NASA, White House

Sharpening the budget cleaver

Space advocates have talked for a long time about winning a substantial budget increase for NASA. That talk has been emboldened in the last few months by the Augustine committee, whose report found that an increase of up to $3 billion a year was “more appropriate” to support human space exploration beyond LEO. Even people who disagree with some of the options and other findings in the report have seized upon this as something of a necessity for NASA.

There’s just one problem: NASA’s budget—as well as other domestic spending—might get slashed in the FY2011 budget request. The AP reported late last week that the White House was weighing a spending freeze or cuts of up five percent for non-military agencies, as part of an effort to decrease the budget deficit. An Orlando Sentinel article suggests it might even be worse: NASA has been told to prepare for as much as a ten-percent cut.

Keep in mind, though, that while agencies have been told to plan for cuts of up to five or ten percent, that doesn’t mean that all agencies will be subject to the same cuts. “When the president makes a decision on human spaceflight, he can ignore that,” an unidentified “senior administration official” told the Sentinel. The question will be how much of a priority human space exploration will be for the White House when it decides how much to cut—or increase—NASA’s budget.

62 comments to Sharpening the budget cleaver

  • Mark R. Whittington

    The irony is that having spent hundreds of billions on junk, the Obamanistas will get a sudden attack of election year “fiscal responsibility” just when it comes time to step up on space exploration. How is that hope and change working out?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark.

    just when it comes time to step up on space exploration.
    ..

    step up? you mean pour more money down a rat hole which has already garned 9 BILLION dollars and produced little more then a bottle rocket that flew for 2 minutes or less. Even if IF Obama’s administration gave NASA all the money it wanted and pursued “the vision” there is zero exploration that would take place during a hypothetical two term administration.

    ” How is that hope and change working out? at least we have not gone off and bombed iran as the nuts in the last administration wanted to do.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    It is pretty clear that deep really deep cuts are coming in almost all of the federal budget…if there is any chance whatsoever of getting the deficit under control (forget simply reversing it as Clinton did)…

    lets do the math.

    Say NASA Had to lose 10 percent..make the math easy call it two billion dollars.

    you find that in shuttle ops …gone. You find that by paring “the vision” down to “flexible path” with a small concentrated team working in a “skunk works” like environment on various technologies

    The irony of it is that one should be able to do more exploration once one stops feeding the beast that is human spaceflight. What is the astronaut group at today? What do we really need? About oh 15 or 20 total.

    Look Obama has to do this. if he doesnt then his presidency will start to fail rather quickly, and whoever comes in 2012 will have to make even more serious cuts.

    That 9 billion dollars spent on Ares already is sure going to be missed

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ November 17th, 2009 at 7:42 am
    Obamanistas ..

    recylcing the phrase “clintonista” or whatever you use to call them? Come on try something original

    Robert G. Oler

  • Loki

    How about Obamaton?

    Obamaton, n – a person who doesn’t think for him or herself and believes that Barack Obama can do no wrong. See also: liberal d-bag.

    (just a little joke, don’t take it personal Obamatons…)

  • Loki

    It will be “interesting” to see how budget cuts play out. Often times what ends up getting cut isn’t manned spaceflight but robotic exploration, aeronautics research, etc. We’ll see if that trend continues or not. Oh well, so much for anything positive happening wrt NASA. I say that because a cut 1.8 billion would likely make it impossible to do much of anything as far manned spaceflight is concerned. Whether that’s a good thing or not is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

  • “just when it comes time to step up on space exploration”

    I’m frequently amused by the accusations of some kind of conspiracy against the space program. The only two presidents who have made space a measurable part of their administrations and followed through when it came time to write a budget were Kennedy and Nixon. And it only worked for them because we were in an equipment measuring contest with the USSR. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but unless you’re a congressman from Texas or Florida, space means pretty much zero if your a politician. And before you blame it on the politicians, think of why they don’t care. Because no one who votes for them cares. I know a lot of folks here get it, but until we can change some minds in the general public the idea of space as a central piece of the political picture is wishful thinking, and nothing more. If you don’t like it, by all means do something about it.

    As for Obama’s timing, he said he was going to tackle the economy and healthcare, and he said how he was going to do it. And people voted for him knowing that that’s what he planned to do. And he’s done precisely that. He also said he’d work on slashing the budget, and lookee here, he’s doing it. Would you rather he keep spending so you have an easier target?

    Aremis

  • Mark R. Whittington

    The interesting question that arises – What will Bolden and Garver do? One doubts that they signed on to end human space flight. Will they resign in protest? Or will they salute and carry on?

  • Loki

    “The only two presidents who have made space a measurable part of their administrations and followed through when it came time to write a budget were Kennedy and Nixon.”

    LOL. Let’s start with tricky Dick. Nixon slashed NASA’s budget, ended Apollo, and replaced it with the space shuttle thereby ensuring that the space program would be stuck in LEO for at least a gereration or 2. How is that “a measurable part” of his admininstration or following through when it came time to write a budget? I don’t see it. As for Kennedy, all he really did was give a moving speech at Rice U. Also, Kennedy really just saw the “moon race” as a good way to measure the size of our umm, manhood, against the soviets. I wish I could find the exact quote, but even the great JFK said later that if spending for the space program got in the way of the rest of his agenda, he would cut the space program’s budget rather than risk the rest of his agenda. Gee, the more things change…

    “he said he was going to tackle the economy and healthcare, and he said how he was going to do it. And people voted for him knowing that that’s what he planned to do.”

    Funny, but I don’t seem to recall him saying that the government was going to end up owning a controlling stake in one auto company (GM), a significant stake in another (Chrysler), an insurance company (AIG), or that through TARP they would end up buying common stock in several national banks. I do however remember him saying that he would go “line by line” through the budget and cut out the pork spending as well as a lot of other fiscally conservative “Reagen-esque” rhetoric. He even said that the government can’t solve all of our probelms (again, sounds a lot like Reagan). In fact I seem to recall McCain saying that he would freeze or reduce all ‘discretionary spending” across the board, and Obama slamming that idea as unrealistic during one of their televised debates. And now a year into his term…

    Also, let’s not kid ourselves here. These cuts won’t really do a damn thing for the deficit. Remember that ~$800 billion dollar “stimulus” bill? Most of that spending is due to kick in, let’s see, next year. So all they’re really going to do is move the spending from existing programs to make room for all that stimulus spending that will be kicking in next year, just in time for the mid-term elections. Just more stupid political tricks from politicians who believe we’re all too dumb to notice. In the end it means nothing, but come 2012 he’ll talk a good game once again about how he cut spending while failing to mention that he simultaneously enacted a whole new spending regime. And a lot of people will be stupid enough to buy that crap and vote for him again, just like a lot of people were stupid enough to vote for GWB twice.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ November 17th, 2009 at 11:32 am

    The interesting question that arises – What will Bolden and Garver do? One doubts that they signed on to end human space flight

    you have really turned into a big government guy havent you? The Bush years were hard I see.

    Just because the shuttle ends and American astronauts ride up to the station in commercial crewed vehicles…doesnt mean that “human spaceflight ends”. Indeed for some of us who believe in the power of Free enterprise and startup business…it will have just started.

    I can see you now sitting there in the Sarah Palin echo chamber going “the vision, the vision where is the vision?”

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “The irony is that having spent hundreds of billions on junk…”

    Are you including the $400 million for the Constellation Program that was included in the Recovery Act?

    Was that junk, too?

    “the Obamanistas will get a sudden attack of election year “fiscal responsibility” just when it comes time to step up on space exploration.”

    The Obama Administration has already stepped up on space exploration. In addition to the $400 million in the Recovery Act for Constellation, the President’s FY 2010 budget request includes a near $500 million increase for Constellation compared to FY 2009. And White House officials have gone on the record supporting that budget against a House appropriations bill that reverses the increase. And they’ve commissioned a blue-ribbon review of options to improve NASA’s human space flight activities. And they allowed that expert panel to identify options above the current budget runout. What more could a space cadet want from this White House at this point in time?

    The question isn’t how many more taxpayer dollars the Obama Administration can throw at Constellation. The question is whether the Obama Administration is going to get any actual progress in space exploration from NASA for the increasing amount of taxpayer dollars being spent.

    “What will Bolden and Garver do?… Will they resign in protest? Or will they salute and carry on?”

    Like Griffin resigned in protest over the Bush Administration’s repeated failures to meet its budget commitments to the VSE?

    Oh, yeah, he didn’t. Griffin waited until he was out of office to whine about civil servants in OMB and blame the budget for all the bad decisions and lack of progress on Constellation.

    I have my doubts about Bolden and Garver, but we shouldn’t hold them to standards that no other NASA Administrator has met.

    FWIW…

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Oler – suggesting that maybe the space agency might grow from .5 to .6 percent of the federal budget hardly constitutes being in favor of “big government.” It means paying for what you propose to do.

    “Major Tom” – When one throws $800 billion into the air and sees where it lands, some of it might land on something useful, if only by accident. Most of it, though, was spent on junk.

    Also Mike Griffin is no longer NASA administrator. Charles Bolden is and Lori Garver is his deputy. If this story of a budget cut is true, the one thing that needs revealing is that did Bolden and Garver know this was coming when they accepted their jobs? If so, then what could have motivated them to want to oversee the eviceration of the space program? If not, then how do they feel about being lied to and what are they prepared to do about it>

  • Major Tom

    “suggesting that maybe the space agency might grow from .5 to .6 percent of the federal budget”

    A useless statistic. White House decisions (in any administration) on NASA’s budget aren’t made based on what percentage of the overall federal budget NASA represents. NASA competes with other civil R&D agencies for funding, and in that budget pool, NASA is a big player. NASA’s $18 billion budget represents almost 31 percent of the $59 billion civil R&D budget.

    “When one throws $800 billion into the air and sees where it lands, some of it might land on something useful, if only by accident. ”

    Oh, so you retract your earlier statement?

    “Most of it, though, was spent on junk.”

    How much, specifically? And where is the official definition for budget “junk”?

    “Also Mike Griffin is no longer NASA administrator.”

    So what? Don’t you hold Griffin to the same standard as Bolden and Garver? Why didn’t Griffin resign when the Bush II Administration refused year after year to meet its VSE budget commitments? And why has Griffin whined ever since leaving NASA about failed budget commitments and OMB civil servants if he wasn’t strong enough to resign during Bush II?

    “If this story of a budget cut is true, the one thing that needs revealing is that did Bolden and Garver know this was coming when they accepted their jobs? If so, then what could have motivated them to want to oversee the eviceration [sic] of the space program?”

    You really think that months before OMB sent budget guidance to the agencies that Bolden and Garver were told that NASA would receive a major cut?

    Are you really that ignorant of the federal budget process?

    “If not, then how do they feel about being lied to and what are they prepared to do about it> [sic]”

    If they weren’t told that NASA would receive a cut (or an increase or flat funding), how could they be lied to?

    FWIW…

  • commons sense

    ““If this story of a budget cut is true, the one thing that needs revealing is that did Bolden and Garver know this was coming when they accepted their jobs? ”

    I am sure they did not, having spent the previous year(s) in specially designed insulated room somewhere in Texas. How did Loki call those guys? Because since they are in this WH they must be ultimate Obamatons, right? The level of the discourse gets really low sometime… Probably when the Kool-Aid runs at full steam? Go Ares IX, or IY, or IZ, or whatever the Ares I flavor is today in the Kool Aid.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ November 17th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    Oler – suggesting that maybe the space agency might grow from .5 to .6 percent of the federal budget hardly constitutes being in favor of “big government.” It means paying for what you propose to do..

    so “big government” is now defined by how much things grow or how much they cost?

    The Mark Whittington I KNEW described big government as something quite different.

    Programs which were wasteful, which frustrated or supplanted the efforts of private enterprise, which ignored private enterprise solutions…that was the Mark Whittington definition of free enterprise when Clinton was building the space station…and I suspect that it is (from reading your blog) the definition of it when it comes to health care.

    Ares is wasteful (9 billion dollars for a bottle rocket flight), it frustrates free enterprise (it ignores already flying and near flying free enterprise solutions) and it in fact stifles the development of free enterprise.

    And worse the only justification you have for it is myth “the Chinese are racing us to the Moon”.

    The problem you have Mark is that the programs YOU LIKE even though they are badly performing but were started by administrations you like dont fit your defintion, while programs you dont like proposed by administration you “Hate” are cloned to do it.

    Two other points.

    First it isnt Obama’s program. LIke Iraq, Afland, a deteriorating economy he inherited them from Bush.

    Second, there is no Paying for them. all increases are deficit spending.

    Face it, you are a big government flunkie

    Robert G. Oler

  • Loki

    Technically he’s not a “big government flunkie”, he’s a partisan ideological hack.

    Big Republican government = good
    Big Democrat government = bad

    There’s plenty of liberal dems who feel the opposite. It must be nice not to have to think for yourself and to change definitions to suit whichever current party happens to be in control.

  • Habitat Hermit

    I would say that except for Bolden being some kind of superman in disguise (he could be, and Garver too) a sharp cut is the only thing that can save NASA from itself at this stage. A silver lining to the deficit and peeved Chinese who have invested rather a lot of money in your country and won’t take kindly to being ripped off.

    If NASA then chooses to prioritize keeping ATK and the HQ PHBs employed the rest will be cut as well. Then one can form a tiny new agency; a “procurement and funding for space exploration and colonization” agency, and put all the other stuff where it belongs or where it is done more efficiently (just about anywhere, I did write “more efficiently” not “efficiently”).

    3 billions more is a bigger joke than Ares I, who’ll pay? 3 billions less is what NASA needs.

  • Neil H.

    It’d be interesting if NASA could use a budget as the political cover it needs to, say, shut down MSFC. Anybody have stats on how much of NASA’s total budget MSFC uses up?

  • vulture4

    Those who blame Obama need to look in the mirror.

    Constellation is a very expensive program with, unfortunately, no practical benefits. It does not provide the ability to go to Mars, because Constellation technology is unaffordable for that purpose, and its cost precludes developing practical technology for human spaceflight. It is claimed we need a new space race with China. But the Cold War is over. China is as capitalist as we are, and our largest trading partner. The last thing we need is an artificial attempt to create tension, mistrust, and hostility. We are also in debt. The taxpayers, even those who work in the space program, will not pay higher taxes to support it, and the last thing we need is to borrow the money from China for a vacation on the moon. It is claimed the moon will yield helium-3 that will solve our energy crisis, but in reality helium-3 is of little value for fusion and easily produced on earth by the decay of tritium.

    Many NASA officials already blame the Obama administration, just as they blamed Nixon for canceling Apollo. This is unfair. Obama is accurately applying national interests and taxpayer priorities.

    Finally, canceling the Shuttle just when it is working as it was originally intended is extremely shortsighted. The sudden pronouncements that the Shuttle is getting “old” and “unreliable” have no basis in reliability engineering or in anything that was said before the advent of Constellation. The problems which caused the loss of Challenger and Columbia have been eliminated by design changes. The Shuttle airframes were designed for at least 100 flights each and, like any aircraft, they can fly reliably as long as they are maintained. It will make certainly sense to replace them when we have something flying that’s more capable and less expensive. Constellation will be just as expensive as Shuttle and cannot provide the logistical capabilities to make the ISS productive. We promised practical benefits from the ISS, important science and useful technology, and we had better find a way to produce them before we toss out Shuttle and ISS and ask for a lot more money to start another program.

    I am sorry to say the above. I know it isn’t what people want to hear. But I think we need to face facts.

  • Fred

    It’s interesting to listen to the debate over who’s the more profligate. The real problem is the way NASA is funded. The A committee recommended that NASA be given real control over its budget so that it could start to do something about its high recurring costs.
    i.e getting rid of some of it’s surplus staff, closing some of it’s centers.
    IIRC Augustine put recurring expendature somewhere around $8B +.
    That’s a lot of fat in a budget of just $18B.
    If the WH has the guts to reform NASA finances and organisation then the inevitable budget cuts will help rather than hurt.
    For that it’s too early to say.

  • Major Tom

    Excellent points by Fred. Seconded.

    FWIW…

  • Robert G. Oler

    vulture4 wrote @ November 17th, 2009 at 6:12 pm

    Those who blame Obama need to look in the mirror…

    when the history of our time is written, although it will probably occupy a small part of the history, my prediction is that the “Bush vision” and its execution will go down just like the rest of his policies…goofy.

    Bush and his thunderheads never were very good at thinking two or three steps down past the actual execution. So for instance in this space policy.

    The “gem” of US space efforts is ISS…we have spent/squandered depending on the policy of how it is used about 100 billion dollars to build the darn thing. So what does “Shrub” and his thunderheads do.?

    They cock up a policy that calls for the shuttle to be retired, put in place an architecture to replace it, that by year one of the effort is floundering and running up enormous bills and pushing down the time line. All the time of course how to maintain ISS is sort of left to flounder…no effort to push commercial efforts, no theory about how to keep the vehicle going…its just like they dont care about the 100 billion spent, or the potential for it to return some value.

    All of this is like their Iraq, Afland, tax cuts etc…it is “take this action now because the end of the world will come and then well for the future…everything goes great”.

    So here we have administration toadies who come on and explain how we have to keep funding “the vision” even though there is no hint that for the money proffered it can be done, or that doing it has any value. It is like staying in Afland. why?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Anon

    Maybe NASA could just outsource the return to the Moon to the Chinese. I am sure we could buy some seats on their lunar mission if we pay them enough.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hla2i5PLLHuXp5CanUH6ygR6M5zA

  • Robert G. Oler

    Anon wrote

    sure why not, the Reds are as likely to go to the Moon as Ares 1 is to launch on time and with no more cost overruns.

    Only in the mind of right wingers are the Reds a serious threat by their non existent lunar program. It is like Saddam’s WMD.

    Robert G. Oler

  • The Shuttle airframes were designed for at least 100 flights each and, like any aircraft, they can fly reliably as long as they are maintained.

    That was the spec, but whether or not they were actually “designed” to do so will never be known — we just didn’t understand the issues well enough at the time.

    It will make certainly sense to replace them when we have something flying that’s more capable and less expensive.

    The problem is that as long as we continue to fly it, NASA doesn’t have enough money to develop a cost-effective replacement, though admittedly, they could have done a lot better than Ares/Orion. Plus, the costs of continuing to fly at this point (or really, at any point after Columbia) are going to have to include the costs of rebuilding the contractor base (NASA has been looking for parts on Ebay for years just to keep the system flying),including resurrecting the tank production facility, and probably building more orbiters, because the fleet is imply too small to allow a reasonable flight rate that might reduce the average flight cost to something uninsane (though it will still be better than Ares).

    Constellation will be just as expensive as Shuttle and cannot provide the logistical capabilities to make the ISS productive.

    If only. It will be more expensive, on a per-flight basis, if one amortizes development. And perhaps even if not. It’s a financial disaster. But the people designing Constellation didn’t agree with the Aldridge recommendations that the new system be affordable or sustainable. They just thought it was supposed to be big, and provide ongoing jobs for Marshall and KSC.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Yeah on this one Rand has nailed it.

    The way NASA does business now to develop a replacement for the shuttle almost takes as much money as flying the shuttle…this is why during the post Columbia hunt for “change’ (sorry couldnt resist) Griffin should have looked at game changers for the cost.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Loki

    vulture4 wrote:
    “It is claimed the moon will yield helium-3 that will solve our energy crisis, but in reality helium-3 is of little value for fusion and easily produced on earth by the decay of tritium.”

    I don’t think tritium decays into He-3, actually. Tritium is an isotope of Hydrogen with 2 neutrons and 1 proton in its nucleus + 1 electron while He-3 has 1 neutron and 2 protons in its nucleus + 2 electrons. So it would seem that in order for tritium to decay into He-3 1 neutron would have to transform into a proton, which is impossible, and it would need to somehow pick up another electron. The main problem with He-3 or any other form of fusion is that pesky break-even problem. Until someone solves that fusion is just a pipe dream. Sorry to be the scientific nit-picker here.

    “Finally, canceling the Shuttle just when it is working as it was originally intended…”

    Actually the shuttle was originally intended to be the “be all end all” of launch vehicles. It was going to launch 50 times a year, make all expendables obsolete, reduce the cost of space access, etc etc. So by those standards it’s never worked as orignally intended and never will.

    Other than hose minor nits most of your points were valid. In fact most presidents get way more credit than they deserve when things go well and way more blame than they deserve when things go bad. Most of our government’s screw ups are done by committee. A committee of 545 to be exact.

  • “As for Kennedy, all he really did was give a moving speech at Rice U. Also, Kennedy really just saw the “moon race” as a good way to measure the size of our umm, manhood, against the soviets.”

    Did I say pretty much exactly that, or am I imagining things?

    “Funny, but I don’t seem to recall him saying that the government was going to end up owning a controlling stake in one auto company (GM), a significant stake in another (Chrysler), an insurance company (AIG), or that through TARP they would end up buying common stock in several national banks.”

    That’s because he didn’t. George W. Bush did. Remember, he’s the one that signed TARP and he’s the one who admitted we’d need to buy out a big part of auto companies, but kicked it down the pike so Obama would take the political hit. Well, okay, HE didn’t say that, but his vice president did in an interview a few months ago. So not only did they not avoid the inevitable government stake in the auto companies, but he blew a few ten billion dollars to make sure it wasn’t on his report card. Very nice.

    “Remember that ~$800 billion dollar “stimulus” bill? ”

    Mmmmhmmm, the one I mentioned in my post as part of his stated plan when he got elected. Sure, I remember that. I’m not saying he didn’t spend money, I’m saying he was pretty plain and clear about it pretty much from the moment the economy started to nose dive and the healthcare portion was live and on his website long before that. And again, you can disagree with the strategy, I certainly disagree with a lot of it, but if the American public was really suprised by actions he took in accordance with the centerpiece of his platform, then they clearly didn’t educate themselves and probably shouldn’t have voted.

    “How much, specifically? And where is the official definition for budget “junk”?”

    Hear, hear. I think what people don’t get about all those riders, special projects, and earmarks is that while their opponents are breathing fire on the floor about project A,B, and C, their aides are busy drafting project D,E,and F for the hearing that afternoon. I garauntee you there are senators that support what the original poster calls “junk” and cries foul over NASA budget increases. And they are frankly equally right to do so. In the halls of congress, it’s only junk if you didn’t write it. Even the infamous ‘bridge to nowhere’ was a real project for the esteemed former senator’s constituency. No one just throws crap in because they like to spend money.

    “China is as capitalist as we are”

    Careful there. Maybe in Shanghai, but aside from that China is generally only capitalist beyond it’s own shores.

    “The sudden pronouncements that the Shuttle is getting “old” and “unreliable” have no basis in reliability engineering or in anything that was said before the advent of Constellation.”

    People have been decrying the shuttle as an engineering failure since Challenger took the shine off the original excitement. NASA’s been talking about replacing it since the mid 90’s at least. There have been several projects that were intended to replace it and I got excited about every one of them and disappointed when none of them panned out. Criticizing the shuttle and planning for the next big thing are far from new.

    “The Shuttle airframes were designed for at least 100 flights each and, like any aircraft, they can fly reliably as long as they are maintained.”

    And yet two of them are now cautionary tales of the dangers of spaceflight and we dance on eggshells every time we launch. The shuttle missed the mark on a number of it’s original goals, reliability and safety being just a few of the list. Granted, putting people on top of a controlled explosion is risky business, but shuttle has shown itself to be exceedingly so. Throw into it the fact that we no longer have the manufacturers to make many of the parts (we’re using up already built external tanks and even tapped a backup for the recently added flight) or the plans to replace them and shuttle’s in a lot of trouble. I agree that Constellation stinks for LEO, but there are a growing number of companies planning alternatives in that arena. I don’t think we’ll ever use Ares I in LEO except to rendezvous with the lunar stack for TLI.

    “So here we have administration toadies who come on and explain how we have to keep funding “the vision” even though there is no hint that for the money proffered it can be done, or that doing it has any value.”

    I really respect the decisions of the Augustine Committee, and I don’t think they’re far from the mark. But a lot of people think it can be done in the current timeframe, NASA included. I don’t get to see the NASA project timelines or progress reports so I’m going to assume that if the people that CAN see them don’t agree on the result, that I should withold opinion (oops, too late). I don’t think this conversation is over in the least.

    Aremis

  • “The main problem with He-3 or any other form of fusion is that pesky break-even problem.”

    First demo plant based on torus technology is currently in planning phases for groundbreaking around 2020. The plan is to show it can work, and then use it as a functional prototype plant thereafter for real power generation They’ve already hit the break-even point in prior iterations, but getting it to be sustained under it’s own power instead of just a flash-in-the-pan output is taking awhile. Less than inspiring, sure, but at least it’s on the schedule unlike 5 or so years ago when the only plans in the works were more non-functional tests. It’s not planned to be He3. In fact, He3 is only an input in one of the about 5 atomic fusion pathways currently being investigated, and it’s probably farthest from realization. It is, however, one of two preferred methods, so if we ever get the fusion ship out of port, He3 will be the first major port of call. My guess? Based on what I’ve read – 2025 low-output fusion reactor, 2060 He3 reactor.

    Aremis

  • Robert G. Oler

    Loki see my comments on congress and your post in the thread on China.

    Robert

  • vulture4

    Loki wrote: So it would seem that in order for tritium to decay into He-3 1 neutron would have to transform into a proton, which is impossible, and it would need to somehow pick up another electron.

    It is not only possible, but common for a neutron to decay into a proton.
    The reation is called beta decay

    neutron -> proton + electron + antineutrino
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay

    Once it has two protons, the helium-3 nucleus has a negative charge and quickly attracts another electron.

    The Internet makes it possible to check facts instantaneously. Our opinions may all be different, but hopefully our facts should be the same.

  • Loki

    The primary point I was trying to make about tricky Dick and JFK was that neither of them were nearly as big a supporters of the space program as some poeple seem to think, but I guess that point got lost.

    “That’s because he didn’t. George W. Bush did. Remember, he’s the one that signed TARP…”

    Yes GWB did sign TARP (and Obama voted in favor of it), which just proved he was as big an idiot as I’d always feared. What I was trying to refer to was the conversion of the bailouts to “common stock”. Originally the TARP money was used to buy “preferred stock”, which has the advantage over “common stock” of being paid first, but preferred stock holders don’t get to vote at stock holder meetings. On April 19th of this year, however, the Obama admininstration decided to convert that preferred stock to equity shares, aka common stock. He never once during the campaign made any mention of doing that. There are economic reasons for doing that, for instance some economists argue that the original plan would have been ineffective in inducing banks to lend efficiently (I’m no economist, so maybe they’re right, maybe not, I admittedly don’t know). And of course the government has pinky swore not to use that common stock to actually control the banks through shareholder votes, so whatever.

    “not only did they not avoid the inevitable government stake in the auto companies…”

    Inevitable? How about letting the auto companies file for chapter 11 instead. Chapter 11 bakruptcy rules are there for a reason and wouldn’t have meant the end of the world. Plenty of comanies have filed chapter 11, then gotten their stuff together and come out the other side OK. Of course, others have gone into chapter 11 and not been OK and end up failing. That’s the thing about free enterprise; businesses, even big ones, are allowed to fail. Did Bush waste $50 million dollars in the meantime? Yes. Was it “inevitable” that the government would have to buy large stakes in the auto companies? No, it wasn’t.

    “‘Remember that ~$800 billion dollar “stimulus” bill? ‘

    Mmmmhmmm, the one I mentioned in my post as part of his stated plan when he got elected”

    Actually, no you didn’t. I went back and read it and you said “…he said he was going to tackle the economy and healthcare, and he said how he was going to do it. And people voted for him knowing that that’s what he planned to do…”. Nothing about the stimulus bill in there.

    “I’m saying he was pretty plain and clear about it pretty much from the moment the economy started to nose dive”

    Actually, no he wasn’t. For one thing the stimulus bill hadn’t been written by congress prior to Nov 4 2008, so he couldn’t have been clear about that unless he’s psychic.. As for healthcare, he was partially upfront. He talked about wanting a “public option”, but what he left unsaid was that the public option is an interim step towards “single payer” (I won’t debate the pros/cons of single payer since this post is way off topic as is, just that he wasn’t 100% upfront), a lie of omission so to speak.

    Which is besides the main point I was attempting to make anyway, which is that these budget cuts won’t really do anything for the national debt because of all the new spending.

    like any of it matters anyway…

  • James

    Ah yes, NASA has been caught in the endless loop of: they can’t build a new vehicle because the can’t afford it while flying the Shuttle, and they can’t stop flying the Shuttle because they don’t have a new vehicle.

  • Loki

    @ Robert
    “Loki see my comments on congress and your post in the thread on China.”

    I’m having trouble finding the post you’re refering to here, but I’m going to assume you’re taking issue with the 545 number I put out earlier.
    435 reps + 100 senators + 9 supreme court justices + 1 pres = 545
    I’m throwing the whole government under the bus today:)

    @vulture4
    Point taken. It’s been a while since my last physics class and I forgot about beta decay, sorry.

    “The Internet makes it possible to check facts instantaneously. Our opinions may all be different, but hopefully our facts should be the same.”

    Not sure what the point of that was. I’m willing to admit when I’m wrong. No need to be a snarky little d-bag, if that was your intent. If not and I’m getting defensive for no reason then I apologize in advance.

  • vulture4

    Artemis wrote: 2060 He3 reactor

    Not impossible, but Brussard believes that even if aneutronic fusion becomes possible,
    proton + boron-11-> 3 alpha particles
    is more feasible. No aneutronic reaction has nearly the cross-section or energy of D-T fusion, and the 3He reaction is somewhat mixed, so would not completely eliminate radiation. I’m just making the point that for multiple reasons helium-3 doesn’t provide any rationale for a crash program to send Americans to the moon unless the cost is reduced substantially first by the introduction of new technology.

    The question of whether new technology can be developed while flying the shuttle is a good one. In the 1990s we were doing just that with the technology demonstrator program, the X-33, X-34, X-37, and DC-X, for a small fraction of the cost of Constellation, because they were unmanned and subscale. But NASA abandoned them because Sean O’Keefe wanted to cut the budget and did not have any idea of their importance. constellation is hugely expensive because it is a crash program to go to the moon with old tech, not a program to develop new tech at an appropriate pace.

  • common sense

    No need to be a snarky little d-bag, if that was your intent. If not and I’m getting defensive for no reason then I apologize in advance.”

    Hey Loki, this does not befit you. Regardless of you assumed apology, you were not called names in the post you refer to. Chill out.

  • Major Tom

    DC-X was replaced by X-33 long before O’Keefe joined NASA. X-33 and X-34 were terminated and replaced by SLI before O’Keefe came to NASA. O’Keefe replaced SLI with CEV after Columbia, which resulted in X-37 being transferred to the military. O’Keefe was not responsible for any x-vehicle terminations (at least at NASA).

    FWIW…

  • common sense

    @vulture4:

    Sean O’Keefe was given the direction to go to the Moon (VSE) not to build LEO SSTOs. Sean O’Keefe did what his boss wanted him to do unlike Mike Griffin which is the reason why Constellation is what it is today.

    So much for fact checking…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_O'Keefe

  • Major Tom

    DC-X was replaced by X-33 long before O’Keefe joined NASA. X-33 and X-34 were terminated and replaced by SLI before O’Keefe came to NASA. O’Keefe replaced SLI with CEV after Columbia, which resulted in X-37 being transferred to the military. O’Keefe was not responsible for any x-vehicle terminations (at least while he was NASA Administrator).

    FWIW…

  • Robert G. Oler

    I was going to stay clear…being anti Bush is just to delightful (grin)…but

    “Which is besides the main point I was attempting to make anyway, which is that these budget cuts won’t really do anything for the national debt because of all the new spending.”

    actually no.

    The reason Bush the last was a failure and “it looks like” (although about a year to early to tell for sure) Obama is headed down the same road…is that their solution to massive problems facing The Republic is to simply rerun programs and efforts of the past which worked in the past because they were innovative…but which today are simply repeats.

    Where Obama and his administration ran aground, in my view, is that even before taking the oath they agreed to both the “stimulas” bill that the new Dem Congress put out and at least tacit agreement to the TARP that Bush the old pushed. In my view those two “solutions” are about as bright as responding to 9/11 by invading Iraq.

    Nothing is going to fix our economy as long as 1) the bad habits of the past continue and are not fixed and 2) the bad actors stay doing their thing.

    The TARP merely saved companies who were going under because of past bad judgments which finally caught up to them. To save them we required little or no change in the method of doing business. The stimulas bill was aimed mostly at salvaging bad mistakes of local and state governments, which cannot print money but have services that the people want, but which they will not pay for. Again the money came down but little or no changes occurred to stop a repeat.

    The only way we are going to get out of this mess is 1) let failed institutions fail. this includes both commercial/private ones and public/government ones. 2) revamp the economy for the rules/jobs of the future.

    hence…we have to cut spending that is encouraging bad government and private instutitions (Constellation/Ares) and redirect toward efforts that truly change the economic situation (Private lift)

    Whittington et al will argue “it is only .X percent of federal spending”…a close paraphrase…and that is correct but IT IS ALL THE SPENDING aimed at encouraging a private space sector…and jobs created by private industry are more important then jobs created by the government sector unless you live in France.

    Robert G. Oler

  • eng

    These budget cuts would not go far enough. The whole organization is a path to nowhere.

    I suggest recreating the manned portion of NASA from scratch. And I mean – “from scratch”. Demolish and rebuild.

    What we have now was made for another epoch. Other tasks and other reasons.

    What is the reason for (federal) (private firms are free to do whatever by default) manned space flight now for the US citizen?

    Determine and try to define it for the US taxpaying folks, then implement the organizational structure across the country if it require federal support. But DO NOT continue with this charade.

  • Major Tom

    “Actually OSP came before CEV.”

    You’re right. I skipped a step. The sequence goes DC-X -> X-33/X-34/X-37 -> SLI/X-37 -> OSP/X-37 -> CEV -> Ares I/Orion.

    FWIW…

  • […] seems some NASA supporters took the news about a potential across-the-board budget cut in FY2011 (which may or may not happen, and may or may not include NASA) pretty hard: on the […]

  • common sense

    Slightly OT: Re DC-X:

    It is sad when we read things like that:
    “Rather, NASA focused development on the Lockheed Martin VentureStar which it felt answered some criticisms of the DC-X; specifically the requirement that many NASA engineers preferred the airplane-like landing of the VentureStar over the vertical landing of the DC-X.”
    [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X]

    This airplane like landing requirement is right out of Sci-Fi and even though I was not enthusiastic about DC-X originally (as a pilot I too like wings but come on!) I hope that the Blue Origin team will make it work if it really is what they are up to. The concept has a lot of potential indeed for a vehicle to go beyond LEO, even possibly land on Mars. A lot more than Constellation’s Ares/Orion especially in view of the cost. There will be TPS issue and the thing will most likely have to re-enter at an angle of attack (CG location and stability may not be trivial for a crewed vehicle). So it is not a done deal BUT there are a lot of RVs that “fly” today that “resemble” a re-entering DC-X…

    And, it just is unbelievable that the infighting at NASA eventually resulted in a back-to-Apollo vehicle that is beyond cost and schedule. See? NASA shouldd try and advance the technology. And btw Orion will NEVER enter Mars’s atmosphere. Period.

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense

    what saddened me about “DC-x” and the choice by Psycho Dan of Venture star…is two things

    First the Venture Star didnt have a chance of doing anything. There was far to much “technology” in the vehicle. The shape was almost trivial compared to the problems of building “tanks” for that shape…not to mention the engines.

    Second it did not have a chance of doing anything on a small R&D development sort of skunk works activity that was needed if such a vehicle was to actually “fly” and more important change the “course” of human spaceflight.

    And actually 2 is almost as important as 1.

    What is wrong with human spaceflight is that it is still treated as something extroadinary almost 50 years after it first started in this country.

    Go look at the fool who is flying the shuttle now. He gave a press conference in orbit that (to paraphrase) said it is a challenge to dock at “17,500 mph”. Which indeed if the relative rates of the vehicle(s) were that amount it would be quite a challenge, far more of one then he or his vehicle could do. Fortunatly the “docking” is occurring at a much “lower rate” (LOL). But yet this is the entire “space is special space is difficult we need super people to do it and we need LOTS of super people to do it”…and then of course some bone head thing like Columbia occurs and you find out that they are not all that special.

    DC X and its follow on vehicles was predicated on the theory that space is like airplanes, or nuclear submarines or whatever. It could be done with high end, not bleeding end technology, it could be done by ordinary competent people and not a lot of them.

    Other then the fact that unlike the right wing I like private enterprise jobs more then government ones…my big gripe with Ares and Constellation is that nothing gets better in those vehicles. The same standing army exist, the same select group of internal people, the same thing over and over again. Venture star would have been more of that…

    Had it flown DC Y would have been a failure to quote Bill Gabatz (spell) “even if it flew and flew well, if it could not operate like any military airplane” (that is a direct quote Rich Kolker will verify that he, Bill and I had breakfast one morning…DAve Barker was there as well).

    that sentiment is no where in NASA. and that is my gripe with Ares and Venturestar.

    (besides the astronaut corps really did not like VL…there was no real “astronaut flying role” to quote one)

    Robert G. Oler

  • Nick

    Hey Robert…how’d that cash for clunkers multi-BILLION dollar bullshit work out?

    Typical clueless idiot that can’t add 2+2.

  • common sense

    “(besides the astronaut corps really did not like VL…there was no real “astronaut flying role” to quote one)”

    Neither was there supposed to be in Orion!!! Originally there was not even supposed to be a stick (joy or otherwise) to drive the thing. However the astronaut corps is made out of I think around 50% pilots and several MSs also are pilots, so you have to respond to your customer’s demands. Except that the actual customer IS NOT the astronaut corps BUT the government, hence the public. But that is a (slightly) different story.

    Anyway. There was an article in A&S that NASA was supposed to no longer hire MSs and Pilots but rather “Operators”. See: http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Fly_Us_to_the_Moon.html?# This did not happen last selection cycle.

    The reality is that there will be a need for a new kind of “pilots” but the “yahoo” kind of pilots or the goggle-and-scarf kind is on its way out. I am not saying whether it is good or bad. It is what it is and it is supposed to reflect the “new” space age. In the distant future there may be the Han Solo kind but it’ll take a while. And considering what NASA (and I include the WH and Congress in NASA) is trying to do still today (so far) the Han Solo kind is years if not centuries away.

    Oh well.

  • Other then the fact that unlike the right wing I like private enterprise jobs more then government ones

    Robert, did a “right winger” scare your mother when she was pregnant with you? Because I can’t come up with any other explanation as to why you write such nutty things as this. Just what is your major malfunction? Does “right wing” just mean “anyone who disagrees with the great Robert Oler”?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Nick wrote @ November 19th, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    Hey Robert…how’d that cash for clunkers multi-BILLION dollar bullshit work out?

    ……………………

    Hello Nick. it worked out about the way I thought and predicted (on political sites) that it would.

    People who had credit or better yet (as in our case) cash were able to get INCREDIBLE deals on vehicles…and that coupled with the federal dole directly to the car companies .allowed failing car companies a bit of a subsidy to “keep going” at least a few more months.

    Anyone who knows what base system the addition is working in and can add 2 +2 in that system could have figured out where it was going.

    The dirty little secret of the GOP and the Dems is that both are captive to the folks who give most of the money to the party, and that in all cases is bundled corporate cash. And from the instant the thunderheads in Bush the last administration got the word that some of the “to big to fail” folks were actually failing, both parties have rallied nicely to give them access to the federal treasury.

    The TARP was designed from the very start to do one thing and one thing only and that was socialize failure and mostly privatize success but only of the companies that the elites in both parties thought were worth saving. Bush the old had no clue that there was a problem until several of the major brokerage houses/banks were on teh verge of going under…and (sadly) neither the Dem or GOP elites could have that.

    The stimulus Bill is actually Obama’s “Iraq”…ie it is a solution looking for a problem to solve. To be fair, (I guess) in the case of Iraq there was no real problem that invading it would fix (or a problem that would not be eclipsed by the problems that resulted from the solution)…the stim was designed to fix a problem…most state governments including ones run by the GOP were carrying far more spending then the people in the states were willing to pay for and they needed bailing out or some were in serious danger of “going under”. It is just that the Dems could not be any more honest with the people about the stim then Bush was about Iraq…the Dems couldnt say “wow we have to save state governments” instead it became “saving jobs” LOL

    The stim fixed its targeted problem but only on the short term. States like CA which are simply unable to make hard choices have only postponed the day.

    Cash for clunkers was this little sop to the folks in the coliseum. For a bit it postponed anger over the bailouts of the folks who got us in this mess…Most of the people who in rhetoric its was suppose to help…couldnt get off of first base with the financing. So they were hosed. But people like my wife and I…NEW ride (and that is important with a new family).

    Both parties really hose the people.

    Do you really think that Griffin figured out the current Ares system by going “wow what is the best system to get back to the Moon”? there is that 2 + 2 thing again.

    Support for “the vision” from various quarters would be quite different had Griffin left out such valued contributors as ATK.

    the only difference in the Dem and GOP is the “base” that they use to stoke the fires of the political debate. The GOP is nestled up closely to the right wing and plays all of its cards to that wing. “Death Palins” Oh sorry “Death Panels” is idiocy designed to appeal to the right wing troglodytes who are to stupid to recognize that Sarah Palin for instance has government health care or that the RNC has insurance that allows women abortions. (I have a video of one of her rallies where some old dude is up saying “and Obama is going to mandate classes in euthanasia for all of us” ) LOL

    The Dem’s parly to the left wing base which only now is starting to figure out (gee) that they have been had almost as badly as the GOP right was with Bush.

    I get a hoot out of going to places like Sarah Palin and Chris Dodd’s facebook page and watching “the beloved” be stupid. There is a sucker born every minute and most of them gravitate to either the left or right wing of politics.

    Where are you?

    Robert G. Oler

  • I get a hoot out of going to places like Sarah Palin and Chris Dodd’s facebook page and watching “the beloved” be stupid.

    Then it’s too bad you don’t spend more time there, and less here, because we don’t get so much of a “hoot” out of your off-topic keyboard diarrhea at this site.

  • eng

    Why are we even bringing up the names of cretins like palin, oprah, etc…. and all those other stupidities on the national TV?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand.

    Dont worry I spent a few moments at your place as well. The stuff you post concerning space policy is read very closely. While I do not agree with everything you post, it is generally thoughtful and entertaining. The political stuff? Well easy answers are the opium for the extremes of both parties. And then of course there is the diatribes that you and Whittington carry on mostly on space policy. Those are always worth a good chuckle “(name) has jumped his chain”. Dont worry Whittington’s are entertaining as well. I enjoy when the “converted” engage each other!

    as for

    “Does “right wing” just mean “anyone who disagrees with the great Robert Oler”?” The wife prefers “Robert Oler The Great”…but really the Great Robert Oler is my Great Grandfather.

    As for what the “right wing means”. It is people who 1) are easily lured by ideology, 2) usually jump to the worst case example to make their point (I loved the post you had where trying KSM in federal court was the start of Martial law…LOL) and 3) generally prefer easy answers to hard facts.

    Of course the slant, left or right is the product of the ideology…but the left and right share all those things in common.

    A hoot today is watching the beloved on Palin’s page gush over her interivew with Hannity…the one where she confused Iraq with Iran and then even pardoning that got a bunch of things wrong…

    back to space policy

    Robert G. Oler

  • As for what the “right wing means”. It is people who 1) are easily lured by ideology

    Thank you for confirming (as though it wasn’t obvious from all your other posts) that you are a political moron.

  • Loki

    Just thought I’d throw 2 cents into the earlier X-33/ Venturestar vs DC-X debate:

    As interesting a concept as the DC-X was, I’m personally not sold that it ever could have been developed into an SSTO launcher as some of its supporters seem to think. It’s probably safe to assume that the amount of fuel required for it to make a controlled descent and landing would have made the vehicle far too heavy to be an SSTO. It may have been possible to create a reusable first stage or perhaps second stage based on it though.

    As for X-33/ Venturestar, where to begin? First there were the composite tanks, which were an unmitigated disaster. Not only was it nearly imposible to create tanks in the required shape, but it turns out carbon fiber has a nasty habit of delaminating when exposed to cryogenic temperatures. Then there was the fact that they actually weighed more than Al-Li alloy tanks would have. LM actually went ahead with building the metal tanks before the porject was terminated and they were in fact lighter. Also, the aerospike engine was far heavier than they initially thought.

    IMO the X-33 should have been allowed to fly as a technology demonstrator. There were enough new technologies (new TPS panels, Aerospike engine, etc) to, I think, justify flying it. As for the full scale Venturestar, maybe, maybe not. Like the DC-X much of the technology of the X-33 didn’t scale very well and probably could not have been developed into an SSTO vehicle. It could have been an SSTAO (Single Stage To Almost Orbit) vehicle, which could have then been paired with an upper stage of some sort to launch assets (be it people or other).

    As for launch costs, a lot of people were spouting ridiculous numbers like “$1000/ lb” which would not have been any more achievable than a shuttle launch rate of 50/ year. Too much unique infrastructure and too many support personel would have been required to ever reach that low a price. It probably wouldn’t have been much less expensive, if any, than shuttle.

  • Loki

    Robert:

    Personally I would take your difinition of “right wing” and apply it to “partisan ideological hacks” (PIH for short). That way it covers both ends of the political spectrum.

    One of the biggest problems with politics in general anymore is that a lot of left and right wing PIHs don’t actually realize that’s what they are. I’ve observed that many PIHs only associate with like minded people (leftists tend to stick to sites like DailyKos, right wingers tend to stick to sites like American Spectator). Because of this neither “sub-species” of PIH actually realize how truly out of touch with reality they are. They all believe that their chosen ideology is actually “mainstream” or “moderate” and can’t seem to wrap their minds around the fact that they’re not mainstream at all.

    In some regards they’re not unlike cult members who will fight and argue to their last breath that they’re right and anyone else is wrong, or stupid, or whatever.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Loki

    I agree with much of your comments on DCX and Venturestar.

    We are I think some distance..from SSTO. We are a really long way from an SSTO that is reusable. Those are two different things

    The DC program sort of proved that to me. I am not a “rocket scientist” by nature or degree (EE and Math are the technical ends,) but I got to “hang out” with a lot of folks who were and Martin Bayer and James Chestek of the old Compuserve space forum went a long way toward nurturing my education on that.

    What I liked about DC X and the follow on program is that the focus was as much on “recurring cost” as it was vehicle performance. I never saw that in the Lockmart Venturestar thing. I could easily see the VS eventually winding up with the entire shuttle workforce and inspection program grinding into it.

    I really never see any NASA project do that…X-38 might have…I agree with Wayne Hale that it should have been given a shot at flying.

    As an aside, where I always saw DCX going was in two directions. The first was as I noted a “people reducer” and the second was in some sort of direction as a reusable lower stage…

    one of the thought experiments that got me into was the concept of “spinners”…Like the kind Oberg talked about in his MSNBC piece that Mark W blew up about.

    anyway the result of this is that I suspect we are going to toss first stages into the ocean…for a bit

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Loki wrote @ November 20th, 2009 at 3:08 pm

    One of the biggest problems with politics in general anymore is that a lot of left and right wing PIHs don’t actually realize that’s what they are…

    exactly correct. I prowl both left and right wing sites…and for the very same position on right wing sites I am called a liberal and on left wing sites a conservative.

    It is well entertaining.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    “As interesting a concept as the DC-X was, I’m personally not sold that it ever could have been developed into an SSTO launcher as some of its supporters seem to think.”

    That is the precise reason why NASA should use its power annd cash to work on top end technology, working towards breakthrough and not on steroids!

    “It’s probably safe to assume that the amount of fuel required for it to make a controlled descent and landing would have made the vehicle far too heavy to be an SSTO.”

    Hmm. Possibly but here again unclear. I can see other problems associated with the reentry of something like that. For example if you take the engines back with you your CG will be way aft of where it needs to be. Shuttle has the same problem which requires ballast. Ballast is dead mass and therefore very expensive.

    “It may have been possible to create a reusable first stage or perhaps second stage based on it though.”

    Now indeed, assume a TSTO of some sort where you find a way to recover the first stage. The second stage may still have problems or you may still have to dump the engines before reentry but it might work. You’d probably look at something like the RPK concept. So, some hybrid between DC-X and RPK? Maybe…

    “IMO the X-33 should have been allowed to fly as a technology demonstrator. There were enough new technologies (new TPS panels, Aerospike engine, etc) to, I think, justify flying it.”

    Yes absolutely. Then again there is a conspiracy theory claiming the thing is actually flying somewhere… ;)

    “As for launch costs”

    Almost comical a subject, especially when the current and most earlier plans were to retain the Shuttle workforce…

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    FWIW, I always thought that the DC-X would be better as the upper stage of a TSTO, with a recoverable core stage. SSTO may be possible with reasonable payloads one day, but it isn’t now.

    The budget cut is regrettable but I probably inevitable. Although NASA’s budget is tiny compared to Defence and Social Security, if the agency were spared, you can be sure people would point and insist that it bear pain before their favoured social engineering projects do instead.

    My greatest concern is that Ares-I/Orion has now become an all-overriding corporate objective for NASA in itself, instead of the mission it is supposed to carry out. It is possible that the agency will literally consume itself, destroying its aeronautical and robot science sections in an attempt to get Ares-I/Orion operational as if nothing else mattered. When it finally reaches service (possibly a decade after STS retirement), it will have no role and probably will be cancelled fairly quickly and nothing else of NASA will remain.

  • Daniel W. Roberts

    So what practical benefit is there to sending people back to the Moon and on to Mars? I’ll be the first to say it’s exciting and inspiring but when you weigh another moon shot against taking over the health care industry and developing more government programs to keep our mindless population addicted to the Democratic party I have to tell you, the moon shot loses.
    The main purpose of Democrats and Liberals are to increase goernment dependency to keep people hooked on voting them back into office election after election. This is why the Democrats have never been big fans of space exploration since it takes money away from what is truly important and that is keep their lying corrupt posteriors in office–like Barney Fwank.

Leave a Reply to Robert G. Oler Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>