Comments on: Mars attacked?

By: D. Messier

D. Messier — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 06:30:51 +0000

All this is happening waaaay ahead of schedule. I thought for sure the administration would be able to keep Constellation’s problems under wraps for another year. Or that the Democrats would have wanted to deal with more pressing issues.

By: Chris Ringwood

Chris Ringwood — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 03:57:55 +0000

Oh dear, it’s starting again…once more we see the resurrection of a pattern that has had us spending billions with little tangible result for over 40 years.
Whilst I think the Ares 1 & V, need scrapping in favor of the JUPITER DIRECT concept: and why nobody has thought of detaching the Shuttle Crew sections and mod’ ing them as “spacecraft” instead of creating APOLLO Mk2 I’ll never know; I consider starting YET AGAIN will mean the death knell of U.S manned space endeavors. With NASA’s budget incompetence to the fore exacerbated by the persistent “need” to re-invent the wheel for each project, it lays itself open to just such an attack as the Democrats are mounting – not that the Republicans haven’t made significant contributions in like fashion over the last 40+ years. This was how it took 18 years to build a BADLY compromised Space Station of little use to man or beast. Come back Zubrin, ALL is forgiven: even your DISGUSTING optimism!

By: Doug Lassiter

Doug Lassiter — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:27:38 +0000

You’d be wise to read the written testimony, which always goes into much more detail than the oral testimony. While not hypercritical, that written testimony by the non-NASA folks make rather pointed recommendations that implicitly (and in some cases, not so implicitly) criticize the NASA party line.

Both written and oral testimony go in the Congressional Record.

To wit, from just Hinners.

“Ideally the lunar program would be constructed and implemented in a way that allows for simultaneous development of non-lunar, pre-Mars missions. Budget reality might well preclude that approach, a likelihood that also applies to the simultaneous development of a Mars capability as implied in the ESAS. All of this suggests avoiding a large build-up of lunar infrastructure. In any case, one should have a lunar program exit strategy: when will the lunar program provide the required data in support of â€œExploration Preparationâ€ and how does one disengage from the Moon? Hoped for turn-over of lunar infrastructure to commercial and/or international partners does not seem particularly realistic.”

“It is simply a matter of facing a stark fact: NASAâ€™s budget today and in the outlook is grossly inadequate to enable NASA to properly fund the human lunar exploration to accomplish significant science. The import of that conclusion is considerable – and ironic: we are not returning to the Moon to do science yet the conduct of science is virtually the singular major activity associated with lunar exploration other than attending to the mechanics of living there … “

“There does not today exist a inclusive, fully-developed, accepted long-range (e.g., 30 year) architecture for exploration, a void that hinders more efficiently structuring a lunar architecture and strategy and getting the most out of it for â€œExploration Preparation.”

Similarly for Thornton.

The Chaplain GAO written testimony is quite laden with implicit skepticism.

Re the blandly supportive oral testimony, sometimes it’s best not to throw knives when you’ve been invited to testify.

By: anonymous.space

anonymous.space — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:14:40 +0000

“We have one report (by the Orlando Sentinel) about what the GAO report allegedly says. Plus a lot of â€œinterpretationâ€ and â€œspinâ€ and â€œconjectureâ€.

It would be useful to get a copy of the 20-page GAO report, so we have hard data before we debate any longer about what it says (or does not say), or what the GAO report means.”

The GAO report is available here:

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2008/Space/3apr/Chaplain_Testimony.pdf

I have not gone through it in detail, but all the issues and risks noted in the earlier (December, IIRC) GAO report are still there and the opening/concluding bookends are more sharply worded this time around.

FWIW…

By: Gary Spenser

Gary Spenser — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:03:48 +0000

The hearing was civil and polite and nobody threw anything. Whoever wrote the original story anticipating a food fight clearly doesn’t know how these things go. The only person who created any noise was Dana Rohrabacher, and he did it by asking if any government agency is developing anti-gravity devices. Rohrabacher exists for comic relief, even if he is unaware of that fact.

By: Al Fansome

Al Fansome — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:31:52 +0000

We have one report (by the Orlando Sentinel) about what the GAO report allegedly says. Plus a lot of “interpretation” and “spin” and “conjecture”.

It would be useful to get a copy of the 20-page GAO report, so we have hard data before we debate any longer about what it says (or does not say), or what the GAO report means.

– Al

By: Munchkin

Munchkin — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:56:44 +0000

Having just listened to GAOâ€™s testimony, there was very little criticism of NASAâ€™s Constellation program. In fact there was substantial praise for its transparency and cooperation. No mention at all of any â€œcritical problemsâ€

Rick Gilbrech et al. were lying through their teeth, and nobody has the guts to confront it. The Ares stick is dead, it was dead on arrival in fact – 9/20/05.

Ares – Ship of Fools.

By: anon

anon — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:54:13 +0000

I think the GAO report will basically be seen as the beginning of the end for the VSE. Its too late in this administration to salvage it and the next administration will have more important things to deal with.

This means early next year one of two things will happen. The Shuttle’s retirement will be reveresed. Or a capsule will be tossed on an Atlas V and called the Shuttle replacement.

Griffin had his chance to save the VSE and messed it up. Now its over.

Hopefully my kids will at least get to see the Chinese exploring Mars.

By: cIclops

cIclops — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:33:36 +0000

Another load of media hogwash. These guys will write anything to make up a story. Having just listened to GAO’s testimony, there was very little criticism of NASA’s Constellation program. In fact there was substantial praise for its transparency and cooperation. No mention at all of any “critical problems”

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:11:14 +0000

PHILLIP GEORGE: I have thought ESAS was a mistake from the moment it was proposed, however, I can understand Dr. Griffin’s persistance. Most likely, he is trying to avoid the kind of indecision that doomed the Space Station to years of delay and vast increases in cost before a single piece of metal was bent. He’s picked a plan and is sticking with it through to completion. It’s just too bad it’s the wrong plan. . . .

— Donald