NASA 2011 budget and Ares-1

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:09:45 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Apparently no budget bump for NASA for work on Ares-1, and more money
shifted to commercial spaceflight options:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/1001...s-unclear.html
...as well as environmental satellites, education programs, and research
and technology development.

Well, we can't say we didn't see this coming. Then Senator Obama
announced in 2007 that he would defer Constellation for five years to
pay for his Education Initiative. And here is it. Okay, he's not
officially deferring Constellation, but he's not requesting funds for
it either, which amounts to the same thing. Ares I is dead
(thankfully) but there will be little progress on Ares V-Lite without
a significant budget increase, especially with the new priorities
President Obama wants for NASA: more environmental satellites to
report disturbing climate information that no one in Washington will
do anything about. Yippee.

Brian

Apparently no budget bump for NASA for work on Ares-1, and more money
shifted to commercial spaceflight options:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/1001...s-unclear.html
....as well as environmental satellites, education programs, and research
and technology development.

Pat

So, the stick is dead, long rest the stick.

So does NASA push ahead with Orion/CEV, or put it on the shelf w/o
something that can lanuch it?

Why wouldn't NASA start engineering studies now to see if SpaceX
Dragon can be adapted to their ISS servicing needs? Can the Dragon
be mated to other EELVs, (Delta-V heavy, Atlas-V, DIRECTX/Jupiter)
or will SpaceX insist on Falcon 9 exclusivity? Comments?

Dave

David Spain wrote:
So does NASA push ahead with Orion/CEV, or put it on the shelf w/o
something that can lanuch it?

If they have any brains they kill it immediately so as to minimize the
amount of money they've wasted on it.


Why wouldn't NASA start engineering studies now to see if SpaceX
Dragon can be adapted to their ISS servicing needs? Can the Dragon
be mated to other EELVs, (Delta-V heavy, Atlas-V, DIRECTX/Jupiter)
or will SpaceX insist on Falcon 9 exclusivity? Comments?

After the Ares/Orion debacle, the last thing we need is to have them
muddling around with the Dragon and screwing it up also.
Just give SpaceX the specs on what it needs to do in a manned form and
let them build it without interfering.
If they want it on different booster, SpaceX can work that out
themselves directly with ULA.

Pat

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:17:06 -0500, David Spain
wrote:

So, the stick is dead, long rest the stick.

Five years later and God Only Knows how many billions wasted. Does
anyone seriously doubt Delta IV-Heavy could have been manrated by now
with that much time and money?

So does NASA push ahead with Orion/CEV, or put it on the shelf w/o
something that can lanuch it?

EELV-Heavy could launch it.

Why wouldn't NASA start engineering studies now to see if SpaceX
Dragon can be adapted to their ISS servicing needs?

Huh? Dragon is already designed to meet ISS servicing needs as part of
CRS. You mean for manned flight? SpaceX doesn't need NASA's help
(much) just some funding. The problem is, if we cancel Orion (which I
think is likely, just not this year... Pres. Obama is hiding the
cancellation of Constellation by killing it one piece at a time) and
we decide to fund commercial options, Congress isn't just going to
write a check to SpaceX. They'll demand a competition, which will be
good for a year or two of delay, so we really won't get indigenous
manned space again any sooner under Dragon than if we just go forward
with Orion and launch it on EELV.

Can the Dragon
be mated to other EELVs, (Delta-V heavy, Atlas-V, DIRECTX/Jupiter)
or will SpaceX insist on Falcon 9 exclusivity? Comments?

Evidently Mr. Musk has entertained that idea, so it isn't
inconceivable. Probably cheaper to buy it as a package with Falcon,
though.

Brian

Brian Thorn writes:

Why wouldn't NASA start engineering studies now to see if SpaceX
Dragon can be adapted to their ISS servicing needs?

Huh? Dragon is already designed to meet ISS servicing needs as part of
CRS. You mean for manned flight?

Oops, yes I meant for manned flight, including manned flights to ISS.

Sorry,
Dave

Pat Flannery wrote:

Brian Thorn wrote:
So, the stick is dead, long rest the stick.

Five years later and God Only Knows how many billions wasted. Does
anyone seriously doubt Delta IV-Heavy could have been manrated by now
with that much time and money?

That's the one I would use, and it certainly could have been man-rated
by now.
We man-rated the Saturn V after only two launches, only one of which
worked right.

And if NASA tried that today, or if s.s.* had been around then - we'd
see a zillion posts/threads castigating NASA for doing so.

And if NASA is going to start saying that there is safety to consider,
remember they were the guys who came up with the concept of manned
all-up testing with the first launch of the Shuttle.

Thereby proving the point made above.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Brian Thorn wrote:
So, the stick is dead, long rest the stick.

Five years later and God Only Knows how many billions wasted. Does
anyone seriously doubt Delta IV-Heavy could have been manrated by now
with that much time and money?

That's the one I would use, and it certainly could have been man-rated
by now.
We man-rated the Saturn V after only two launches, only one of which
worked right.
And if NASA is going to start saying that there is safety to consider,
remember they were the guys who came up with the concept of manned
all-up testing with the first launch of the Shuttle.

Pat

Derek Lyons wrote:
And if NASA is going to start saying that there is safety to consider,
remember they were the guys who came up with the concept of manned
all-up testing with the first launch of the Shuttle.

Thereby proving the point made above.

Difference being that in 1968 we were in a race to the Moon with the Soviets
When the Shuttle rolled around we weren't in a race, and NASA managed to
design the thing in such a way that all you could do is a all-up manned
test.
Imagine if the first F-14 test flight had included a carrier take-off,
missile launch, and carrier landing as part of its mission objectives.

Pat

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Pat Flannery wrote:

Brian Thorn wrote:
So, the stick is dead, long rest the stick.

Five years later and God Only Knows how many billions wasted. Does
anyone seriously doubt Delta IV-Heavy could have been manrated by now
with that much time and money?

That's the one I would use, and it certainly could have been man-rated
by now.
We man-rated the Saturn V after only two launches, only one of which
worked right.

And if NASA tried that today, or if s.s.* had been around then - we'd
see a zillion posts/threads castigating NASA for doing so.

And rightfully so. The record of Saturn V wasn't all rosy. POGO continued
to be a very real, very dangerous problem after Saturn V was considered
"man-rated", whatever that means...

The only reason NASA pushed so hard and so fast during the 60's was because
of the Space Race with the Soviet Union. Absent that, funding would have
been far lower and NASA would have had to have stretched out its programs.
It's likely that Mercury Mark II (Gemini) would not have existed as a
stop-gap to keep setting "firsts" in space until Apollo could fly. Of
course, absent the Space Race, there likely wouldn't have been a Saturn V
either. It was far to big and expensive and was unsustainable once the
Space Race funding was cut out of NASA's budget.

And if NASA is going to start saying that there is safety to consider,
remember they were the guys who came up with the concept of manned
all-up testing with the first launch of the Shuttle.

Thereby proving the point made above.

That was because NASA was deluding themselves with artificially pumped up
safety numbers. Didn't they advertise a 1 in 10,000 failure rate back then?
It was only after Challenger that NASA as a whole admitted to the public,
and to themselves, that the shuttle was far more dangerous than advertised.

Back in the early days of the shuttle program, contingency plans like TAL
aborts and RTLS aborts made people feel better, even though there were many
people who knew just how dangerous something like a TAL or RTLS would have
been to actually execute.

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