it's OFFICIAL first manned Orion launch in June 2016

..

from this Nov. 16, 2007 SpaceRef article:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1244

"NASA sources also report that the 6 month slip in the Ares 1 PDR
(Preliminary Design Review) recently announced could impact the first
launch of humans aboard an Ares 1 by as much as 14-16 months beyond
the announced first flight date of March 2015"

did you have realized that Orion will be ready in 2012 but will not
fly (then, will be "freezed" four+ years) until the Ares-1 will be (IF
will be) ready for manned launches in June 2016+ ...and that the
american manned-flights' GAP will be (now) of (at least) SIX years (+
further delays) ...and the first lunar landing could slip to
2022+ ...and all that (including the four+ years delay) happened in
the first two years (late 2005 / late 2007) of the ESAS plan ???

that mainly (if not ONLY) due to the Ares-1 problems:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/012arescantfly.html

..

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:37:38 -0800 (PST), gaetanomarano
wrote:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1244

"NASA sources also report that the 6 month slip in the Ares 1 PDR
(Preliminary Design Review) recently announced could impact the first
launch of humans aboard an Ares 1 by as much as 14-16 months beyond
the announced first flight date of March 2015"

There are also severe budget problems because of our Do-Nothing
Congress (so much for the Dems "righting the ship") being unable to
pass a budget, thus freezing NASA spending still at the 2006 level via
Continuing Resolution.... not enough to get moving with Constellation.

Ares I's development problems just add to the problem.

Brian

"gaetanomarano" schreef in bericht
...
.

from this Nov. 16, 2007 SpaceRef article:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1244

"NASA sources also report that the 6 month slip in the Ares 1 PDR
(Preliminary Design Review) recently announced could impact the first
launch of humans aboard an Ares 1 by as much as 14-16 months beyond
the announced first flight date of March 2015"

did you have realized that Orion will be ready in 2012 but will not
fly (then, will be "freezed" four+ years) until the Ares-1 will be (IF
will be) ready for manned launches in June 2016+ ...and that the
american manned-flights' GAP will be (now) of (at least) SIX years (+
further delays) ...and the first lunar landing could slip to
2022+ ...and all that (including the four+ years delay) happened in
the first two years (late 2005 / late 2007) of the ESAS plan ???

that mainly (if not ONLY) due to the Ares-1 problems:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/012arescantfly.html

.

The problems are mostly financial, not technical. If Congress would free up
a couple more billions things could speed up markedly, but so far they are
unwilling to take out their wallet. At the same time, they are demanding
that NASA keeps its science programs fully intact thereby severly
restraining the financial leeway NASA has.

In other words: NASA is not to blame for all this.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Jim Relsh" wrote:
:
:The problems are mostly financial, not technical. If Congress would free up
:a couple more billions things could speed up markedly, but so far they are
:unwilling to take out their wallet.
:

And did NASA's plan include several addition billions of dollars to
get to PDR on the schedule they proposed? If not, then this is indeed
their fault. If so, did they have the promise of said funding in hand
when they put forward their original schedule? If not, then they are
playing the same stupid games that were played during Shuttle
development and it is indeed their fault. If so, then they should
have the money and being behind schedule is still their fault.

:
:At the same time, they are demanding
:that NASA keeps its science programs fully intact thereby severly
:restraining the financial leeway NASA has.
:

Well, imagine that! Congress is insisting that NASA spend the money
on what the money was allocated for!

:
:In other words: NASA is not to blame for all this.
:

I don't see how that follows AT ALL...


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

Jim Relsh wrote:
"gaetanomarano" schreef in bericht
...
.

from this Nov. 16, 2007 SpaceRef article:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1244

"NASA sources also report that the 6 month slip in the Ares 1 PDR
(Preliminary Design Review) recently announced could impact the first
launch of humans aboard an Ares 1 by as much as 14-16 months beyond
the announced first flight date of March 2015"

did you have realized that Orion will be ready in 2012 but will not
fly (then, will be "freezed" four+ years) until the Ares-1 will be (IF
will be) ready for manned launches in June 2016+ ...and that the
american manned-flights' GAP will be (now) of (at least) SIX years (+
further delays) ...and the first lunar landing could slip to
2022+ ...and all that (including the four+ years delay) happened in
the first two years (late 2005 / late 2007) of the ESAS plan ???

that mainly (if not ONLY) due to the Ares-1 problems:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/012arescantfly.html

.

The problems are mostly financial, not technical. If Congress would free up
a couple more billions things could speed up markedly, but so far they are
unwilling to take out their wallet. At the same time, they are demanding
that NASA keeps its science programs fully intact thereby severly
restraining the financial leeway NASA has.

In other words: NASA is not to blame for all this.

Oh, bull****, the problem with ARES is technical, programmatic *and*
financial. ARES I will *NEVER* fly, is that problem enough for you?

"Jim Relsh" wrote in message
.. .

The problems are mostly financial, not technical. If Congress would free
up a couple more billions things could speed up markedly, but so far they
are unwilling to take out their wallet. At the same time, they are
demanding that NASA keeps its science programs fully intact thereby
severly restraining the financial leeway NASA has.

In other words: NASA is not to blame for all this.

The decision to spend billions developing Ares I and Ares V, and continue
spending money to perpetuate the use of Saturn/Shuttle launch infrastructure
was NASA's decision. NASA could have saved a lot of development money up
front by choosing to use EELV's instead.

Jeff
--
"When transportation is cheap, frequent, reliable, and flexible,
everything else becomes easier."
- Jon Goff

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:26:10 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


The decision to spend billions developing Ares I and Ares V, and continue
spending money to perpetuate the use of Saturn/Shuttle launch infrastructure
was NASA's decision.

That we know of. It could well be that certain Congresscritters
informed Griffin "big cuts in your voting workforce, and your program
won't be approved." In fact, on the face of it, this seems the most
likely explanation for our current predicament.

NASA could have saved a lot of development money up
front by choosing to use EELV's instead.

Not really, because then NASA would have to pay the huge cost of
shutting down Launch Complex 39. I've seen figures for that
approaching $10 billion.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:26:10 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


The decision to spend billions developing Ares I and Ares V, and continue
spending money to perpetuate the use of Saturn/Shuttle launch infrastructure
was NASA's decision.

That we know of. It could well be that certain Congresscritters
informed Griffin "big cuts in your voting workforce, and your program
won't be approved." In fact, on the face of it, this seems the most
likely explanation for our current predicament.

NASA could have saved a lot of development money up
front by choosing to use EELV's instead.

Not really, because then NASA would have to pay the huge cost of
shutting down Launch Complex 39. I've seen figures for that
approaching $10 billion.

Why not launch a COTS proposal from Pad 39?

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:26:10 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


The decision to spend billions developing Ares I and Ares V, and continue
spending money to perpetuate the use of Saturn/Shuttle launch
infrastructure
was NASA's decision.

That we know of. It could well be that certain Congresscritters
informed Griffin "big cuts in your voting workforce, and your program
won't be approved." In fact, on the face of it, this seems the most
likely explanation for our current predicament.

It's possible, but from what I remember, Griffin had this shuttle derived
architecture in mind even before the Columbia disaster. It's his vision and
he's ramming it down everyone's throats. Certainly it doesn't hurt certain
congressional districts that his vision preserves saturn/shuttle jobs for
decades to come.

However, it eliminates the opportunity to get NASA out of the launch vehicle
business once and for all. The development money saved would be better
spent elsewhere since NASA's budget is obviously very tight.

NASA could have saved a lot of development money up
front by choosing to use EELV's instead.

Not really, because then NASA would have to pay the huge cost of
shutting down Launch Complex 39. I've seen figures for that
approaching $10 billion.

Where have you seen figures that high? In the past, old launch complexes
have been left to rot for years, even decades, before they've been
completely scrapped.

Jeff
--
"When transportation is cheap, frequent, reliable, and flexible,
everything else becomes easier."
- Jon Goff

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:37:09 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


Not really, because then NASA would have to pay the huge cost of
shutting down Launch Complex 39. I've seen figures for that
approaching $10 billion.

Where have you seen figures that high? In the past, old launch complexes
have been left to rot for years, even decades, before they've been
completely scrapped.

The figure I saw was something like $9.5 billion, determinedby
extrapolating from costs of base closures in the 1990s. KSC LC-39 is
enormously larger than any of the previous pads that were mothballed
and scrapped, like LC-34, and has its own industrial (power
production, etc.) facilities that didn't come into play elsewhere.
Hell, just demolishing or mothballing the VAB is going to be a huge
project. And EPA regulations new since the '70s don't let them just
leave it to rot anymore. (DoD had the same problem.)

Brian