Comments on: Cutting back the solar system

By: Robert G. Oler

Robert G. Oler — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:47:49 +0000

Mark wrote @ February 10th, 2012 at 6:53 am

Donâ€™t be too sure that the shortfall would be handled by eliminating human exploration (i.e. Orion and SLS.) Eliminating Commercial Crew would seal the breach quite nicely.>>

as Newts moment in the sun has proved there is no support for “human exploration”…and it iwll be the first to go when the money runs dry which it will.

Are you enjoying the notion Mark, that it will be the right wing of the GOP that kills your big government exploration program! I am RGO

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:24:11 +0000

Coastal Ron wrote:

“So you think Congress (or really, just a few in Congress) is punishing the Obama Administration by increasing our reliance on Russia?”

It would also set up a Republican to beable to say how the last adminstration or current, depending where they choose to use it during the election cycles, refused to do commercial crew ( Obama the socialist doesn’t like commercial) and it is up to the Republicans to fund commercial crew and stop using the Russians that Obama loved to fund.

It won’t really matter that President Obama tried to fund commercial crew, the vast bulk of the American public wouldn’t know that and Obama refusing to fund commercial crew because he hates business and is a socialist fits into their narrative.

By: vulture4

vulture4 — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:22:54 +0000

Eliminating Commercial Crew will not save a penny as long as we have to use either Soyuz or Orion to transport personnel to the ISS. There has been criticism regarding the cost and productivity of the ISS, and it is a valid concern. But unless ISS can be made productive, there is no chance at all to make BEU human spaceflight productive. The next step after Commercial Crew is not BEO, it is RLV. After we have an acccessible infrastructure in LEO we can begin to support human activities in cislunar space and then on the lunar surface.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:53:54 +0000

Don’t be too sure that the shortfall would be handled by eliminating human exploration (i.e. Orion and SLS.) Eliminating Commercial Crew would seal the breach quite nicely.

By: eu

eu — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:36:36 +0000

As Speaker Gingrich as correctly pointed out, we’re getting way too little “bang for the buck” from NASA; hence, these cuts are prudent and well-reasoned by the Administration. If, instead of any of the planned missions, NASA offered a $500 Million prize to the first probe able to explore the Europan Ocean, it could save an additional $700 Million, and we’d have better science in return, most likely from multiple probes to Europa.

If it escrowed the prize purse in a spectrum of ordinary mutual funds, by the time it could be claimed (still faster than NASA), the payout would be covered by investment returns alone, and the principal could be reused again in the same manner.

By: vulture4

vulture4 — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:12:13 +0000

On Mars I agree with amightywind. Sample return from Mars is expensive and not as useful as rovers and orbiters. However sample return from asteroids (where no lander/launcher is needed) can be quite practical.

By: vulture4

vulture4 — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:09:17 +0000

Every other program is being cut, particularly Technology Development, arguably the only part of NASA that tries to do something useful. But SLS/Orion has been forced to accept nearly half a billion dollars (roughly the same amount cut from Commercial Crew) for a one-off unmanned launch of an Orion on a Delta that it did not even ask for. There are no plans to man-rate the Delta or even again launch an Orion from CX-37.

By: BeanCounterfromDownunder

BeanCounterfromDownunder — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:09:57 +0000

The less money approach could turn out to be a positive. Evidence Commercial Crew where NASA has been forced to use SAAs rather than move to FARs as the contracting vehicle. Several other advantages of SAAs include payment for milestones completed successfully, less NASA oversight, less NASA overhead burden, more commercial say in the finished product.
Perhaps this approach will have to be adopted in other programs.

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:18:24 +0000

Very disappointed by all this, but the cut ESA-NASA missions were themselves stripped down compromises with an iffy science return and a seemingly impractical, stutter-step approach to Sample Return in the 2020s.

Further, as fantastic as our Mars Science Program is, it’s not without sin. The MSL was nearly a JWST boondoggle (and may still be if it fails to land). Perhaps less money will teach them how to better stay within the budgets.

Finally, I’d think/hope that 300+ million a year for Mars is at least enough to launch an MRO replacement in a few years time, or maybe bring back Mars Scouts.

By: common sense

common sense — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:42:39 +0000

@ MrEarl wrote @ February 9th, 2012 at 1:40 pm

Bear in mind though that Hutchinson is on her way out and most likely Nelson too. Remains Shelby.

Constellation/SLS/MPCV got a reprieve but it may not last that long.

These elections are Obama’s to lose. Romney is a week candidate. The others…