Losers from Obama's proposed 2011 budget

the Congressional Black Caucus and many anti-science liberals got
their wishes....

Moon-travel boosters. The budget adds $6 billion to NASA's budget over
five years, extending the International Space Station, but it abandons
the Constellation program to return humans to the moon. Instead, it
directs NASA to invest in the development of U.S. commercial space
taxi services to ferry astronauts to the space station.

On Feb 1, 10:12*am, Mike wrote:
the Congressional Black Caucus and many anti-science liberals got
their wishes....

Moon-travel boosters. The budget adds $6 billion to NASA's budget over
five years, extending the International Space Station, but it abandons
the Constellation program to return humans to the moon. Instead, it
directs NASA to invest in the development of U.S. commercial space
taxi services to ferry astronauts to the space station.

I concur entirely. Bleeding hearts....Great nations are supposed to be
able to do great things, even in sour times. But congress has to
approve, and many members with ties to NASA have already vowed to
fight this proposal.

"Mike" wrote in message
...
the Congressional Black Caucus and many anti-science liberals got
their wishes....


What about us pro-science liberals who are glad to see Ares get the ax?

I think this is the right move.


Moon-travel boosters. The budget adds $6 billion to NASA's budget over
five years, extending the International Space Station, but it abandons
the Constellation program to return humans to the moon. Instead, it
directs NASA to invest in the development of U.S. commercial space
taxi services to ferry astronauts to the space station.



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
m...
"Mike" wrote in message
...
the Congressional Black Caucus and many anti-science liberals got
their wishes....


What about us pro-science liberals who are glad to see Ares get the ax?

I think this is the right move.

Absolutely.

That said, rumor is that a shuttle derived HLV will emerge from the ashes of
this announcement and Orion will continue (without the lunar program). NASA
Spaceflight.com has a story along those lines on its front page today.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

"Jeff Findley" writes:

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
What about us pro-science liberals who are glad to see Ares get the ax?

I think this is the right move.

Absolutely.

That said, rumor is that a shuttle derived HLV will emerge from the ashes of
this announcement and Orion will continue (without the lunar program). NASA
Spaceflight.com has a story along those lines on its front page today.

Jeff

I agree with this also. Although rather than Orion, I'd prefer to see the
development of a truly cost effective small shuttle (no payload bay) mounted
in line on an EELV, that could land nearly anywhere. Water landing capsules
are not going to be cheap to recover even if they can be reused.

Use a man-rated (whatever that means) Dragon as a phase one crew delivery
system until the mini-shuttle is ready.

Even after mini-shuttle is available there may be still good reasons to keep
using Dragon capsules, esp. as one-way delivery vehicles.

I was never a Constellation fan. I never saw how the program would sustain
itself w/o a Cold War imperative beyond a single administration. Even with
a Cold War imperative, Apollo couldn't do it. It would appear that history
is repeating itself.

With the return-to-the-moon distraction gone, we can now really for once
focus on the infrastructure rather than the destination. In effect I don't
see this as an ending at all, but truly a beginning.

Dave

The problem of course is that in around four years or so, maybe less,
someone has to decide, what next after iss. In many ways, the albatross of
Shuttle is being replaced by the albatross of IS. You have to start work on
the next step, or abandon the idea completely.
I think the only way to go, is internationally, however, many countries may
see this as the green light to get more brownie points for their state.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Mike" wrote in message
...
the Congressional Black Caucus and many anti-science liberals got
their wishes....

Moon-travel boosters. The budget adds $6 billion to NASA's budget over
five years, extending the International Space Station, but it abandons
the Constellation program to return humans to the moon. Instead, it
directs NASA to invest in the development of U.S. commercial space
taxi services to ferry astronauts to the space station.

"David Spain" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" writes:

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in
message
What about us pro-science liberals who are glad to see Ares get the ax?

I think this is the right move.

Absolutely.

That said, rumor is that a shuttle derived HLV will emerge from the ashes
of
this announcement and Orion will continue (without the lunar program).
NASA
Spaceflight.com has a story along those lines on its front page today.

Jeff

I agree with this also. Although rather than Orion, I'd prefer to see the
development of a truly cost effective small shuttle (no payload bay)
mounted
in line on an EELV, that could land nearly anywhere. Water landing
capsules
are not going to be cheap to recover even if they can be reused.

I don't see any advantage in a small shuttle. Orion originally had a
requirement to land on land, but that was dropped. Parachutes and air bags
(or similar) have the advantage that you can land essentially anywhere
that's relatively flat and relatively free of obstacles. Primary landing
sites are essentialy the same as winged vehicles, like Edwards Air Force
Base. But, in an emergency, you could land anywhere in the Great Planes in
the US. The Great Planes are very large, very flat, and mostly farmland.
Plus, you don't have to worry about your craft sinking after splashdown.

Now that Ares I is dead and lunar missions are dead as well, this
requirement could be added back in a "commercial" version of Orion. Don't
think for one minute that the Orion contractors won't propose a "commercial"
version of Orion. They've got to find some way to keep that gravy train
going.

Use a man-rated (whatever that means) Dragon as a phase one crew delivery
system until the mini-shuttle is ready.

Or a "commercial" Orion.

Even after mini-shuttle is available there may be still good reasons to
keep
using Dragon capsules, esp. as one-way delivery vehicles.

I was never a Constellation fan. I never saw how the program would sustain
itself w/o a Cold War imperative beyond a single administration. Even with
a Cold War imperative, Apollo couldn't do it. It would appear that history
is repeating itself.

With the return-to-the-moon distraction gone, we can now really for once
focus on the infrastructure rather than the destination. In effect I don't
see this as an ending at all, but truly a beginning.

I really do hope they focus on infrastructure, like LEO refueling depots.
Depots mean you can launch missions which would not fit (fully loaded with
fuel) on an existing launch vehicle. You could even modify upper stages of
launch vehicles with refueling capabilities so that a dedicated "EDS" like
stage wouldn't be needed at all.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

In article , "Brian Gaff" wrote:
The problem of course is that in around four years or so, maybe less,
someone has to decide, what next after iss. In many ways, the albatross of
Shuttle is being replaced by the albatross of IS. You have to start work on
the next step, or abandon the idea completely.

exactly by the time the private sector shuttle replacement is ready to
fly, the ISS will have to be kept going simply to provide somewhere for it
to fly to.

the next step has to be beyond LEO, whether you thought Ares was the right
vehicle or not for that, the Vision for space exploration for all its
faults, at least recognised that we arent gaining much from the current
ISS setup (that we are now locked in for the next decade or more) and we
had to accept going beyond the boundary to drive new technology and
innovation forward.

robbie

On Feb 1, 10:12*am, Mike wrote:
the Congressional Black Caucus and many anti-science liberals got
their wishes....

Moon-travel boosters. The budget adds $6 billion to NASA's budget over
five years, extending the International Space Station, but it abandons
the Constellation program to return humans to the moon. Instead, it
directs NASA to invest in the development of U.S. commercial space
taxi services to ferry astronauts to the space station.

Mike, on the left and the right a large share of congress persons
are lawyers. And lawyers largely unschooled in science.
And plenty on the right are anti-science as well and often
have closeted KKK type attitudes. And even the ones
that have other education seem to fail to apply it i.e.
Bill Frist and the Terry Schive (Ms) case as an example.
Her brain was largely gone and it seemed so was his.
Her husband was right. Just look at the CAT scan.

Left to their own devices congress persons would likely try to
declare Pi and E to be the rounded to number of 3
after a conference committee session.


Not a fan of L or R.............Trig

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...


I really do hope they focus on infrastructure, like LEO refueling depots.
Depots mean you can launch missions which would not fit (fully loaded with
fuel) on an existing launch vehicle. You could even modify upper stages
of launch vehicles with refueling capabilities so that a dedicated "EDS"
like stage wouldn't be needed at all.


Lower cost to orbit could enable ...anything..we should decide, need or
want to do in space. Whether it's SSP, mining, tourism or anything else.






Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon