Bye-bye Moon program, hello ISS to 2020

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:56:13 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Ares-1, Ares-V, Constellation - all dead:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-a...,1252176.story
Possibly a heavy lift booster at some future point.
But ISS will be manned till 2020 instead of 2015.


I'm dissappointed by the end of the Moon program. How is it that 40
years after we landed the first time, it's anathema to going back!?

I'd hoped that the program could have been maintaned in some form,
perhaps with international partners. But I guess it's not to be. I'd
hoped Orion could still survive, mated to a new heavy lifter, but
there is no such luck. If anything, there is talk of "a re-vamp of
the Kennedy Space Center in Florida" (
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100201/...a_budget_space ).
WHAT!? So the plan is to gut NASA's man program and hope that $6
Billion in grants to private companies will make up the gap in a
timely manner!? As a stockhlder in OSC, I'm all for private space
efforts, but this is ridiculous!

To be fair, Obama has had a difficult first term -- entering office
with a messianic image he couldn't have lived up to in good time and
faced with more challenges that any president since FDR (no wonder the
man has already gone gray). To his credit, he sought expert opinion
on what to do about the space program (even if all Augusting did was
made the fault line in the online debates public -- Obama could have
surfed sci.space.* and done the job in half the time g). But it's
hard not to beleive he's not using Augustine to cover his butt as he
destroys a part of our national heritage. Will a "revamped" LC39 be
able to support a heavy lifter? Or has that idea been forgotten?
Looks like. And word is the administration will fight any
congressional attempts to save Constellation. Why? He's got budget
problems, no question. But how is reaming a program that gets 0.5% of
the federal budget going to make a big difference? This is almost
gratuitous.

I voted against Obama in '08, but I didn't have anything against him.
Now, I do. I hope he loses in '12. And he's the first president I've
ever said that about.

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:32:38 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

I too am happy, NASA just spent money with little return on investment
other than enriching some military contractors and piles of receipts:
(

Its time for private industry to take over


What "private industry"? In the first place, the "private companies"
will not be building rockets with their own capital or capital they
raise privately but with money from the administration, $6 billion
over three years or something like that, and still working with NASA.
The relationaship may change somehow, but the flow of money from what.
And where are these private astronaust

Second, if Boeing, ILA, or Lockmart get in on the act, guess what?
The same "private industry" who got the money before under contracts
will still get it. And who has to facilities and the simulators to
train private astronauts? Back to NASA again.

So .... what was your point again?

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:53:08 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

NASA COULD of had atlas and delta heavies carrying capsules by now.

Only if the new capsules were ready by now.

"Michael Gallagher" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:49:43 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


..... Rumblings are that Orion isn't dead and that a shuttle derived
launch
vehicle (similar to Direct's Jupiter) will still go forward ....

News reports so far today don't say anything about either one. I hope
you're right, but I wouldn't be surprised if you're wrong.

From spaceref:

During the 5 year space ahead, NASA will spend $7.8 billion on a new
technology demonstration program that will look at advanced exploration
capabilities. It will also spend $3.1 billion on R&D that looks into
new propulsion systems and $3 billion on robotic precursors to scout
ahead of future human crews.

That's a lot of money to spend on advanced exploration capabilities.

It also said:

Contrary to various Internet rumors, NASA has not selected a preferred
Shuttle-derived launch system to replace Ares 1 and Ares V - i.e, the
Shuttle "Sidemount", In-line, or "DIRECT" concepts. While throughly
vetted and evaluated, are of these concepts all government-driven
designs and are thus part of the old way of doing business. Future
heavy lift solutions will be solicited from the private sector.

One has to wonder though if "the private sector" could propose just such a
shuttle derived launch vehicle. ATK and other contractors would benefit
greatly from such a project. NASA would also benefit, indirectly, because
it could make use of its existing launch facilities, which could otherwise
remain dormant (large losses of jobs).

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

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
m...
"jacob navia" wrote in message
...
Val Kraut wrote:

Somewhat off topic - but I would really like to see a list of the things
that have been done on the ISS to date that justify it's existance, other
that fixing toilets in weightlessness,


It is now that the scientific side of the station will START.

The only thing wrong with correcting a mistatement is posting another.

The scientific side has been going on for years. Please see the URL I've
posted.

It is not just starting. Far from it.


Obviously you do not want to acknowledge that.


Ya I hear it every day, and in the papers....Thank God for
the ISS science advances. Kinda odd how the former
Chief Scientist of the ISS is now out helping design
Space Solar Power satellites.
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm

Funny world isn't it?


s

On Feb 1, 10:19*am, Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:56:13 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Ares-1, Ares-V, Constellation - all dead:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-a...-budget27-2010...
Possibly a heavy lift booster at some future point.
But ISS will be manned till 2020 instead of 2015.

I'm dissappointed by the end of the Moon program. *How is it that 40
years after we landed the first time, it's anathema to going back!?

I'd hoped that the program could have been maintaned in some form,
perhaps with international partners. *But I guess it's not to be. *I'd
hoped Orion could still survive, mated to a new heavy lifter, but
there is no such luck. *If anything, there is talk of "a re-vamp of
the Kennedy Space Center in Florida" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100201/..._budget_space).
WHAT!? *So the plan is to gut NASA's man program and hope that $6
Billion in grants to private companies will make up the gap in a
timely manner!? *As a stockhlder in OSC, I'm all for private space
efforts, but this is ridiculous! *

To be fair, Obama has had a difficult first term -- entering office
with a messianic image he couldn't have lived up to in good time and
faced with more challenges that any president since FDR (no wonder the
man has already gone gray). *To his credit, he sought expert opinion
on what to do about the space program (even if all Augusting did was
made the fault line in the online debates public -- Obama could have
surfed sci.space.* and done the job in half the time g). *But it's
hard not to beleive he's not using Augustine to cover his butt as he
destroys a part of our national heritage. *Will a "revamped" LC39 be
able to support a heavy lifter? *Or has that idea been forgotten?
Looks like. *And word is the administration will fight any
congressional attempts to save Constellation. *Why? *He's got budget
problems, no question. *But how is reaming a program that gets 0.5% of
the federal budget going to make a big difference? *This is almost
gratuitous. *

I voted against Obama in '08, but I didn't have anything against him.
Now, I do. *I hope he loses in '12. *And he's the first president I've
ever said that about.

You actually think Obama created any of this mess?

Was Obama in some kind of stealth trouble-maker mode before becoming
president?

~ BG

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 14:58:35 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


From spaceref:

.... Contrary to various Internet rumors, NASA has not selected a preferred
Shuttle-derived launch system to replace Ares 1 and Ares V - i.e, the
Shuttle "Sidemount", In-line, or "DIRECT" concepts. While throughly
vetted and evaluated, are of these concepts all government-driven
designs and are thus part of the old way of doing business. Future
heavy lift solutions will be solicited from the private sector.


Can you post the link to that article? I couldn't find it.

One has to wonder though if "the private sector" could propose just such a
shuttle derived launch vehicle. ATK and other contractors would benefit
greatly from such a project. NASA would also benefit, indirectly, because
it could make use of its existing launch facilities, which could otherwise
remain dormant (large losses of jobs).


I think it would be hysterical if they proposed an "Ares 1 Lite" with
a 4-segment first stage, cryogenic second stage, and a familiar
looking capusle. And got it to work! Vincication would be sweet.


And yeah, you could use shuttle-derived, though you might get the same
lifting power with upgrades to the Atlas 5 or Delta 4.

"Michael Gallagher" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 14:58:35 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


From spaceref:

.... Contrary to various Internet rumors, NASA has not selected a
preferred
Shuttle-derived launch system to replace Ares 1 and Ares V - i.e, the
Shuttle "Sidemount", In-line, or "DIRECT" concepts. While throughly
vetted and evaluated, are of these concepts all government-driven
designs and are thus part of the old way of doing business. Future
heavy lift solutions will be solicited from the private sector.


Can you post the link to that article? I couldn't find it.

The Obama Space Vision for NASA: Massive Paradigm Shifts Ahead
Keith Cowing
Monday, February 1, 2010
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1372

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

On Jan 28, 10:12*am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"jacob navia" wrote in message

...

Val Kraut wrote:

Somewhat off topic - but I would really like to see a list of the things
that have been done on the ISS to date that justify it's existance,
other that fixing toilets in weightlessness,

It is now that the scientific side of the station will START.

The only thing wrong with correcting a mistatement is posting another.

The scientific side has been going on for years. *Please see the URL I've
posted.

It is not just starting. *Far from it.

Obviously you do not want to acknowledge that.

Objective science on behalf of ice coexisting in space? (I think not)

~ BG

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:53:04 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1372




Thanks.