I wonder what will happen to Constellation

Considering the (now) enormous financial pressure on the U.S. government.

Alan Erskine wrote:

Considering the (now) enormous financial pressure on the U.S. government.

Is that a trick question?

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:51:39 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
wrote:

Considering the (now) enormous financial pressure on the U.S. government.

Descoped to ISS support only, certainly. Possibly a shift to a cheaper
launch system like EELV or Direct, forced on NASA by budget cuts and
with Congressional resistance to EELV vanished in the post-Wall Street
handout hangover. NASA will still get Orion, but if they continue to
botch development and SpaceX pulls a rabbit out of a hat and gets
Dragon working in a timely fashion (both are big 'ifs') even Orion is
in danger.

And the way NASA has totally f'ed up Constellation, choosing the most
expensive and most complicated system they could find, just like they
did with X-33, I'm not at all sure that's a bad thing.

Brian

Brian Thorn writes:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:51:39 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
wrote:

Considering the (now) enormous financial pressure on the U.S. government.

Descoped to ISS support only, certainly. Possibly a shift to a cheaper
launch system like EELV or Direct, forced on NASA by budget cuts and
with Congressional resistance to EELV vanished in the post-Wall Street
handout hangover. NASA will still get Orion, but if they continue to
botch development and SpaceX pulls a rabbit out of a hat and gets
Dragon working in a timely fashion (both are big 'ifs') even Orion is
in danger.

And the way NASA has totally f'ed up Constellation, choosing the most
expensive and most complicated system they could find, just like they
did with X-33, I'm not at all sure that's a bad thing.

Brian

Florida's 27 (and probably 29 after 2010) electoral votes may
influence this.

Added to that, (presuming Obama wins, which looks pretty likely at
this point), the incoming adminstration is probably going to have a
policy preference towards larger public sector expenditures, seen as
economically benefical in terms of priming the pump for a recovery
from the moderately deep recession that pretty much everyone agrees
that we are getting ready to experience.

So it's not outside the realm of possibilty that NASA will end up with
an _increased_ budget :-)

--
#include disclaimer.std /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
/* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
/* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
Richard D. Latham

I think (assuming an Obama win) that Brian Thorn's first paragraph
gets it about right, although I doubt Direct or any other new launcher
will be developed.
While the Senator has promised a NASA budget hike, I don't believe it
will happen in this economic climate. As in the Clinton
administration (whether you think this good or bad) expect a shift to
Earth science programs within a flat budget.

Matt Bille
Sci/Tech news and comment:
http://mattbille.blogspot.com/

Matt wrote:

I think (assuming an Obama win) that Brian Thorn's first paragraph
gets it about right, although I doubt Direct or any other new launcher
will be developed.
While the Senator has promised a NASA budget hike, I don't believe it
will happen in this economic climate. As in the Clinton
administration (whether you think this good or bad) expect a shift to
Earth science programs within a flat budget.

I don't see any problems with NASA moving their retired Shuttle and
Constellation assets to the private sector, clearly the SSMEs, the
friction stir welding, and the five meter upper stage validation
technology could be farmed out to people who are actually interested in
second generation propulsion and launch vehicle development strategies.

Matt Bille
Sci/Tech news and comment:
http://mattbille.blogspot.com/

On Oct 16, 1:20*am, kT wrote:


I don't see any problems with NASA moving their retired Shuttle and
Constellation assets to the private sector, clearly the SSMEs, the
friction stir welding, and the five meter upper stage validation
technology could be farmed out to people who are actually interested in
second generation propulsion and launch vehicle development strategies.


Just as clueless as GM

1. No one is going to use the SSME. It is too expensive, even for an
RLV

2. friction stir welding is already used on the Delta-IV and Falcon.
Nothing new here

3. The upperstage validation technology is just make work.

Alan Erskine wrote:
Considering the (now) enormous financial pressure on the U.S. government.

Why do I get the feeling that "Constellation" should be renamed "Dead Duck"?

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

Why do I get the feeling that "Constellation" should be renamed "Dead Duck"?

What reason was there to think otherwise in January 2004 or at any
time since? The "sand chart" budget and the timing of its milestones
incorporated so many unlikely assumptions about development timing and
cost that there was really no need for the current debunking of its
deepest assumption ("the general fiscal picture will remain rosy
enough to support something this discretionary").