Orlando Sentinel Exclusive: NASA manned programs to be cancelled?

The thing they launched was a botched up solid with poor performance. Many
systems failed, it never made the expected speed and altitude and the whole
thing, as we all knew to begin with was a mess.

The Orion, or something very like it might well survive, but maybe the
contractor will be put in charge and Nasa left as the commissioning body.
Its outsourcing stuff.

I personally feel the answer if we do want to get off planet has got to be a
world funded thing. There is lots to do, and a reasonable amount of time.
However I'd like to think that the manned space program could be a way to
get countries together, as the change in the Earths climate for whatever
reason, will otherwise drive nation against nation in a completly useless
way.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Me" wrote in message
...
On Jan 27, 5:10 pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote:


They even flew an Ares rocket already!



It wasn't even close to an Ares I

On Jan 27, 6:08*pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote:
On Jan 27, 6:00*pm, Me wrote:

On Jan 27, 5:10*pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote:

They even flew an Ares rocket already!

It wasn't even close to an Ares I

It tested a first stage among other things, and Ares is a lot farther
along now than any replacement would be.


Incorrect. Delta IV or Atlas V would still be quicker

On Jan 27, 6:08*pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote:


The shuttle isn't going to fly forever, and Ares is largely designed
and paid for. Cancelling it now would be a mistake. This will shred
the technical base.

wrong again
A. It is not largely design. PDR just happened.
B. The "technical base" hasn't been with NASA for years, the
expertise is at the contractors, ULA, OSC, Spacex, they have been the
ones designing rockets

On Jan 27, 8:21*pm, bob haller safety advocate
wrote:


Turn pads 39 A & B into glass enclosed displays!!

One pad with a saturn 5 mock up returning the pad to the appearance of
apollo days

The other pad in the shuttle configuration with enterprise on
permanent display.


Those are bad ideas. The pads are better use for launches of other
vehicles.

On Jan 28, 12:12*am, "David E. Powell"
wrote:

According to the Sentinel that doesn't look too likely. No one
mentiond any adaptation of manned capsules to Delta rockets or any
other known boosters.

Then what does "commercial" launch vehicles describe?

In article , John Doe wrote:
And there is no technology to assemble a station on the moon.

no the technology isnt there, but do you wait for it to turn up before
you start, or set about trying to create it out of the process of going.

If you're going to spend money developing such systems, you should spend
it for a trip to Mars. Presence of some atmosphere and higher gravity
can result in significantly different designs to land on Mars. And yes,
it would take years to develop them.

but the Moon side of the mission was the stepping stone to Mars, we need
to know we can build and work the technology for a Mars mission in as safe
an environment as possible, so that we can fix the problems, we dont want
to send a bunch of people off to Mars, with little to no chance of
rescuing them, and find they could really do with a certain
type of hammer when they get there.

Perhaps this complete rethink might give an opportunity for plans to
build new/upgraded Shuttle orbiters that would evolve the system and
reduce the operating costs in a significant (but not revolutionary) way.

new/upgrade shuttle orbiters, ignoring all the safety concerns inherent
with the shuttle design, dont get us beyond LEO, so are useless for
any Moon/Mars/beyond missions which is the logical next step.

and if all you need is a taxi to get to the ISS, you dont need the
shuttle, youd build something like Soyuz, a rocket + capsule, funnily
enough thats what led us towards Constellation as a solution in the first
place.

so NASA will have wasted 6 years not getting very far only to have
to revisit the same problem we had, "how do you replace the shuttle".
which means at least another 6 years before we get back to where we are
now, add the 10 years that Ares I still had to run. so sometime around
2030 the US might have a human spaceflight launch capability again, but
you wouldnt bet against it being nearer 2040...


robbie

On Jan 28, 7:50�pm, Me wrote:
On Jan 27, 8:21�pm, bob haller safety advocate
wrote:



Turn pads 39 A & B into glass enclosed displays!!

One pad with a saturn 5 mock up returning the pad to the appearance of
apollo days

The other pad in the shuttle configuration with enterprise on
permanent display.

Those are bad ideas. �The pads are better use for launches of other
vehicles.

The pads were built in the 60s for apollo, they have structural issues
and have been constantly patched up.

give some thought to the vibration those pads have endured, not only
from the shuttle and it vibration inducing solids, but the stress of
the saturn 5 that vibrated windows miles away.

those pads are around 50 years old, time to retire them. beyond which
they were built for manned launches, and NASA is going out of that
business.

they are wonderful historic artifacts that can add to tourism greaty.

let deleware north partner with the smithsonian or other group to
preserve the pads.

since pads are built for specific vehicles most are just abandon in
place and left to detoriate without the public ever getting a close up
look.

lets not let that happen to the padsa that sent us to the moon.

and while there doing this recover the engine bells from the apollo 11
moon landings saturn 5. they were believed to survive the impact with
the ocean and their serial numbers are documented. put them atr the
apoolo pad.

you need to know since the US has lost near all manufacturing, and so
much else, tourism and health care are now our biggest industries.

so lets support what little business that remains

On Jan 30, 9:28*am, bob haller safety advocate
wrote:
On Jan 28, 7:50 pm, Me wrote:

On Jan 27, 8:21 pm, bob haller safety advocate
wrote:

Turn pads 39 A & B into glass enclosed displays!!

One pad with a saturn 5 mock up returning the pad to the appearance of
apollo days

The other pad in the shuttle configuration with enterprise on
permanent display.

Those are bad ideas. The pads are better use for launches of other
vehicles.

The pads were built in the 60s for apollo, they have structural issues
and have been constantly patched up.

give some thought to the vibration those pads have endured, not only
from the shuttle and it vibration inducing solids, but the stress of
the saturn 5 that vibrated windows miles away.

those pads are around 50 years old, time to retire them. beyond which
they were built for manned launches, and NASA is going out of that
business.

they are wonderful historic artifacts that can add to tourism greaty.

let deleware north partner with the smithsonian or other group to
preserve the pads.

since pads are built for specific vehicles most are just abandon in
place and left to detoriate without the public ever getting a close up
look.

lets not let that happen to the padsa that sent us to the moon.

and while there doing this recover the engine bells from the apollo 11
moon landings saturn 5. they were believed to survive the impact with
the ocean and their serial numbers are documented. put them atr the
apoolo pad.

you need to know since the US has lost near all manufacturing, and so
much else, tourism and health care are now our biggest industries.

so lets support what little business that remains

Actually, we do maintain a sizable aerospace manufacturing base. The
manned program can maintain and expand that. Cutting it ruins the
manufacturing industry we have now. Supporting what "little business
remains" by killing it isn't the way. Tourism and health care are not
sustainable in themselves. You need something else.

The U.S. also has massive agriculture business though the gov't is
killing that slowly in California with water restrictions.

Also Ford motor company is looking good this year. Properly managed
and run there is no reason manufacturing cannot thrive in the US. The
gov't can help that immensely by allowing the manned program to
continue (and the F-22/F-35 programs too) and cancelling it is not the
way to go. If we'd gone all out we might have sent people to the moon
by now, but just because it was delayed a cople decades doesn't mean
we can't do it. That is the point of Ares. Get us to where we were
before the moon (and beyond) manned programs were abandoned. The
shuttle is awesome but was always intended as a component in
exploration, to go farther we need the Ares stuff.

On Jan 28, 7:52*pm, Me wrote:
On Jan 28, 12:12*am, "David E. Powell"
wrote:

According to the Sentinel that doesn't look too likely. No one
mentiond any adaptation of manned capsules to Delta rockets or any
other known boosters.

Then what does "commercial" launch vehicles describe?

It mentioned use of them for "robot exploration" a la unmanned probes.

On Jan 28, 7:47*pm, Me wrote:
On Jan 27, 6:08*pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote:

On Jan 27, 6:00*pm, Me wrote:

On Jan 27, 5:10*pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote:

They even flew an Ares rocket already!

It wasn't even close to an Ares I

It tested a first stage among other things, and Ares is a lot farther
along now than any replacement would be.

Incorrect. *Delta IV or Atlas V would still be quicker

Then why don't they do that? The story mentioned losing the manned
rocket element altogether. I believe the idea is to pay foreign launch
companies to send astronauts to the ISS, hence cutting our
manufacturing and design base and paying to fund those of others.