Comments on: Post wants a better compromise

By: Chris Castro

Chris Castro — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 02:23:20 +0000

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?!

By: brobof

brobof — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:18:00 +0000

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

By: Ferris Valyn

Ferris Valyn — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:12:34 +0000

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.

By: Chris Castro

Chris Castro — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 04:27:22 +0000

@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.

By: Ferris Valyn

Ferris Valyn — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:08:53 +0000

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

And his budget proposal doesn’t preclude that.

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:33:05 +0000

Marcel F. Williams wrote:

“Youâ€™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.

By: Thta NASA Engineer@KSC

Thta NASA Engineer@KSC — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:57:50 +0000

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.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:21:07 +0000

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.

By: Major Tom

Major Tom — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:15:25 +0000

“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.

By: Major Tom

Major Tom — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 21:13:13 +0000

“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.