This will be an extremely tightly controlled joke! LOL

Instead of white doctors smocks surrounding Obama like for health rationing, will we have space suits instead? LOL

No amount of hubris, lecturing and more LIES is going to save the Obama plan. It’s DOA, they just are too arrogant to accept it.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/03/live-delta-iv-launch-goes-p-satellite/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOES-P

Yes, there is. The $6 billion Commercial Spaceflight program replaces Space Shuttle and Ares I/Orion for ISS transport.

Stop making stuff up.

“There some money to SpaceX and others for studies.” Nothing more.

The study funding is from the 2010 Recovery Act. It’s not in the President’s FY 2011 budget request, which hasn’t even been passed into law and couldn’t fund anything yet anyway (duh…).

Moreover, SpaceX hasn’t received any study funding for commercial crew, from the 2010 Recovery Act or otherwise, only their COTS and CRS awards for cargo (double duh…).

Stop making stuff up.

“The out year 6 billion over 5 years is far short of what will be needed to build a functioning taxi to the ISS.”

The Augustine Committee, with the support of independent cost estimators at the Aerospace Corp., estimated that $5 billion was conservatively needed to develop two commercial crew providers by 2016. The President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA provides extra budget and schedule margin by adding $1 billion to this figure.

Stop making stuff up.

“VSE has been replaced with nothing.”

Constellation has been replaced with programs that will actually fulfill the VSE, including the VSE direction to acquire crew transport for the ISS, undertake robotic precursor missions to the Moon and Mars, invest in ISRU, develop high-power in-space propulsion, etc., etc. Constellation ate all the funding for those elements of the VSE.

Stop making stuff up.

“Bolden said so when he rolled Obama’s plan out. He said they don’t know what they will do”

The NASA Administrator said no such thing. Stop making stuff up.

“Advanced HLV is again just a long term start in this budget. Minimal monies are awarded, around $600 million to study kerolox.”

The Heavy Lift and Propulsion budget line is $3.1 billion over five years. Stop making stuff up.

“The senselessness of this is there is no mission, no requirements”

NASA has developed DRMs for GEO, NEO, and Phobos missions, in addition to existing lunar and Mars DRMs.

Stop making stuff up.

“Extending ISS to 2028 kills that part of the argument.”

No, it doesn’t. Commercial crew still delivers years earlier than Ares I/Orion for a fraction of the cost. ISS could be extended to infinity and commercial crew is still a faster and much less expensive option.

Stop making stuff up.

“You claim just as many jobs will be created under Obama FY2011 as with… Constellation.”

Red is probably right. At KSC, for example, Constellation was supposed to create 7,000 jobs, but it wouldn’t have hit that peak until sometime in the 2020s when Ares V development was ramping up. By contrast, the 21st Century KSC revitalization budget will create about 5,000 construction jobs at KSC by about 2012, the Commercial Spaceflight program will create about 1,700 jobs in Florida by about 2016, and the in-space cryo and ISRU demos (both KSC core competencies) will create more. That’s 6,700+ jobs in the first half of this decade at KSC versus 7,000 sometime next decade.

There’s a similar story in Alabama as the Heavy Lift & Propulsion budget line will double or triple the number of engine development projects at MSFC versus Ares I and the Commercial Spaceflight program will generate demand at ULA in Decatur.

“Layout any public info that SpaceX, Orbital, ULA will be hiring 10’s of thousands of engineers and manufacturing jobs for their programs.”

Per the Commercial Space Flight Federation, commercial crew would create 5,000 jobs nationwide:

commercialspaceflight.org/pressreleases/CSF%20Press%20Release%20-%20Commercial%20Crew%20Would%20Create%20Over%205000%20Direct%20Jobs,%20Industry%20Survey%20Reveals%20-%209-15-09.pdf

“Ares I would be flying around 2017, the Augustine report said so”

No, the Augustine report only states that the earliest Ares I/Orion would be operational is 2017. The report’s likely date for Ares I/Orion is 2019.

Stop making stuff up.

“and I believe them.”

But not when it comes to commercial crew?

Don’t selectively quote references.

“Without Shuttle or Ares I, I see little incentive for Congress to keep funding it once the treaty obligation is met.”

Only Mission Ops in Texas, Payload Ops & Integration in Alabama, the National Laboratory legislation, and two new authorization bills extending ISS lifetime to 2020.

Stop making stuff up.

“Ares was a BEO system”

Ares was not a BEO system. The Ares launchers delivered crew, cargo, and propellant to LEO, not BEO. The never-funded EDS and lunar Orion, and terminated Altair were the BEO systems.

Stop making stuff up.

“Obama has killed the BEO ambitions of Nasa”

The President’s budget request for NASA’s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate is over $4 billion in FY 2011 (a half billion dollar increase over FY 2010) and over $20 billion over five years.

Stop making stuff up.

Ugh…

An Orion derivative on an EELV should be a strong contender for commercial crew development, but it will have to win a substantial award first and that competition won’t happen until 2011.

FWIW…

I don’t know ….maybe Ron Paul. I didn’t call Obama a socialist. The reference was to Sen. Sanders who I believe is self-declared and proud of it. Obama clearly is the most “liberal” President ever.

See, here is my problem – how do you know that space development can’t be a part of either social justice or the rights of free markets? In point of fact, I would submit that it can do both, at the same time, if you have a spacefaring society.

You were asking me why I had certain attitude toward Obama. I was just explaining that I don’t find people with very strong ideological views tend to be the most open to space flight. That doesn’t some are but most are much more focused on “Earthly” ideas on social structure. With the left seeing at a low priority and the right seeing as wasteful government spending. I’m fairly much on the right and very much for space. But how many right-wing talkshow hosts are complaining about this plan?

I think that moderates are more open to this just because the are open to voting for Reagan and Bush then voting for Perot then Clinton then Bush II and then Obama. So they might be open to a space sales pitch too. Really this is a bipartisan issue or both side of the debate.

As common sense indicates enough of this. Now some of this:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/03/orion-removed-nasa-control-mod-positioning-commercial/

If I’m reading this correctly (am I?) NASA has just turned Orion over to Lockheed Martin to develop as they wish. So it looks like my minimal position is already underway, i.e. Orion (mostly likely scaled back) paired with an EELV. If this is right the intensity of my objection can be reduced a little.

I see your point that he isn’t part of the “fringe-left” like Franken. Sanders is a socialist who caucuses with the Democrats. Obama is a career politician who aimed for the top job and that requires a certain moderation. That’s doesn’t mean doesn’t share many of the same values. The only reason he isn’t pushing single-payer is because he knows he can’t get it passed not because he actually is against it.

If you think Franken is fringe left, then I am very curious as to who you think on the Republican side is fringe right.

As for why he isn’t pushing single payer – I am not convinced that it couldn’t have gotten through, had he actually tried to push it through. He never did.

With regards to Afgahnastan, I refer you to Robert Oler’s comment

I’m not saying that conservative as a group are big time supporters of space either. I don’t think the “TEA Party” is good for HSF programs. Probably “moderates” are the best group for public support of space since they aren’t tied to an ideology and it looks forward thinking. The left is more focused on “social justice” and the right “free markets”. Both get in the way of government spending on a non-essential like HSF.

See, here is my problem – how do you know that space development can’t be a part of either social justice or the rights of free markets? In point of fact, I would submit that it can do both, at the same time, if you have a spacefaring society.

Limiting yourself to a “moderate” crowd (something that I suspect you and I would disagree on), means you aren’t reaching people who might be your allies, because you’ve assumed that human spaceflight is somehow at odds with social justice, when I don’t believe it the case at all.

Last point. Cancelling Ares is fine with me if Obama came up with something better. He came up with nothing for BEO. Ares was a BEO system and wasn’t intended for the ISS. It could do it of course, but that wasn’t its purpose. Griffin was on record with the COTS program that pre-dated Obama to have commercial providers supply the ISS. Then if they performed that mission, give them a chance to ferry humans too.
Obama has killed the BEO ambitions of Nasa and simply trusts the commercial guys can build a cargo system for the ISS and then a crewed vehicle with no backstop should they fail. Smart.

How is extending ISS to 2020 “killing HSF” at NASA?

Don’t make stuff up.

“No known follow on program.”

On top of the existing $500 million COTS program, the new budget plan creates a $6 billion Commercial Crew program to put in place two providers of crew transport to the ISS by 2016. That’s $1 billion more than what the Augustine report stated was needed to develop two providers by 2016. That’s the follow-on program to Shuttle.

Don’t make stuff up.

“No end in sight to Russian rides to LEO.”

The new budget plan ends reliance on Soyuz by 2016 at the latest. That’s a 1 to 3 year improvement over the POR, which wouldn’t have ended reliance on Soyuz until 2017 at the earliest and most likely not until 2019.

Don’t make stuff up.

“No known program to replace VSE… You say HLV development is accelerated?”

Yes. Under the new budget plan, there’s a multi-billion dollar budget for the development of actual HLV hardware that gets started in FY 2011. Under the POR, Ares V was stuck in study mode at a lousy $25 million per year through at least FY 2015 and probably longer. That’s at least a four-year acceleration of HLV development.

“You mean Bolden saying the “game changing” technology might be ready by 2030? That’s your idea of acceleration? Then Bolden says maybe after 2020? Thats acceleration all these maybe’s?”

Bolden stated that he wants a heavy lift vehicle between 2020 and 2030. See:

spacenews.com/civil/100206-bolden-says-nasa-will-leverage-constellation-technologies.html

Bolden wasn’t talking about “technology”. And even if he was, most of the Exploration R&D projects have delivery milestones in the 2010-2020 decade.

Don’t make things up.

“Strange.”

It’s strange that you never get one quote or reference right.

Stop making things up.

“Commercial providers have never sent one person in orbit. Relying on them now as the sole means to Leo is asking for failure.”

Are you kidding?

From McDonnell Aircraft’s Mercury capsule design and build to McDonnell Aircraft’s Gemini capsule build to North Amercian Aviation’s Apollo capsule build to Rockwell’s Space Shuttle orbiter build, Boeing’s predecessor companies built every operational NASA human space transport.

On top of that, Northrup Grumman built the Apollo LEM, and Lockheed Martin was building Constellation’s Orion capsule.

On top of that, United Space Alliance, a joint venture of Boeing and LockMart, is responsible for nearly all day-to-day Space Shuttle operations.

On top of that, United Launch Alliance, another joint venture of Boeing and LockMart, has completed 30 successful launches of the Atlas V and Delta IV launch vehicles — vehicles responsible for launching multi-billion dollar military and intelligence assets that are critical to national security as well as nuclear payloads that could shorten the lifetime of thousands if they suffer failure.

After decades of human space system development and operation, how have commercial providers “never sent one person in orbit”?

After decades of human space system development and operation and dozens of successful launches with their modern vehicle fleet, how is relying on commercial providers “asking for failure”?

Stop making things up.

“Incidentally Tom, I never likened Orion to lowering costs, you created that straw man.”

I didn’t create any strawman. I pointed out that the two recommendations in your earlier post — restarting Constellation development and lower ISS costs — are incompatible. Constellation increases ISS costs. It does not lower them.

Don’t blame if your posts don’t make any sense.

“Also, just another fact, his budget is for FY 2011, not 2015…”

No, the President’s budget request for NASA is always a five-year budget. Although the appropriators will only appropriate for the fiscal year in question (FY 2011 in this case), the President’s budget extends out five years (FY 2015 in this case).

Stop making stuff up.

“Future Congresses are in no way bound to his recent budget.”

Except that the authorizers are authorizing the activities necessary to extend ISS to 2020 in FY 2011 and their authorization extends to FY 2012.

Stop making stuff up.

“Your reaction isn’t goofy, its strange”

You want to know what’s goofy or strange?

Claiming that a President is “killing HSF” when he’s extending the nation’s space station program by five years.

Claiming that a President has not provided for a follow-on program to the Space Shuttle when that President’s budget proposes $6 billion program, $1 billion more than recommended by a blue-ribbon panel of experts, to develop two providers of crew transport services to the ISS, on top of the existing $500 million program to develop two providers of cargo transport services to the ISS.

Claiming that there is “no end in sight” to Soyuz reliance when the new budget plan would put in place two providers of crew transport services to the ISS at least 1 to 3 years before the POR single provider of crew transport services.

Claiming that there is no HLV acceleration when the new budget plan would start spending billions of dollars on HLV development at least 4 years before the POR.

Claiming that commercial providers have “never sent one person to orbit” when they have built and operated every NASA human space flight vehicle.

Claiming that ISS costs need to come down but advocating the continued development of systems that would increase ISS costs.

Claiming that the President’s budget for NASA is only for one fiscal year, when it’s always a five-year budget.

I don’t know if it’s sheer ignorance, a problem with reading comprehension, or an inability to see reality through politically colored glasses. But whatever your problem is, try to get at least one fact, reference, or quote right in your next post. If you can’t, then take it someplace else. It’s a waste of your time and a waste of other posters’ time to correct the innumerable false statements and errors in your posts.

Lawdy…

The real surprise is his escalation of Afghanistan. My guess is that he hopes he can repeat Bush’s surge in Iraq so that he can get out before the 2012 election. Losing the war (whatever that means) and then have the U.S. get hit with major attack just might be seen as resulting in his certain defeat….

I dont know why it is a surprise.. Candidate Obama said he was going to do just that…escalate the war.

Robert G. Oler