That, or some other moment, convincing us we’ve fallen behind in the world (which were doing rapidly) could shock us into a “we must get back out in front” political wave?

> Interest in space might lead more people to reach the
> conclusion many of us have reached — that the space program,
> as it was being conducted, was a waste of money. The relative
> ignorance of most voters has allowed NASA to get away
> with much failure and uselessness.

Yeah. Really if you take a hard look at it the space program – and space as a frontier – has failed to deliver. Not that it has to be, but it has been. NASA wants space as a stage for their space spectaculars, and wants no competition there for public applause. But the public wants the vision of large scale access and commercial activity. Mines, factories, big bases, bases on Mars. That hasn’t happened, and handfuls of astronauts repeatedly mugging for the camera gets old after a couple generations. And the money spent is insane by any measure, and far worse in the public’s imagination.

>> @Kelly”Another problem is Constellation has “0” traction
>>with the public. I’ve worked with Aerospace execs who never
>> heard of it, and reacted with utter disbelief that shuttle would
>> be phased out and replaced with a retro-Apollo design. The public
>> isn’t excited either. So NASA has a political problem, on top
>> of losing what the public sees as their “brand” flying people in space.”

> Well, it’s disturbing that any competent aerospace executive would
> be unfamiliar with Constellation simply as a matter of knowing
> what’s going on in their industry. ===

Oh yeah!

>== The public has a lot on its plate and spaceflight is most likely
> way down the list nowadays given the situations with war and jobs.
> But make it clear to them at it will be disappearing and they might react. ==

I do often wonder if the public will react when the news actually does show no shuttles and Astronauts only can fly like the tourists on Soyuz.

Worse. Soyuz has been having increasing safety issues (Oberg did a good article no that.), and losing a US astronaut or 3, because NASA failed to replace their 30 year old shuttle program and was forced to use the 50 year old Soyuz program.

>== it’s most likely going to take another ‘Sputnik’ moment to
> ignite interest on a scale even partially close to the Apollo and early shuttle days.

I can’t imagine anything that could be that much of a sputnik moment?

Well, it’s disturbing that any competent aerospace executive would be unfamiliar with Constellation simply as a matter of knowing what’s going on in their industry. The public has a lot on its plate and spaceflight is most likely way down the list nowadays given the situations with war and jobs. But make it clear to them at it will be disappearing and they might react. No doubt NASA finds it hard to believe it has to keep trying to sell itself as a viable and relevant concern given its history of successes. Although the failures may overshadow them with the Gen-X crowd. Public excitiment can be generated and some popular culture programming is trying to shed new light and interest on it– from Stephen Colbert to David Letterman. But it’s most likely going to take another ‘Sputnik’ moment to ignite interest on a scale even partially close to the Apollo and early shuttle days.

> Constellation would have had more traction had it actually made
> sense. This is the downside of the cynical, integrity-free process
> by which it was created.

You mean design for pork and Griffen vanity? A design copying – badly – a quick and dirty high ops costs low flexibility design.

Yeah – makes sense to me.

;/

>Never heard any others mentioned. What have you heard?

Hall effect, xenon, FEEP, solar sail, as well as advanced chemical (including tank lightweighting, engine design for high temp biprops giving higher ISP) etc. VASIMR is one clever idea. There are lots of others.

> [Re Bigelow expandables} They are safer then the metal ones in the ISS, NASA has already talked with Bigelow about installing them on the ISS – though that didn’t go anywhere.

Making them “go somewhere” costs money. That’s technology development money, and implementing Bigelow-type inflatables are *precisely* what ESMD wants to use some of the tech development money to do. Using expandables is a key element in the ESMD “Flagship Technology Development” program. Sure, it’s not a lab bench tech development, but it’s still what NASA calls tech development.

>No we havn’t built them [in-space nukes]
> in decades – but again not a new tech. Not something NASA should >research.

Give me a break. We’re going to use 1960s technology to develop the next generation of space qualified fission reactors? Don’t send one up over me! Definitely new tech.

>Mir and the ISS were and are refueled by automated tankers.

That’s a fair point, but one would really like retanking that can be done on a large scale autonomously. In fact, you’d probably rather NOT have people around while large scale retanking was going on, if you didn’t have to.

>>The ion propulsion engines we have right now that you proudly
>> point to are orders of magnitude away from anything that would
>> be useful for human space flight or even cargo transfer.

>How? They are rugged, reliable, high efficiency, used both for space >probes and commercial sats. Etc.

Rugged, reliable, high efficiency, and with a thrust that is about a thousand times lower than what you’d need to move large things quickly. No, it’s not just a matter of scaling things up by a thousand. Doesn’t work that way.

> Yep. Which is why it will never happen. The $ wasted on 90
> days of war in Afghastan would fund Constellation’s budget
> gap for two or three years. The last country that ended up
> pouring all its resources into guns and skipped on the butter
> disappeared– their spacecraft carried the letters ‘C.C.C.P.’

But it is happening. Congress has failed to get Bolden’s Constellation shutdown reversed, the subcommittee pretty much suggested leaving it for the next congress (which really is all they can do in this late date.” Let it drag for a year and the constellation program will gone, along with the staffs and some of the subcontracting companies. At that point you’ld need to propose some major new program and get it threw fast.

Another problem is Constellation has “0” traction with the public. I’ve worked with Aerospace execs who never heard of it, and reacted with utter disbelief that shuttle would be phased out and replaced with a retro-Apollo design. The public isn’t excited either. So NASA has a political problem, on top of losing what the public sees as their “brand” flying people in space.

> Only if you watch Fox News. ==

Or watch / read any news. Reporters and columnists who’ve been around, and sad the last time they’ve seen a movement this big was the civil rights movement 40 years ago. Million + marches on the Capitol? Congressmen and Senators getting 10 times the normal number of folks coming to their public meeting – and the crowds HEATED. Candidates who were virtual unknowns but won or got close after endorsements from the Tea Party or Palin? Polls of political allegiances swinging strongly to the right, adn for the first time in about ever – list debts and deficits as their top concern.

No at least for this year the games different.