Community > Forum > The Spaceflight Cafe > Constellation is NOT moving forward it is looking back.

Constellation is NOT moving forward it is looking back.

Posted by: stephen123 - Sun Jul 18, 2010 6:20 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 7 posts ] 
Constellation is NOT moving forward it is looking back. 
Author Message
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:22 am
Posts: 7
Post Constellation is NOT moving forward it is looking back.   Posted on: Sun Jul 18, 2010 6:20 pm
The new plan does NOT reduce the NASA budget. It moves money from projects that are already outdated (e.g. Constellation) to developing new technologies and new launch vehicles with the help of the private sector. All the hoopla about "Saving NASA" or "Saving Manned Space Flight" by defending Constellation is actually the exact opposite of what it claims to be. If you want to "Save NASA" you should be defending it from these attempts to stop it from doing it's mission by diverting it into senseless projects like Constellation.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:43 pm
Posts: 146
Location: Webster, TX
Post Re: Constellation is NOT moving forward it is looking back.   Posted on: Mon Jul 19, 2010 11:53 am
*Facepalm*
.. and ranting on about "Constellation" is beating a dead horse.
And yes, constellations is pretty much dead.
Obama's plan was a Farce, as are the Toolbags he put in charge of NASA.
ARES I was flawed, yes. I was never a fan of it myself.

ARES V never had a chance to leave the drawing board, however the core of the concept (much the same as the Jupiter system of Direct 2.0) was a solid idea.
Right now congress is pushing for the development of a Heavy Lift Vehicle (on the order of 150 ton),which likely will be derived from the ARES V/ Jupiter systems.

ORION makes sense for deep space missions, why? because you don't need any more than a simple capsule for retuning to earth. everything else can be left in LEO for the next crew, and trying to re-enter anything more would just be a waste. Now unfortunately ORION was largely lobotomized because the ARES I grossly underperformed. With a new lift vehicle though, that could change again.

Now, for LEO operations, we would need something more like the shuttle, however, that isn't going to happen anytime soon. At least not under NASA's budget.

Ah, the budget. Now there is the crux of this whole stinking problem. NASA is grossly underfunded for the job that they are expected to perform. It's as simple as that. More funding means NASA can perform meaningful R&D AND have a vehicle by which they can test the new technologies on.

Thank you for providing a target for me blowing off steam on this whole issue. But seriously, if you are going to go off and lay the blame on something, make sure you have all the facts, and know what the REAL problem is. (hint : NOT CONSTELLATION)


Back to top
Profile
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:22 am
Posts: 7
Post Re: Constellation is NOT moving forward it is looking back.   Posted on: Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:13 pm
You don't defend Constellation, and you want more NASA funding, but you hate the new NASA budget which increases overall funding to the highest (inflation corrected) level since 1994 while cutting billions of dollars for Constellation, and freeing the money for more useful projects. Whatever your other specific concerns, surely this is an improvement.


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:43 pm
Posts: 146
Location: Webster, TX
Post Re: Constellation is NOT moving forward it is looking back.   Posted on: Tue Jul 20, 2010 11:49 am
Ok, first question: What percentage of the national budget do you think NASA uses?
This latest "increase" is less than 6 billion over three years, meaning a less than 2 billion a year increase over current levels. In total, this makes for approximately $19 billion. which in the grand scheme of things is a paltry sum.
Oh, btw, those billion that were being cut from constellation? yeah, guess what. they weren't Constellations to begin with. When the program was mandated by Bush, no additional funding was given to accomplish the goals, meaning NASA had to pull that money from other projects (such as VASIMR).

Now thankfully, Obama seems to have actually stepped on the wrong toes, and somehow managed to goad congress into doing something productive (See latest NASA authorization Bill). It'll be nice when Obama, his staff, Bolden and Garver are removed from their posts. and hopefully not replaced by someone less competent (if that is possible).

/morning rant


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:44 am
Posts: 707
Location: Haarlem, The Netherlands
Post Re: Constellation is NOT moving forward it is looking back.   Posted on: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:45 pm
By what criteria should be we judging the US government's space policy? What should the goal be? Promote science and technology? Have as many human beings outside of the Earth's atmosphere at any given time? Maximum amount of scientific results per dollar spent (and if so, more applied science like remote sensing of Earth, or more fundamental things like investigating the origins of the universe?)? Biggest government spending on campaign donors' products?

_________________
Say, can you feel the thunder in the air? Just like the moment ’fore it hits – then it’s everywhere
What is this spell we’re under, do you care? The might to rise above it is now within your sphere
Machinae Supremacy – Sid Icarus


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:16 pm
Posts: 328
Post Re: Constellation is NOT moving forward it is looking back.   Posted on: Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:07 pm
The same way you judge any space agency - what are they doing which furthers the goal of havinh human colonies throughout the solar system? Innovative propulsion and cheaper space access does, whereas most space science and subsidising special interests does not.


Back to top
Profile
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:22 am
Posts: 7
Post Re: Constellation is NOT moving forward it is looking back.   Posted on: Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:29 pm
It seems pretty clear that many different kinds of value can be evaluated in a national space agency.

Pure, or basic, research is a hard one to evaluate, but has a history of being very valuable. Letting well equipped scientists do a certain amount of whatever they want has produced extraordinary value whenever it's been done.

Earth science is another value, learning more about our planet is of substantial practical value, and some of it is done by putting instruments in orbit.

Planetary science is a good value to look at in NASA because they've got an ongoing record of doing it well and efficiently. I'd put the Voyagers, Mars Rovers, etc. in this category.

Learning to work in space is a value. Hubble and the ISS are important in this regard.

Astronomical science is another value we get from NASA.

The list would be long, but these are separable, independent values, all of which are appropriate to seek in NASA, in addition to the launch vehicle type of values.


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use