Budget cut for NASA?

This would pretty much end Constellation and even kill off Ares and
Orion in LEO:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/1...re-a-10-b.html

Pat

Constellation is likely DOA. (Dead under Obama Admininstration)

NASA will be lucky to get Ares-I and Orion.

Maybe NASA will be re-directed to the COTS approach and contract
launch services with a man-rated the Dragon capsule?

Would Obama consider spining off ISS services to a quasi-public
corporation ala Amtrak and move NASA over to being more like
its NACA predecessor?

Dave

On Nov 17, 3:50*pm, David Spain wrote:
Constellation is likely DOA. (Dead under Obama Admininstration)

NASA will be lucky to get Ares-I and Orion.

Maybe NASA will be re-directed to the COTS approach and contract
launch services with a man-rated the Dragon capsule?

Would Obama consider spining off ISS services to a quasi-public
corporation ala Amtrak and move NASA over to being more like
its NACA predecessor?

Dave

whatever form it might take, the ISS still needs a boat load of money
to operate, money that neither the administration nor the congress is
willing to provide. I simply don't see anybody other than the
government to pick up such a large, from a business point of view,
unprofitable tab.

David Spain wrote:
Maybe NASA will be re-directed to the COTS approach and contract
launch services with a man-rated the Dragon capsule?

It certainly does make a major opening for the COTS approach to things.


Would Obama consider spining off ISS services to a quasi-public
corporation ala Amtrak and move NASA over to being more like
its NACA predecessor?

It would be great if that could happen, but NASA seems so dysfunctional
at the moment that it might be better to just kill it and start over
with something new.
About the only part of it that still does competent work is JPL and its
unmanned space probes. The rest of it is a bloated and unfocused mess
that seems primarily designed to ship tax dollars to as many
congressional districts, universities, and aerospace companies as
possible so they can develop technologies that aren't really needed at
the moment for any promulgated aerospace mission.

Pat

eatfastnoodle wrote:
On Nov 17, 3:50 pm,

whatever form it might take, the ISS still needs a boat load of money
to operate, money that neither the administration nor the congress is
willing to provide. I simply don't see anybody other than the
government to pick up such a large, from a business point of view,
unprofitable tab.

Its funding is probably secure till 2015, but I doubt there is much
chance it will go beyond that, although Russia wants to keep it up till
2020, and ESA and JAXA don't seem adverse to that idea either...if it
can be done at a fairly low cost.
A possible wild card was added today with Obama saying there is going to
be US/Chinese cooperation in space:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10399964-76.html
Shenzhou should be able to be modified to dock with the ISS without much
trouble, but the very low Chinese launch rate up to the moment makes one
wonder if they would consider that worth the effort and money to do even
if the ISS were to be kept up till 2020.

Pat

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:32:02 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:


About the only part of it that still does competent work is JPL and its
unmanned space probes.

How far is Curiosity overbudget and behind schedule again?

Brian

Pat Flannery writes:
David Spain wrote:
Maybe NASA will be re-directed to the COTS approach and contract
launch services with a man-rated the Dragon capsule?

It certainly does make a major opening for the COTS approach to things.


Would Obama consider spining off ISS services to a quasi-public
corporation ala Amtrak and move NASA over to being more like
its NACA predecessor?

It would be great if that could happen, but NASA seems so dysfunctional at the
moment that it might be better to just kill it and start over with something
new.

There is a possible precedent. If United Space Alliance or its equiv. would
accept a money-losing contract to support the ISS using a COTS launcher and
capsule, with the difference made up by the govt, that would be one way around
the ISS support dilemma and would perhaps be a more efficient way to directly
fund ISS support w/o the overhead of NASA centers not directly involved in ISS
ops.

Those NASA centers better find a good reason to exist if/when the NACA
conversion happens.

Dave

Brian Thorn wrote:
About the only part of it that still does competent work is JPL and its
unmanned space probes.

How far is Curiosity overbudget and behind schedule again?

They did botch it with that one, but that was because they got carried
away with making it into some sort of atomic super rover rather than
just a step up from the MER's.
It was also dumb to just build one MSL and have all their eggs in one
basket if it crashes on landing.
Still, compared to NASA's manned efforts since the Shuttle, the unmanned
spacecraft have been doing very well indeed - with the MER's ranking
right up there with the Voyagers as our most successful spacecraft ever.

Pat

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:09:33 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Brian Thorn wrote:
About the only part of it that still does competent work is JPL and its
unmanned space probes.

How far is Curiosity overbudget and behind schedule again?

They did botch it with that one,

....and Mars Observer, Mars Polar Lander, Mars Climate Orbiter, and
Genesis...

Brian

On Nov 17, 8:54*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
This would pretty much end Constellation and even kill off Ares and
Orion in LEO:http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/1...re-a-10-b.html

Pat

The USAF could easily take over, as should have been in charge to
begin with.

We're already told less than 1% of the truth as is, so what's the
difference if it were run by our USAF?

~ BG