Orlando Sentinel Exclusive: NASA manned programs to be cancelled?

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.-

After spending giga bucks on ares they wouldnt want to go with deltas,
since people would ask too many nosey questions..... of why it wasnt
picked from the begining????

with the exception of military aerospace etc our manufacturing base
for most products hasa gone overseas, heck even telephone tech support
is from other countries today.......

thank NAFTA, low wages and zero benefits, zero OSHA and other costs to
businesses in places like china. add the imbeded costs for US taxes
and we are a shell of our former selves.

the big picture is in a world economy we arent competive and probably
never will be again

David E. Powell wrote:

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.

You believe incorrectly. The idea is to pay US commercial providers to
send astronauts to ISS. Paying the Russians for Soyuz is just a stopgap.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
David E. Powell wrote:

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.

You believe incorrectly. The idea is to pay US commercial providers to
send astronauts to ISS. Paying the Russians for Soyuz is just a stopgap.


I assume a handful of Senate Republicans will threaten to shut down NASA in
order to make sure that all the "US commerical providers" are ununionized.

Guy Namechanger wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
David E. Powell wrote:
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.
You believe incorrectly. The idea is to pay US commercial providers to
send astronauts to ISS. Paying the Russians for Soyuz is just a stopgap.


I assume a handful of Senate Republicans will threaten to shut down NASA in
order to make sure that all the "US commerical providers" are ununionized.



You assume wrongly.

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:03:35 -0800 (PST), "David E. Powell"
wrote:


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?

A variety of reasons.

NASA sees a need for a heavy-lift launch vehicle, and has since ESAS
assumed that a Shuttle-derived design is the cheapest/fastest way to
get it (which might have been true had NASA chosen a sensible
Shuttle-derived architecture instead of Ares I.) Working from that
assumption, NASA came up with a design that used Shuttle heritage for
both a crew launcher and a heavy-lift cargo launcher, allowing
'synergy' between the two programs, and spreading out the cost of the
heavy-lift launcher among two programs. Another factor may be that the
DoD is treating Atlas and Delta with a "hands off" mentality and
doesn't want NASA making any changes that could effect their cost or
launch availability. A further factor is the fate of Kennedy Space
Center. Without a Shuttle-derived vehicle, there is almost no reason
to keep Launch Complex 39, which will be hugely expensive to shut down
(as the military BRAC experience made abundantly clear) and will cause
massive job losses. That drove Congress to insert language in NASA
budget appropriations to use "shuttle infrastructure and workforce to
the greatest extent possible.")

Brian

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:08:31 -0800 (PST), "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,

It "tested" a four segment SRB that has flown 200+ times since it was
introduced in 1988. The real Ares I first stage would have been a
different design (five segment SRB.)

and Ares is a lot farther
along now than any replacement would be.

Delta IV-Heavy has been flying for four years now. That's all we need.
Improved avionics and other improvements for "man-rating" (which seems
to mean whatever NASA wants it to mean at any given time) could have
been fielded with the money blown on Ares I so far, and those
improvements would have benefited Delta's military and unmanned
government customers as well.

Given that, are we really surprised President Obama pulled the plug on
Constellation?

The shuttle isn't going to fly forever, and Ares is largely designed
and paid for.

Designed, (and redesigned, and redesigned...) yes. Paid for, no.

Cancelling it now would be a mistake. This will shred
the technical base.

Only if something else isn't started in its place.

Brian

Oh, something else Will be "started in its place"...
and it will have everything to do with controlling people
not learning anything new about space or going there.



http://www.USENETHOST.com 100% Uncensored , 100% Anonymous, 5$/month Only!

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.


It was not the first stage.

And it is not further along than replacements.

Capsules on Atlas or Delta would be quicker. Falcon 9 has 5-7 years
to get it right before Ares I flies

On Jan 30, 1:19�pm, "Guy Namechanger"
wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in messagenews:U7CdnQdBdoi96vnWnZ2dnUVZ_r1i4p2d@gigan ews.com... David E. Powell wrote:

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.

You believe incorrectly. The idea is to pay US commercial providers to
send astronauts to ISS. Paying the Russians for Soyuz is just a stopgap..

I assume a handful of Senate Republicans will threaten to shut down NASA in
order to make sure that all the "US commerical providers" are ununionized..

Hey the rebulicans are against EVERYTHING, they are the NO PARTY...

Quote from Newt Gingrich. A one time republican leader

Oh great! Now maybe we will have more money for midnight basketball,
bridges to nowhere, and highspeed rail service for the very few who will
actually use it, or someother truly needed BS. I was 5 when the US last
landed a man on the moon. I do not remember any of it. It was my hope that
I would live to see it happen again. My life expectancy is only about
another 32 years. I fear that I will not live to see this again. I will
have to look through my telescope one day and know that the Chinese are
there somewhere. Where the hell is the American resolution to follow
through with something? Damn It!