The end of Constellation?

Mr Obama's speech
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack...ugural_Address


" We will restore science to its rightful place..."

"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath
them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long
no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is
too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find
jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no,
programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be
held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in
the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between
a people and their government."

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:00:28 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Alan
Erskine" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Mr Obama's speech
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack...ugural_Address


" We will restore science to its rightful place..."

I hope that it's the end of Constellation (assuming that means Ares
and the current plan) but it's foolish to infer that from an inaugural
address. Particularly in this case...

Constellation has little or nothing to do with "science."

I'm sure he's talking about global warm^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hclimate
change and stem-cell research.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

I hope that it's the end of Constellation (assuming that means Ares
and the current plan) but it's foolish to infer that from an inaugural
address. Particularly in this case...

I was more referring to the bit about budget responsibility than science. I
can't, for the life of me, work out why going back to the Moon will be
_more_ expensive than Apollo.... That's what NASA would have us believe; and
it's mainly due to using Ares 1 and V (as well as a lander that is grossly
over-sized for what it does - Altair) - perhaps with the new administration,
there will be a re-think on the whole mess.

Hopefully.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Alan Erskine wrote:

I was more referring to the bit about budget responsibility than
science. I can't, for the life of me, work out why going back to the
Moon will be _more_ expensive than Apollo.... That's what NASA would
have us believe; and it's mainly due to using Ares 1 and V (as well as a
lander that is grossly over-sized for what it does - Altair) - perhaps
with the new administration, there will be a re-think on the whole mess.

It'll cost lots more because instead of picking up a few moon rocks,
US will be occupying the moon.

Riddle of the day. Which will cost US more?
Occupying the moon or occupying Iraq?

William Elliot wrote:
Riddle of the day. Which will cost US more?
Occupying the moon or occupying Iraq?

I really do not care about U.S. costs. I care about the
costs for the Iraki people...

If the U.S. "occupies" the moon, at least there will be no
costs for the moon inhabitants since there aren't any.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, jacob navia wrote:

William Elliot wrote:
Riddle of the day. Which will cost US more?
Occupying the moon or occupying Iraq?

I really do not care about U.S. costs. I care about the
costs for the Iraki people...

Are you not only anti-American but also anti-semitic not
caring about Israeli costs but only Palestinian costs?

Beware shrapnel from explosive irony.

If the U.S. "occupies" the moon, at least there will be no
costs for the moon inhabitants since there aren't any.

Shucks, US already has a disparaging name for them Lunatics.

On 21 Jan, 05:08, "Alan Erskine" wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message

...



I hope that it's the end of Constellation (assuming that means Ares
and the current plan) but it's foolish to infer that from an inaugural
address. *Particularly in this case...

I was more referring to the bit about budget responsibility than science. *I
can't, for the life of me, work out why going back to the Moon will be
_more_ expensive than Apollo.... That's what NASA would have us believe; and
it's mainly due to using Ares 1 and V (as well as a lander that is grossly
over-sized for what it does - Altair) - perhaps with the new administration,
there will be a re-think on the whole mess.

The expenditure pledged in the inaugural address is large. This is
going to make it very difficult to justify things like Constellation.
Going back to the Moon may not cost any more than Apollo but going on
to Mars which is the next logical destination certainly will.

What I think is needed is some new ideas. Constellation/Ares is really
a rehash of Apollo/Saturn 5. If someone somewhere could draw up a plan
for space exploration that did not produce exponential costs (as Mars
with present day technology would) I think people would listen. NASA
has to concentrate on developing genuinely new technology or else have
its budget slashed.

Unmanned exploration would seem t be pretty safe. Beyond this NASA has
to show either :-

1) That it is genuinrly working on solutions that will ease the
dependency on forein oil etc.

2) Provide a good scientific yield for the money spent.

This is what minds should be concentrating on.


- Ian Parker

On Jan 21, 6:29*am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 21 Jan, 05:08, "Alan Erskine" wrote:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message

...

I hope that it's the end of Constellation (assuming that means Ares
and the current plan) but it's foolish to infer that from an inaugural
address. *Particularly in this case...

I was more referring to the bit about budget responsibility than science. *I
can't, for the life of me, work out why going back to the Moon will be
_more_ expensive than Apollo.... That's what NASA would have us believe; and
it's mainly due to using Ares 1 and V (as well as a lander that is grossly
over-sized for what it does - Altair) - perhaps with the new administration,
there will be a re-think on the whole mess.

The expenditure pledged in the inaugural address is large. This is
going to make it very difficult to justify things like Constellation.
Going back to the Moon may not cost any more than Apollo but going on
to Mars which is the next logical destination certainly will.

What I think is needed is some new ideas. Constellation/Ares is really
a rehash of Apollo/Saturn 5. If someone somewhere could draw up a plan
for space exploration that did not produce exponential costs (as Mars
with present day technology would) I think people would listen. NASA
has to concentrate on developing genuinely new technology or else have
its budget slashed.

Unmanned exploration would seem t be pretty safe. Beyond this NASA has
to show either :-

1) That it is genuinrly working on solutions that will ease the
dependency on forein oil etc.

2) Provide a good scientific yield for the money spent.

This is what minds should be concentrating on.

* - Ian Parker

I fully agree, that we need to focus upon obtainable goals that will
yield the most return for the greater good of humanity, not to mention
the salvation of our frail environment that’s otherwise going to have
a tough time at sustaining ten billion humans, especially with fossil
and biological resources showing their stress and trauma as is.

Science and especially of our public funded science needs to be given
the green light. We as supposedly free Americans need to exploit
science via having full access to all of our public funded and
otherwise intellectually invested science, with no more of this need-
to-know or exclusion of evidence as policy.

Even 50/50 (public match funded) science simply has to become publicly
accessible unless specific national security (other than embarrassment
or humility) is at risk. Only when and if the private sector has
funded more than 50% is when secrecy or proprietary license on behalf
of nondisclosure should be allowed.

There should no longer be any significant truth lag, especially of
whatever is 50% or more public funded. Let us hope and prey that BHO
as our resident wizard of Oz agrees with this. " We will restore
science to its rightful place..." / BHO

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

Alan Erskine wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
I hope that it's the end of Constellation (assuming that means Ares
and the current plan) but it's foolish to infer that from an inaugural
address. Particularly in this case...

I was more referring to the bit about budget responsibility than science. I
can't, for the life of me, work out why going back to the Moon will be
_more_ expensive than Apollo....[/quote]

Because the goals of Constellation are more ambitious than Apollo.

That's what NASA would have us believe; and
it's mainly due to using Ares 1 and V (as well as a lander that is grossly
over-sized for what it does - Altair)

If you want to use the same basic lander architecture for a sortie
mission (4 men * 2 weeks vs 2 men * days for Apollo), and a base-build
mission, it's going to be a big lander.

On Jan 21, 7:34*am, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
Alan Erskine wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
I hope that it's the end of Constellation (assuming that means Ares
and the current plan) but it's foolish to infer that from an inaugural
address. *Particularly in this case...

I was more referring to the bit about budget responsibility than science. *I
can't, for the life of me, work out why going back to the Moon will be
_more_ expensive than Apollo....[/quote]

Because the goals of Constellation are more ambitious than Apollo.

That's what NASA would have us believe; and
it's mainly due to using Ares 1 and V (as well as a lander that is grossly
over-sized for what it does - Altair)

If you want to use the same basic lander architecture for a sortie
mission (4 men * 2 weeks vs 2 men * days for Apollo), and a base-build
mission, it's going to be a big lander.

On your private nickle (meaning fully taxed private loot) there's no
problem. Go right ahead.

At best this spendy moon thing should become a 50/50 deal, of private
and public loot. If you can't get at least 50% in private sponsors,
then perhaps there's something wrong with the plan.

~ BG