station on the Moon);
- President's plan: crew orbits Mars (possibly interacts with the surface through telerobotics and/or rendezvous with a sample return robotic mission)
Around 2050: - Constellation: still on the Moon; outpost complete; research beginning on how to go to Mars.
- President's plan: Manned landing on Mars. Flights capable of going to asteroids and the Moon (orbit, at least) as well.
There's the established timeline for both. No destinations are reached before 2025 by either plan, so unless you are suggesting throwing out both Constellation and the President's proposal for something completely different, then let's stop repeating the false criticism that the status quo gets us anywhere faster than the plan on the table.Further, this idea put forth by some that one is more realistic than the other is pure speculation. Both face the same political hurdles, both face technical challenges, both face funding issues. So, let's drop that too -- they both have a chance to fail or succeed. They both hinge on us picking a plan and sticking to it. We didn't stick to Constellation even before the current plan. We debated alternate architectures, debated sortie vs. outpost objectives, and traded on other details. If funding was the biggest hurdle to Constellation's success (and the kingpin to its failure), a close second was the work being actively and knowingly done by space enthusiasts to use the media to undermine its progress by putting forth their own "better" ideas while spreading misinformation about the program of record. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-29-2010 10:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
Why are goals and timelines so bad?
But there is a goal: an asteroid flyby.And a timeline: between Shuttle retirement and 2025. What more do skeptics want? If Obama has an "agenda" it's his own re-election. But if one is to follow the withering criticism he's received, it suggests Obama has jeopardized that. Inspite of that, he's challenging the best minds in America to do something never attempted in history: send a crew to a distant heavenly body (beyond the Moon) and return them safely. Now that hardly sounds like a president who wants to end NASA human spaceflight. To me (anyway), he's the only world leader that wants to establish the foundations of a spacefaring civilisation. |
ross426
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 04-29-2010 04:24 PM
Are there tests being conducted NOW on the Orion spacecraft? I watched a science program that illustrated the launch escape system for the Orion. Is this recent? |
alanh_7
Member Posts: 1267
From: Ajax, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 04-29-2010 04:33 PM
I saw the same thing on a show called Daily Planet on Discovery Channel Canada. Robert responded earlier in this thread. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-29-2010 04:39 PM
The Pad Abort-1 test will be conducted on May 6. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 04-29-2010 08:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
So let's compare timelines as they stand today...Around 2035: - Constellation: continues to land a crew on the Moon, four people every six months, as they work to build an outpost (i.e. space station on the Moon);
- President's plan: crew orbits Mars (possibly interacts with the surface through telerobotics and/or rendezvous with a sample return robotic mission)
Did I miss something? From the text of the President's speech at KSC: "Early in the next decade, a set of crewed flights will test and prove the systems required for exploration beyond low Earth orbit. (Applause.) And by 2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the Moon into deep space. (Applause.) So we’ll start -- we’ll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history. (Applause.) By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow. And I expect to be around to see it. Was there something more specific that I missed? Sure doesn't sound like specific goals to me, by a long shot. Terms like "we expect" and "I believe we can send" ...not even close to being as specific as the timeline you suggested in your post. Therefore, I know you must have some other source that I am unaware of.I won't even go into the fact that he suggests that the DESIGN for the heavy lift rocket will be selected by not later than about a year before he would leave office if he gets a second term. Well, maybe by then we'll have a better idea regarding whether the commercial launch providers are on track to launch humans into LEO. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-29-2010 09:19 PM
President Bush was no more specific on January 14, 2004 and most of his goals announced that day were set well beyond his second term in office. And yet (a) we got Constellation and (b) it was NASA, not the President, that announced Ares and Orion a full two years later.So to nitpick President Obama's speech is disingenuous and unproductive. Again, I suggest we look at what the two programs are intended to accomplish and weigh them against each other. Is that really an unreasonable idea? |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 04-29-2010 11:52 PM
Behind all the very interesting give and take on this thread, there is something sad. Instead of focusing on what is best for manned spaceflight, I sense an underlying feeling out here, that if someone hates the President, then they hate this plan and vice versa. I don't care who the President is who proposed this plan, I would be against it. I think the anti-NASA crowd will rip apart a plan to go to an asteroid. Do we really want to go 15 years without a U.S. manned program besides a few flights per year to the ISS? I think NASA will become a distant memory to the public and I fear that a future President or Congress would find this the perfect time to pull the plug on the agency. |
Spacefest
Member Posts: 1168
From: Tucson, AZ
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 04-30-2010 12:23 AM
There was only ONE first time. Apollo can NEVER happen again, that was a "perfect storm" of nationalism, a threat, a smart President and successor, a sympathetic Congress, and a good economy.Even going to Mars won't top it. If you're looking for a leader to make bold statements, detailed timelines, minutiae... it ain't gonna happen. Nevermore. If you missed it, TOUGH, at least the major players are still alive. I feel sorry for you. You missed the Beatles, too. Shame on you for being young! We went nearly SIX YEARS between ASTP and STS-1. The Russians wouldn't fly us. Boo-Hoo, no manned launches from the Cape for a few years. Get off my lawn! |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 04-30-2010 01:46 AM
My "only" problem - and then I'm not a US citizen so it's not my tax dollars - is that the post shuttle we're about to witness is similar to the post-Apollo era. After spending hundreds of billions of dollars on one program (Apollo, Shuttle), "everything" is thrown away and the US starts from scratch again. I certainly do not agree with those anti-Government folks but there are times where it's plain obvious that the Government is unable (or unwilling) to manage its investments (your tax dollars) over the long-term. Sure, after Apollo we knew the Shuttle was coming and some of the infrastructure was reused (VAB, pads) but regarding the flight hardware, no. No improvements (other versions of the Saturn 1B for example), no other shuttles (smaller vehicles - although look at the Air Force X-37, how ironic!) despite decades of development and operations. See how Ariane moved from Ariane 1 to 4. Granted, comes a point where there's a need for a radical technological change (Ariane 5). Does the actual presidential plan offer such radical change? In operations (pseudo "commercial" sector) maybe, but no improvements from actual programs (a heavy lift already exists; why develop a kerosene engine that matches the performance of existing engines; over reliance on one basket - the ISS, etc.). Of course comes the notion of cost. The shuttle is too expensive and now that the ISS is "complete" (where is the original hardware the US was supposed to build?) the shuttle served its "purpose" - although are we sure that all possible Spacelab flights have been done?. The Saturn launch vehicles faced the same problem - too expensive, too big, and nowhere to go (the continuation of the Moon's exploration wasn't deemed that worthwhile). And robotic exploration also is a victim of all this. Mars may be the "ultimate destination" (questionable - Saturn's moons may well be more important) so where are the Spirit and Opportunity, version 2, 3, 4. etc. Again incremental development of successful hardware (like Ariane). Instead, we have this monster (MSL) which is another example of "let's place all our eggs in one basket." And then the crucial point: the lack of long-term vision, something politicians have a hard time incorporating into their policies (not specific to the space program, alas). What is the space program which would gather enough bipartisan support over several years, in terms of objectives and costs? We still haven't found the answer to this question. And until we do, spaceflight will remain this emotional roller-coaster, with its ups and downs, and its waste of resources. With past and existing vehicles ending up in Museum. Until the next ones show up - but this time, there's nothing on the horizon... My two cents. Unless I missed something. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 04-30-2010 07:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Again, I suggest we look at what the two programs are intended to accomplish and weigh them against each other. Is that really an unreasonable idea?
Not unreasonable at all. Just pointing out that you were suggesting a bit more of a firm timeline for President Obama's plan than his own words allow for. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-30-2010 08:11 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
I think the anti-NASA crowd will rip apart a plan to go to an asteroid. Do we really want to go 15 years without a U.S. manned program besides a few flights per year to the ISS?
To address your second question first... under Constellation, it was worse. Not only would there be no U.S. manned flights (commercial or otherwise) for at least seven years, by the time Ares I/Orion was ready, the ISS would have been deorbited and so we'd have a launch vehicle with no where to go for another eight years until Ares V was ready.Under the President's proposal, commercial flights come into service in 2015 (perhaps sooner), U.S. astronauts continue to fly to the ISS on Soyuz, and manned demonstration flights of new exploration technologies begin about five years later. And that's all before we go to an asteroid. Now about your first point -- just yesterday, for the first time, scientists announced evidence of water ice, as well as organic compounds, on an asteroid -- "findings that bolster a leading theory for the origins of life on Earth." If water on the Moon drives interest in the Moon and water on Mars drives interest on Mars, then certainly water on an asteroid can do the same -- especially when it directly relates to how life started here, on Earth. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-30-2010 10:05 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
are we sure that all possible Spacelab flights have been done?
It does surprise me that Germany cancelled the Spacelab D-3 mission and that ESA decided on no further Spacelab missions after Neurolab. That said, Columbus is ESA's foothold in orbit. But its astronauts must hitch rides on either the US shuttle (as Italian astronaut Roberto Vittori soon will) or Russia's Soyuz (like compatriot Paolo Nespoli). Instead of relying on foreign nations, shouldn't ESA now request EU ministers to provide funding to convert ATV into a manned spacecraft? Japan should do likewise with its HTV. And with the ISS lifetime being extended till at least 2020, it makes perfect sense. |
KSCartist
Member Posts: 3047
From: Titusville, FL
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 04-30-2010 10:55 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Instead of relying on foreign nations, shouldn't ESA now request EU ministers to provide funding to convert ATV into a manned spacecraft? Japan should do likewise with its HTV.
That is an excellent idea. The sooner, the better. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 04-30-2010 11:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
That said, Columbus is ESA's foothold in orbit.
True. But how do you get new experiments (racks) into orbit once the shuttle is retired? I'm not sure the shuttle would be suitable - a question of hatch size; I thought only the ATV had a larger hatch.You're absolutely right about man-rating the ATV and HTV. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-30-2010 11:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
But how do you get new experiments (racks) into orbit once the shuttle is retired?
ATV, HTV and soon Dragon and Cygnus -- all are capable/designed to deliver new racks to the ISS. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 05-02-2010 08:03 PM
No matter who you want to blame, the fact is that it is a disgrace that the U.S. will not have a major manned space effort for years or decades. We won't appreciate it until a few years from now when we see what we are missing. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-02-2010 08:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
We won't appreciate it until a few years from now when we see what we are missing.
Was it a disgrace that Europe, Japan, Canada, Brazil and Israel flew astronauts on another nation's spacecraft, namely ours? If not, then it's not a disgrace that our astronauts will continue to fly to the International Space Station on Russia's Soyuz. But I agree, we should have better planned and had a vehicle ready when the space shuttle ceased flying. We should have man-rated Delta IV and Atlas V years ago, and we should have bolstered commercial interests in crewed spacecraft side-by-side with the efforts to turn over unmanned launches to private industry. We should have been the first nation to embrace commercial human spaceflight, rather than the second behind Russia. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 05-02-2010 11:46 PM
It wasn't a disgrace for those nations to fly astronauts on the Shuttle since their space programs were either in their infancy or they had decided for whatever reasons, not to have an independent manned program like ours. I never said it was a disgrace to use Soyuz vehicles. It is a disgrace that our planning has been miserable, the same way that there shouldn't have been a six year gap between Apollo-Soyuz and the Shuttle. |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 05-03-2010 11:19 AM
Speaking on behalf of one of those nations I would like to suggest most strenuously that it IS a disgrace. There is nothing noble or clever about being too cheap or short sighted to prioritize (and invest properly) in manned space exploration. It wasn't manifest destiny that put the US at the forefront of space exploration, just money and sustained will.Protestations that the US will be comfortable with their new inferior manned capability remind me of someone discussing all the budgetary belt-tightening they're going to do - AFTER their next big shop... |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-03-2010 11:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Matt T:
Speaking on behalf of one of those nations I would like to suggest most strenuously that it IS a disgrace.
Isn't that a bit like the pot calling the kettle black? I mean, as long as you are speaking on behalf of ESA (I presume), are you suggesting their partner nations are less than noble and/or clever? And if so, shouldn't your focus be on improving your program before being critical of others?Personally, I don't think that what ESA and our other partner nations have done is a disgrace, nor do I think its a disgrace to partner with Russia to fly U.S. astronauts to the space station. You cannot see political borders from space, so why should it matter where you depart from to reach orbit? The Cold War was a convenient motivator for our early space achievements but moving forward, it need not be a race or a rivalry. |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 05-03-2010 02:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...as long as you are speaking on behalf of ESA (I presume), are you suggesting their partner nations are less than noble and/or clever?
I don't think could you have made my point any more convincingly for me. Yes Robert, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Britain and the rest of Europe's failure to engage with space on an equal footing with the US and Russia is a disgrace, just one that we're so used to we no longer even question it. quote:
Personally, I don't think that what ESA and our other partner nations have done is a disgrace
Oh really? You want to swap the last 50 years of US and European achievements in space?  It's exactly that sort of generous (maybe slightly condescending?) view that exemplifies the point I'm making. It's easy to talk up the benefits of multi-nation partnership while your partners are subordinate minor players regularly hitching rides on your manned vehicle; it will be quite another to step down from the podium and take your place amongst them. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 05-04-2010 02:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Matt T:
Britain and the rest of Europe's failure to engage with space on an equal footing with the US and Russia is a disgrace
You should have ran for Parliament  I seriously doubt the US is abdicating its position as a spacefaring nation. I'm more anxious and concerned that humanity may not realise its potential as a spacefaring civilisation. But that's why I'm optimistic about the Obama plan. I've not heard a peep about long-term goals for humans in space from any other head of state. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-04-2010 04:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Matt T:
It's easy to talk up the benefits of multi-nation partnership while your partners are subordinate minor players regularly hitching rides on your manned vehicle; it will be quite another to step down from the podium and take your place amongst them.
The largest laboratory on the International Space Station was built by Japan. The most science (at least until now) has been done in ESA's Columbus lab (the U.S. lab having had to support the life support equipment until the arrival of Node 3 Tranquility). Both Japan and ESA have launched their first resupply spacecraft. And without Canada's arm, there would be no station.These are not what I would call minor players. While launch services are important, they should not be the only measuring stick by which current space programs are measured. While I have very little doubt the U.S. will resume crewed launches before 2020 (if not before 2015), American astronauts have been launching on Russian Soyuz for more than a decade now (even exclusively between 2003 and 2005), so it's far less a step down than a lateral move. |
tetrox
Member Posts: 142
From: London England
Registered: Jan 2008
|
posted 05-04-2010 06:29 AM
Im curious as to what is actually involved in man rating launch vehicles such as Delta IV or Atlas V.Obviously I can see that factors such as cost, reliability, payload weights,pogo effects would come into any decision, but am wondering if there is something fundamental I am missing which prohibits them being used even as an interim step. |
dks13827
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 05-04-2010 01:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Bolden has said he feels NASA astronauts will reach Mars within his lifetime, and he is 63.
In my opinion, it won't happen, sad to say. Bolden is hard to respect, in my opinion. He got his flights, he sure does not care about the next group of spacefarers, no matter what he says. Barack Obama hates manned space flight, he has said as much, actually. |
dks13827
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 05-04-2010 01:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
No one is ever going to Mars or any other "deep space" location in a capsule.
Orion enhanced could go to Mars, that was the plan all along. There would quite obviously be a living module during the flight. But you need that capsule to get back and reenter. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 05-04-2010 06:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dks13827:
Barack Obama hates manned space flight, he has said as much, actually.
Can you cite a source for that, or is it just more anti-Obama rhetoric? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-04-2010 07:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dks13827:
He got his flights, he sure does not care about the next group of spacefarers, no matter what he says.
Spoken like someone who has never met, let alone talked with Charlie Bolden. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, however absolutely wrong it is. |
alanh_7
Member Posts: 1267
From: Ajax, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 05-04-2010 08:40 PM
I agree with Robert totally. One may not agree with the President's current direction for manned spaceflight. But one needs only talk with Charlie Bolden to understand that he is man entirely lacking in selfishness and has served his country with distinction and honor for his entire adult life.
While I do not totally agree with the direction the President and General Bolden is taking NASA, I am confident he is doing so based on his firm belief that this is the direction NASA has to go. His unselfish dedication to NASA, the service and his country for the last 40 plus years speaks for itself. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 05-04-2010 11:35 PM
While I don't agree totally with the choice of words, I agree with the spirit of dks message. Just because one was an astronaut does not translate into management or visionary skills. As for the President, well, I honestly believe that this is a smokescreen to minimalize NASA. I recall Alan Bean's description of Apollo Applications in the late '60s -- tomorrowland. You plan something so far in the future and so vague that it fades away. Like most Presidents, I think he feels NASA is a pain. No one has the courage to kill it but, if it dies a slow death, so much the better. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-04-2010 11:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
Just because one was an astronaut does not translate into management or visionary skills.
We aren't talking about sweeping generalizations here; we're talking about a specific individual with decades of leadership experience, not just as an astronaut, but also as a Marine and test pilot. If you disagree with what he believes is the right course forward for NASA, then that's fine -- but to even suggest that he is consciously trying to harm the U.S. manned space program, well, that's completely unfounded. You would be hard pressed to find someone more passionate about human space exploration than Charlie Bolden. quote:
You plan something so far in the future and so vague that it fades away.
It has been the lack of long range planning that has put us in the position we are in today. This "But I want it now!" attitude is doing a far better job killing NASA than any multi-decade proposal. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 05-05-2010 12:11 AM
I don't think Mr. Bolden wants to harm NASA, I just think that he isn't aware of the politicians from both parties that he is dealing with (like Thomas Paine discovered).You are right -- decades of poor planning is biting NASA now. I disagree with your characterization of my attitude as "I want it now." That simply doesn't happen with any program in science. I just do not believe that the people in the White House have a sincere love for the space program. Not that they are much different from most administrations. My criticisms are not to be interpreted as favoring one party or politician over another. There is plenty of room for compromise between Congressional critics and the President's plan. Compromise is at the heart of our democracy. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-05-2010 12:20 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
I disagree with your characterization of my attitude as "I want it now."
I wasn't referring to you specifically, but the public in general. There is definitely a 'now or never' attitude that is at odds with successfully staging long range projects such as space exploration. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 05-05-2010 06:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Was it a disgrace that Europe, Japan, Canada, Brazil and Israel flew astronauts on another nation's spacecraft, namely ours? If not, then it's not a disgrace that our astronauts will continue to fly to the International Space Station on Russia's Soyuz.
Sure it is a disgrace. The other countries mentioned that hitch rides have no history of space exploration other than that which is piggy-backed on the leaders in space exploration. No offense to anyone from Brazil or Canada, etc., they are not leaders is space explorations but are participants. Huge difference.Obama's plan lacks any specifics and simply comes across as a talking point memo. NASA's plans come across as uninspiring, boring and something that will simply not happen. I still say we need to ditch the ISS asap and start from scratch. NASA is broken and the only way to fix it is to tear it down and start over. |
advertisement