Congress, NASA

Post wants a better compromise

It’s official: the Senate NASA authorization bill is on the floor schedule for the House today as the sixth of six bills to be considered under suspension of the rules. With that in mind, the Washington Post sounds off on the state of the agency and its future in an editorial Wednesday, its second in two months. The Post calls the bill “flawed” because it is “an oddly specific plan in which members of Congress took it upon themselves to specify the exact contours of the U.S. plan for space — contours that often seem to conform to district and state lines.” Without additional funding, which the editorial concludes is not forthcoming, the Post instead believes a better, if relatively unspecific, approach would be to “invest in research and aeronautics and to salvage technology, expertise and resources from the Constellation program” for use for human space exploration at some future date.

69 comments to Post wants a better compromise

  • The Post bit was weak!

    Study now, fly later. I’m all for technology programs, but without a mission, capability to fly is far, far away.

  • So, err, what’s with newspapers publishing unsigned opinions? Who wrote this opinion? What happened to journalistic integrity?

  • Greg Limardi

    This type of rollercoastering in the planning and budget process based on the whim of whatever political party is in office is the main reason his crap occurs. You can’t have a long term goal that takes 20 years when presidents change every 8 and congress every 2. I think it’s not in the countries best interest that the government can change goals and waist money like that. Constellation was planned and agreed on, we knew it would take 20. Years and now 8 billion into it an 7. Years Obama can just nix it for his own reasons! No. We will never go to the stars this way.

  • Greg, we did? First lunar landing was supposed to be in 2020 remember? ESAS was only 2005. The VSE was only 2004. Where do you get this stuff?

    Where do you get this 8 billion from? Ares I alone is $10B in the hole. Almost halfway through with that much money spent and all you’ve achieved is the first suborbital test flight? Really? When would you consider it an ok time to cancel it? 10 years after the deadline with 3 times the budget spent or something?

  • The Post bit was weak!

    I’ll second that.

    But like all compromises, the Senate bill is the muddy middle ground that keeps the bearings greased for the wheels and doesn’t make everyone happy.

  • amightywind

    A better compromise would allow NASA to invest in research and aeronautics and to salvage technology, expertise and resources from the Constellation program, and use them to develop capacity for a time when America is in a better position to aim upward.

    Now that’s inspiring. What a leftist rag! The $5 billion annual space shuttle budget is more than enough to fund major elements of Constellation, even if other areas of the NASA budget are severely cut. Deorbit the ISS and NASA HSF will have all of the funding it will ever need. Obama’s proposal is not a plan, it is a surrender.

  • amightywind, deorbit the ISS? The only reason anyone is flying to space right now? What a great plan. Apparently that $2B/year is “all the funding HSF will ever need” .. and no-one will ever need more than 640k of RAM.

  • That NASA Engineer@KSC

    amightywind –

    On your comment about $5B a year being “more than enough” – go see the numbers for Constellation, from the Augustine committee, and then go see even recent HEFT analysis (posted at NASA Watch). The $5B seems to come up short by Billions a year (assuming the way these plans go about using that resource). Pointing out this distinction is necessary; otherwise people start to think the content can be had without a change in how we do business.

    On your observation “even if other areas of the NASA budget are severely cut” – I’m curious which ones? This was the problem with the Constellation view. It was supposed to be about exploration, but on the way to it’s PDR it became about transportation. Transportation so expensive that the reason for getting there, such as science, setting up a habitat or such, the payloads per se, were slowly taken off the table. The Shuttle made a similar mistake in not getting operational costs within target, and combined with other events, it meant that we would not have a start of a Space Station until a generation after the start of Shuttle. The original plan called for a large Station fund-line soon after Shuttle’s first flights. And even then (again), we have all this today while lacking the funds to adequately exploit science – because payloads, instruments and experiments need that same funding from Human Space Flight.

    Then you observe “Deorbit the ISS and NASA HSF will have all the funding it will ever need”. That was in the Constellation plan, to count on a couple of Billion a year in ISS funds being freed up after 2015. It’s also the reason Constellation lost many advocates, for now we were not only all about some combination dual launch vehicle architecture, all transportation, and no exploration, but we were also going to have to give up the existing in-space infrastructure. All in exchange for a couple of flags-and-footprints a year starting in the early 2020’s. And nothing more, as the operational cost projections precluded any payloads, lunar base, experiments, science or otherwise.

    Apollo threw away all that hardware. It wasn’t sustainable then; it may not be sustainable now or in the future, barring something different in the mix.

    The problem becomes creating the transport, with new ways of doing business, so that it’s merely a part of HSF. Not so it consumes all HSF. Healthy HSF includes payloads to exploit the transport, some in-space infrastructure (transient/ adaptable or permanent being TBD) elements, and resources left over (after recurring operations) to think ahead and develop what comes after. It’s not about getting there, some “achievement”. It’s about coming out stronger or weaker 5, 10, 20 or 30 years down the road. It’s also about accepting a difficult budget reality ahead that will challenge agencies such as NASA as never before.

    And there are those who believe that simply getting to it, or saying there’s no reason it can’t be done for X a year, will weaken us more than disrupting any attempt at a new-normal that will only implode again even more dramatically than Cx has. The fundamentals of the situation have to be accepted. Then we’ll move forward.

    Denial and setting off in a direction to some new-normal will be a dangerous combination.

  • amightywind

    I’m curious which ones?

    Fair enough. Looking at the President’s current budget request summary

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428837main_NASA_FY_2011_Congressional_Justificaton_Budget_Book_Rev-01_BOOKMARKED.pdf

    I would terminate STS and ISS operations ($5G), Earth Science ($1.4B), cut the management budget by 20% ($400M), cut aeronautics research by 50% ($250M). I would also close of sell NASA Ames. This brings NASA closer to its core mission and frees up funding for development of new launchers and spacecraft.

    Denial and setting off in a direction to some new-normal will be a dangerous combination.

    But worse is a NASA run by bureaucratic political burnouts unwilling to sign up for any mission.

  • Post article not only weak it had nothing to really contribute, especially for a last minute statement the day of the vote. More likely the Post wanted a NASA something-or-another on the day of the congressional vote to help them sell papers.

    Every space enthusiast will feel like they’ve compromised something with Senate Bill. Time to move forward with what we’ve got, which whatever you think, you probably believe it could be worse (unless you’re Mike Griffin).

  • CharlesTheSpaceGuy

    The Senate bill is flawed but is the best that we could hope for, right now. It just keeps things going and allows us to live to fight another day. Given a few years, we will have access to space using Falcon/Dragon and hopefully will have CST-100 and Orion available to fly on Delta. CST-100 might fly on Atlas as well, but Delta is the almost-sure-thing.

    And about this mindless prattling about “deorbit the ISS” – any rational person would sit for a minute and ask “how do you do that??”. We would need a space tug of some sort to deorbit the Laboratory, the JEM, and Columbus. Who would develop that? You could mod the ATV to do it perhaps but it is not just an issue of hooking it up like a trailer!

    And then – we do not own the ISS! What would ESA think about our decision to use their ATV to deorbit their Columbus??

    A mighty wind is delusional at best as are other people who casually decide to deorbit the ISS.

  • Reality Bites

    The Post editorial is the most rational and well considered op-ed I have read on the issue of American human space flight for a good long while.

    The key term is ‘salvage’. There is lots that can be salvaged from the Shuttle and Constellation program, but the monster Jesus rocket is many years away and it’s expendable philosophy is what makes it unaffordable and unsustainable in the short and long timeframes under consideration.

    I believe that the primary NASA centers under political consideration here, JSC, MSFC and KSC, with the help of its many satellite scientific oriented centers such as Ames, Goddard, Langley, etc., could easily implement a much smaller and more valuable five meter class prototype reusable stage and a half all liquid powered launch vehicle using the existing SSMEs (thus making it shuttle derived) and the Ares I upper stage spin forming and friction stir welding technology (thus making it Constellation derived), which would have the high flight rates thought necessary for lower costs, and could make great use of commercial hydrocarbon boosters, if they were to start heavy investment in Russian engine coproduction right now.

    Even without the Russian engines, the Falcon 9 would make a very usable outboard booster in the near term. If you want to reform NASA’s ability to participate in launch vehicle evolution and progress, that has to start at the three and five meter level, and involve bith government and industry collaboration, and not competition. Human space flight advocates both private and public need to face facts that beyond Earth orbit space human spaceflight is decades away and start concentrating on the planet we have.

    Pass the bill without the 70 ton SRB mandate, and you’re good to go. Otherwise I fully expect another five years and ten billion dollars gone. Anybody who has studied this problem thoroughly knows that the problems lie with the SRBs, the large ET form factors, the foam insulation and the current expendable nature of the high performance liquid fueled engines. We have all of the various elements and components necessary to solve each of those problems at our disposal, all that is required is someone with the intelligence and courage to put all those pieces of the puzzle together.

  • amightywind

    And then – we do not own the ISS! What would ESA think about our decision to use their ATV to deorbit their Columbus??
    A mighty wind is delusional at best as are other people who casually decide to deorbit the ISS.

    Griffin wanted to do it in 2015 and had support from the Bush administration and congress. Driving the Bolsheviks from power all that is needed. As for the ISS partners, who cares? They have contributed little. Now a generation is held hostage to a useless facility that no one wants, marooned with the despotic Russians. These are hard facts to escape. In the end, deorbiting ISS is the only real choice. NASA should have built a much smaller station, along the lines of the Boeing Bigelow design. Sadly they did not. In the end the UN in the sky will be brought down.

  • This brings NASA closer to its core mission and frees up funding for development of new launchers and spacecraft.

    There is no need for NASA to develop new launchers, and human spaceflight is not NASA’s “core mission.” It isn’t even mentioned in the Space Act. Promoting commercialization is, though.

  • MrEarl

    RB:
    What?! Do have any idea what you’re talking about or are you just throwing out terms with no understanding of their meaning?

  • byeman

    Windy, you are clueless and a troll. Read the space act, what you propose cuting is actually “NASA’s core mission” CxP and Ares I is not NASA’s core mission

  • amightywind

    ..Ares I is not NASA’s core mission

    For now, you are right. NASA’s core mission is muslim outreach, apparently.

  • amightywind –

    Why not sell ISS to China?

    Or better yet outsource all of NASA to China?

    If the US is to surrender the development of low earth orbit to another country, which one should we choose to kneel to?

  • I have a question for you politically astute space cadets out there; if NASA is going to build this DIRECTish SDHLV by 2016-2017 supposedly, does this affect the military’s TSTO fly-back hydrocarbon booster project and why couldn’t NASA have piggy-backed research onto that?

    Yeah, I know about the pork bs, but military contractors are the same NASA contractors and they get the choice pork, what gives?

  • if NASA is going to build this DIRECTish SDHLV by 2016-2017 supposedly, does this affect the military’s TSTO fly-back hydrocarbon booster project

    No.

    and why couldn’t NASA have piggy-backed research onto that?

    The work is in the wrong congressional districts.

  • Reality Bites

    Do have any idea what you’re talking about or are you just throwing out terms with no understanding of their meaning?

    Yeah, I guess I’m pretty sure I know what I’m talking about, having studied the problems. I can explain it in greater detail, if you are unable to do the basic research yourself. Read dad2059’s recent comment, that should put it into a little better perspective for you. He seems to have done some basic research.

  • @ amightywind

    You’re speaking a lot of truth about the ISS:-) There was no logical reason to build a super titanic space station.

    And now the Russians are building their own commercial space station while charging Americans to fly to the ISS on their vessels.

    http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2010/09/russian-companies-plan-to-build.html

  • That NASA Engineer@KSC

    ahhh… amightywind …ahhh yes…that’s all we need to do. Thanks, so obvious. I don’t know how I complicated the whole discussion with reality, data, talk about improvements in ways of doing business, some far fetched talk about budgets being squeezed in the future (ludicrous) or any perspective about exploration and science distinct from merely transportation and getting there.

    Geez…My apologies. I’m enlightened now. I definitely have to read less, put away that Excel, forget what I learned launching Shuttles, forget past experiences in trying to get this next step going, and maybe have a few beers. It’s so obvious now.

  • The work is in the wrong congressional districts.

    Ahh, I surmised such, but I wasn’t certain. Thanks Rand.

  • Scott Bass

    posted September 29, 2010 10:56 AM               
    NASA release
    NASA Administrator Calls Congressional Vote An Important Step Forward In Space Exploration
    NASA Administrator Charles Bolden issued the following statement:
    “Today, a historic vote will occur in the House of Representatives on a comprehensive NASA authorization bill that is expected to chart the future course of human space flight for years to come. I am hopeful that S. 3729 — the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010– will receive strong support in the House and be sent onto the President for his signature.

    “Earlier this year, President Obama laid out an ambitious new plan for NASA – one that helps blaze a new trail of innovation and discovery. His plan would invest more in NASA; extend the life of the International space station; launch a commercial space transportation industry; foster the development of path-breaking technologies; help create thousands of new jobs; and embark on a fundamentally more ambitious strategy to expand our frontiers in space.

    “Passage of this bill represents an important step forward towards helping us achieve key goals the President has laid out. If passed, the bill would help put the U.S. space program on a more sustainable trajectory and inspire a new generation of Americans to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. This important change in direction will not only help us chart a new path in space, but can help us retool for the industries and jobs of the future that will be vital for long term economic growth. NASA appreciates all of the hard work and effort that has gone into advancing this legislation.

    “I also salute our dedicated employees for continuing their good work and keeping their eyes on the prize during these important deliberations. Our workforce has proven time and again that it can meet any challenge. Congress and the President are once again calling on us to step up and move this nation forward in space exploration.

    “NASA is grateful for the longstanding, bipartisan support that it receives from the Congress. There is still a lot of work ahead, especially as the 2011 appropriations process moves forward, but the continuing support for NASA ensures America’s space program will remain at the forefront of pioneering new frontiers in science, technology, and exploration.”

    Scott Bass
    Member
    Posts: 11
    From: Pelzer S.C. USA
    Registered: Sep 2010

    posted September 29, 2010 11:42 AM               
    It sounds like another missed opportunity for Bolden to embrace the changes being made by congress to the Presidents plan. I kind of feel that is why the senate went so far with the language of what they wanted built, There is simply no trust in Bolden or the Obama administration to follow the intent of congress. so they had to spell it out for him. it might be a healthy thing for Bolden to step down at this point, the ethics slap on the wrist he recently received and his comments to that middle east newspaper about the Nasa mission I think hurt the public perception of him. A stronger leader as Nasa Administrator might be appropriate at this point, perhaps a outsider, definitely not Lori Garver

  • amightywind

    sftommy wrote:

    If the US is to surrender the development of low earth orbit to another country

    We already have by handing Vladimir Putin far more technical standing than he merits. It defies reasoning. As for ‘development of low earth orbit’, there is nothing there! Between now and 2018 the US would spend $50G on this leviathan. For what? For all of you that prattle endlessly about the costs of a shuttle replacement, doesn’t that get your attention?

  • Ferris Valyn

    Mr. Bass

    Sorry, but I think Lori would be the best person right now for NASA admin. That said, I will grant she would have a hard time getting confirmed (although Obama could do a recess appointment for her)

    If it must be someone on the outside, I have 3 suggestions (in no particular order)
    Patti Grace Smith
    Lennard Fisk
    Steve Isakowitz

  • Ferris Valyn

    As for ‘development of low earth orbit’, there is nothing there! Between now and 2018 the US would spend $50G on this leviathan. For what? For all of you that prattle endlessly about the costs of a shuttle replacement, doesn’t that get your attention?

    No, because you have (as usual) misrepresented the facts.

  • Dennis Berube

    Hey with all your brilliant ideas on what NASA should do with its money, why not give the politicians ideas to fix Social Security too! While your at it, with all the money saved by your ideas, why not tell the politicians they can vote themselves in big raises this year. Give it to them and good for them…

  • Ferris Valyn

    Mr. Berube – Some of us already have. Of course, what that has to do with space politics kinda mystifies me

  • Ferris Valyn wrote @ September 29th, 2010 at 12:57 pm

    A key attribute for NASA Administrator is the ability to win support in Congress. Absent that ability, nothing else matters. Nothing.

  • Scott Bass

    Ferris, my main problem with Lori is I do not see any indications that she fought to keep the moon program alive from the start. She seems to have pretty readily accepted the Obama plan. Following orders? Loyal? Perhaps but I prefer someone to stand up for what they believe in. I initially had high hopes for Bolden but he quickly proved himself as a man that lacked vision…… If you dig through his speeches he uses words like ” we can’t”

    Some lone like him at the helm would have doomed Apollo, I guess Lori would have to actually take the helm in order to see her true grit but she has disappointed me in her current role

  • Ferris Valyn

    Bill – who says Lori can’t win support, if she were administrator

    Mr. Bass – I can’t speak for Lori personally, but maybe she didn’t fight for Constellation because she thought this was a better plan. Like I do.

  • Scott Bass

    Bill, if your speaking about Obamas original plan as submitted then this is just a fundamental disagreement about which way we feel Nasa should be going. Lori and Bolden for that matter both made statements that were highly supportive of the moon program, just not entirely sold on ares 1. And I have to note to that President Obamas own space policy position put out in august or sept before the election promised support for constellation. I am still feeling the sting from that because I am such a space nut I placed a large portion of my vote on that policy paper…… I have moved on from that though and am now just looking forward, praying for heavy lift to get built now with a supportive President to use it wisely in the future.

  • Ferris Valyn wrote @ September 29th, 2010 at 12:57 pm

    Sorry, but I think Lori would be the best person right now for NASA admin. That said, I will grant she would have a hard time getting confirmed (although Obama could do a recess appointment for her)

    Ferris, you yourself admit she would have a hard time getting confirmed.

    All by itself, that suggests to me she wouldn’t be effective lobbying Congress.

  • Scott Bass

    Btw….this is obviously speculation, I seriously do not expect Bolden to step down or Obama to fire him unless he does something else stupid. I don’t even think Nasa is on Obamas radar screen.

  • Scott Bass wrote @ September 29th, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    Scott, I am not certain what you are asking me.

    I am a strong supporter of the current Senate bill and have liked the DIRECT approach for several years which includes commercial crew & cargo to ISS as part of a balanced program.

    Commercial to ISS plus Jupiters beyond LEO and an international EML-1 or EML-2 fuel depot to facilitate going to all of Moon, NEOs, Phobos, Mars & Ceres. I am also now persuaded that the lunar water deposits are worth pursuing aggressively.

    Also, we should encourage non-NASA space stations for tourism and entertainment purposes, ASAP. Regardless of what nation launches those private facilities.

  • Justin Kugler

    According to friends who are intimately involved in space policy, Bolden and Garver took a plan much like what the Augustine report recommended three separate times and were told it was too expensive each time. After the third iteration, OSTP was put in charge and told to figure out a way to fit the key concepts within the budget the White House could live with.

    So, it is arguable that Garver has been fighting for what she believes in – the expanded commercialization of LEO so NASA can focus on exploration and R&D.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Mr. Bass – I assume you were talking to me, not Bill, since I was the one talking in support of Obama’s plan. And I do agree that this is probably a fundamental disagreement.

    And I have to note to that President Obamas own space policy position put out in august or sept before the election promised support for constellation.

    Actually, no it didn’t. Go read it again, and go watch the speech he gave in Titusville – NOWHERE were the words Constellation or Ares I mentioned. Go look, and you’ll find that Obama did NOT endorse or speak strongly in favor of Constellation.

    Mr. Kugler – Thats not what I’ve heard, but most of what I hear I can’t really reveal. HOWEVER, its worth noting that Obama’s proposal was, in fact, VERY close to one of the Augustine recommendations – specifically 5b (I think that was the number – it was either 4b or 5b) – flexible plan with commercially derived heavy lift. The big change was a decision not to race towards Super-HLV.

  • Scott Bass

    Ok Bill, so we are in agreement on the senate version, everyone has their parts they like the most and for me it is heavy lift. But I was just going back in history a couple of years by saying I was paying close attention who was fighting to keep all of constellation intact. The answer is no one in the Obama administration stuck there neck out that I know of to save constellation. Not bolden, not garver etc etc.

    Now we are in a new ball game, we are on the verge of saving major components of constellation, through Orion and a heavy lift derivative of ares v or direct. , for that I am thankful. but I am not forgetting those that axes the original vision, yes it was behind schedule, yes griffens rockets might have been the wrong choice but the bottom line is President Bush had set the course that I believe was right.

  • no one in the Obama administration stuck there neck out that I know of to save constellation.

    Because it wasn’t worth saving.

  • Scott Bass

    Farris, quote” “Human spaceflight is important to America’s political, economic, technological, and scientific leadership,” the paper said. “Barack Obama .. .. . endorses the goal of sending human missions to the Moon by 2020, as a precursor in an orderly progression to missions to more distant destinations, including Mars.”

    Dude, it does not matter that he did not use the word constellation, that is constellation, it was a lie. Black and white

  • John G

    Amightywind – go fot it! Deorbit the ISS!!!

    It’s time for NASA to set goals that is worth the risk with HSF. The Challenger and Colombia accidents have killed 14 astronauts – for what? For going up 400 kilometers to a construction that is built for what? The purpose of space exploration should be to go from Earth to another world – not hanging in LEO lap after lap – doing nothing.

    Let ISS sink.

    If the Russians and ESA wants to continue with the station project – let them finance it by themselves.

  • Scott Bass

    Rand…..it is my opinion that the opportunity to modify constellation existed, Ares 1 could have been scrapped without scrapping the whole program…..The guts of Constellation, the very idea was sound. the moon should be a test bed for a multitude of new technologies needed for exploration and an eventual mars landing

  • The guts of Constellation, the very idea was sound.

    No, it wasn’t. Constellation is not identically equal to going back to the moon — it was a terrible way to do it, and thee are much better ways. Ares I and Orion defined Constellation, and it was “modified” by removing Ares, it would no longer be Constellation. Constellation wasn’t a mission or a goal — it was a flawed hardware architecture.

  • Scott Bass

    Rand, I disagree, Constellation was not hardware but your splitting straws. Altair , Orion, Ares could all have been modified, actually Orion was downsized but it was still Orion. I advocate keeping the constellation name for the new direction, it is still and exploration program with the end game being mars, it still fits, Altair will still be built eventually and the ares V may still win over Jupiter direct, both are possibilities under the senate direction although a 130mt for Jupiter direct seems to be pushing it

  • byeman

    Constellation was nothing but hardware. Constellation was not the VSE.

  • Coastal Ron

    Scott Bass wrote @ September 29th, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    Rand, I disagree, Constellation was not hardware but your splitting straws. Altair , Orion, Ares could all have been modified, actually Orion was downsized but it was still Orion.

    First of all, Constellation is just a marketing name. It doesn’t embody where we are going, or how we are getting there. It’s just a name.

    Now in this case, Constellation as a marketing name has about the same connotation as Edsel did for cars in the 50’s. And just like Ford decided not to retool the Edsel to be more mainstream, NASA is wise to just drop the marketing name “Constellation” and adopt something new whenever they actually fund a program to go back to the Moon.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Dude, it does not matter that he did not use the word constellation, that is constellation, it was a lie. Black and white

    Yes, it does matter that he didn’t use the word Constellation. First rule – if an elected official doesn’t explicitly say “I endorse Project/Program X”, he isn’t endorsing it.

    Endorsing the moon as a target doesn’t mean endorse Constellation. Constellation was the hardware selections made, (IE Ares I, Ares V, Orion, Altair). Rand is dead on the money on this. Because there were multiple other options for going to the moon – for example, there was the Direct proposal. Or there was the ACES EELV proposal – both of those would’ve fit the category of going to the moon by 2020 (at least in theory – I question whether Direct could do it, but for the moment I’ll not argue that). And there were other options.

    If you don’t believe me, that it makes a difference, I suggest you look at Obama’s original press release about space, after the Education bit, but before the big white paper & Titusville – http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26647

    You’ll see Ares I & Orion in the first one, but not the 2nd one.

    As I said – first rule with a elected official – unless he specifically endorses your program, and says so publicly, don’t consider said person a supporter.

  • Scott Bass

    Ok Ron, so let’s say you talk me into that, do you suppose it would be more beneficial to just name the new rocket and not even have a program name for now. I mean I have an agenda to do what ever little things that are possible to move us toward the moon and mars. Names are one of the few things that are free, I kinda felt like retaining Constellation would be good…..the name has made strides in to the public knowledge that it means the moon mars and beyond program. it has only become the edsel to those of us who pay attention……most people do not, hell most Americans do not even know we had a plan to go back to the moon lol….sad but true

    To restate….you have us
    You have those with casual interest
    You have the clueless

  • Scott Bass

    OK Faris, well let’s forget constellation because your missing the point. He said he endorsed us returning to the moon by 2020, he got elected and changed his mind, do you agree with that?
    That’s all I am saying, he lied, I fell for it, NASA is paying the price for my believing what he said he would do. Fini

    If by some chance we end up going to the moon anytime soon it is because of congressional action today to go against him. there are lots of reasons people can like Obama, Nasa is not one of them to US that supported the mission to moon mars and beyond, there are obviously alot of reasons to dislike Obama on other topics but it is beyond space politics.

  • Ferris Valyn

    OK Faris, well let’s forget constellation because your missing the point. He said he endorsed us returning to the moon by 2020, he got elected and changed his mind, do you agree with that?
    That’s all I am saying, he lied, I fell for it, NASA is paying the price for my believing what he said he would do. Fini</blockquote

    Ok, first, can we at least agree to spell my name right? Its Ferris, not Farris, or Faris.

    2nd, I don't agree that he lied. Because I don't presuppose that his plan rules out a return to the moon. Now, I will grant that we may not make it there by 2020, but given the other issues, I don't have a huge issue with that.

    Further, I also submit that since we weren't going to the moon by 2020, under the old plan, I don't think its fair to hold Obama to that deadline either.

    If by some chance we end up going to the moon anytime soon it is because of congressional action today to go against him. there are lots of reasons people can like Obama, Nasa is not one of them to US that supported the mission to moon mars and beyond, there are obviously alot of reasons to dislike Obama on other topics but it is beyond space politics.

    Sorry, but no. Obama’s proposal for NASA is one of the reasons I do like him. And we’ll get back to the moon BECAUSE of Obama, not in spite of him. And it will be in spite of the people in Congress. Because there is really only 1 way we get back to the moon – have enough money to fund the program. And there are only 3 ways to do that – increase the budget, invest in R&D to bring costs down, or turn off high fixed price costs.

    Congress has not done the first one. Obama is trying to do the second & third one

  • Ferris Valyn

    Damn it – I really screwed up the formating, didn’t I?

  • Scott Bass

    That’s ok, as long as you understand I was not casting untruths about what Obama said, believe me this is not the first time I looked at it, I read it 10 times before I voted for him and 10 times after. Lots of people in the space industry voted for him and it was a lie., let’s don’t discuss that one anymore, makes me depressed to think about it lol

  • Ferris Valyn

    Ok, we don’t have to discuss it.

    But that doesn’t change the fact – it wasn’t a lie (unless you wanna agree that Constellation was a lie).

  • amightywind

    That NASA Engineer@KSC wrote @ September 29th, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    ahhh… amightywind …ahhh yes…that’s all we need to do. Thanks, so obvious. I don’t know how I complicated the whole discussion with reality, data, talk about improvements in ways of doing business..

    You fungi in the bureaucracy are going to have to come to grips with the strong medicine that must coming. We can’t just tinker around the edges any longer. Restructuring has been a fact of life in corporate America for a long time. It is time that it reached the feds.

  • Scott Bass

    Shhh you sucked me back in Ferris lol, just to be clear, here is the quote, not a shred of truth to it.

    Obama .. .. . endorses the goal of sending human missions to the Moon by 2020

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ almightywind,

    So, with one breath you extol Ares as the only way forward for NASA, then with the next you abuse the engineers who will be responsible for operating said machine because they refuse to accept your orthodoxy?

    Windy, I’ve said this before but I’ll say this again. You get more and more frightening all the time. There is only a small step between where you’re standing and executing engineers because failing to break the laws of physics when their political masters demand it is treasonous.

  • byeman

    “strong medicine that must coming.”
    And it is not ESAS/CxP. It is a form of Obamaspace and it will not be changed by congress

  • Major Tom

    “The $5 billion annual space shuttle budget is more than enough to fund major elements of Constellation”

    No, it’s not. In NASA’s FY 2010 budget, the Constellation budget exceeds $5 billion per year starting in FY 2011. And for Constellation to maintain anything resembling a reasonable schedule, another $3-5 billion per year has to be added on top of that.

    Don’t make stuff up.

  • Major Tom

    “You fungi in the bureaucracy…”

    If you can’t carry on a discussion without namecalling and ad hominem attacks, then you shouldn’t post here.

    Grow up or go away.

  • Coastal Ron

    Scott Bass wrote @ September 29th, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    Obama .. .. . endorses the goal of sending human missions to the Moon by 2020

    And Constellation is not needed to do that.

    Your problem Scott is that you equate going to the Moon with Constellation. I know I don’t, because Constellation was just a marketing name for a program. It’s ultimate goal may have been to return to the Moon (aka Apollo on steroids), but it certainly wasn’t the only way to get back to the Moon.

    Using existing launchers, we could go back to the Moon if we wanted to, and still make that 2020 date if Congress wanted to spend the money (big IF). Constellation was not going to meet the 2020 date, even when candidate Obama was running for President, so I think it’s fair to say that he didn’t conflate Constellation with the Moon either.

    Besides, Obama has mentioned BEO space exploration many times, so he is on record with supporting space exploration as much as his post-Apollo predecessors have – even Bush 43 only paid lip service to Constellation, since he let it be underfunded as soon as it was approved.

  • Thta NASA Engineer@KSC

    amightywind…LOL…Fungi? That’s a complement. Portabello is my fav. A great complement to so many dishes. Or perhaps it’s an allusion to being kept in the dark, in the basement? Can’t say that’s me…though some might try one day.

    amightywind…about “we can’t tinker around the edges any longer” – we may actually be agreeing. I’m just facing up to the difficulty. I’m not replacing a stance of denial of the tough times ahead with a stance that’s just as bad – over-simplifying so much that it’s a show of lack of situational awareness.

  • Vladislaw

    Marcel F. Williams wrote:

    “You’re speaking a lot of truth about the ISS:-) There was no logical reason to build a super titanic space station.”

    The ISS is a SUPER sized station? It is the the size of a small three bedroom house the titanic held over a 1000. Were you hyperventilating when you posted that?

    The first stations that NASA drew up were for 100 people and were considered to big and to expensive. Station plans from the beginning had only been cut down in size and the ISS, as now is considered completed, is not even as big as it was originally planned with several modules having been trimmed away.

    To call and compare a tiny 6 person station as “titanic” is lunacy at best.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Obama .. .. . endorses the goal of sending human missions to the Moon by 2020

    And his budget proposal doesn’t preclude that.

  • @Vladislaw…The ISS is a leviathan & titanic mainly because its existence is preventing NASA from doing anything else! All that tonnage of money being spent, just to circle the Earth endlessly! Hell yes, it should be de-orbited! And puh-leese, NO MORE OF THIS GIBBERISH ABOUT OUR ASTRONAUTS NOT HAVING ANY PLACE TO GO!!! We do NOT need a frivolous hostel in LEO for our astronauts to go to deep space! Apollo needed NO LEO station in order to make it to the Moon. The sooner the ISS goes down to the Pacific, the sooner Earthian explorers will get to voyaging to other worlds.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Chris Castro – yea, and Apollo had unlimited budgets, so it could choose the path that could be brute forced.

    It doesn’t have that, and if you don’t think destroying a $100 Billion station, just after getting it completed, won’t have a negative impact on funding for NASA – seriously, get a clue.

  • brobof

    Chris Castro wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 12:27 am
    You do know that in order to explore, we need a deep space vessel capable of getting there. One that has a working closed loop life support system and a myriad of other technologies THAT NEED TO BE DEVELOPED ON THE ISS!!!!

    In the day the plan was for a space station FIRST!!!! THEN a moon mission second.

    Then Apollo happened…

    Colliers
    http://www.fabiofeminofantascience.org/COLLIERS/COLLIERS1.html

  • A closed-loop life support system is NOT even needed for the ISS: It just gets monthly re-supply flights sent up to it. There is NO challenge at all! All this sci-fi jazz about loading a capsule with enough supplies for an NEO mission,…where is the precedent for all that?? Where is the “practice” for all that full autonomy & self-reliance that an asteroid mission would entail, with an astronaut crew?–even if you reduced the crew to just two people. Do those old fogeys from the Planetary Society, do they think that the Russians can just send up monthly Progress drones to re-supply a manned craft on an interplanetary trajectory?!

Leave a Reply to Major Tom 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>