Info on Constellation programme?

Is there any info on cancelling the entire Contellation programme?
I have probably overlooked the NASA site, but does NASA have any info
on this?

"André, PE1PQX" wrote in message
...
Is there any info on cancelling the entire Contellation programme?
I have probably overlooked the NASA site, but does NASA have any info on
this?

I don't bother with official NASA sites for news like this. Since
Constellation is still funded for the remainder of the fiscal year, it's
still the current program, even if it has one foot in the grave.

What you need to do is to read news articles, especially those where the
NASA Administrator makes statements. That's about as "official" as you're
going to get right now. Note the final decision hasn't been made. The
Obama Administration has proposed a new direction and a proposed budget for
NASA, but nothing has yet been written into law (i.e. Congress and Senate
decide the budget and the President signs off on it).

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

Jeff Findley drukte met precisie uit :
"André, PE1PQX" wrote in message
...
Is there any info on cancelling the entire Contellation programme?
I have probably overlooked the NASA site, but does NASA have any info on
this?

I don't bother with official NASA sites for news like this. Since
Constellation is still funded for the remainder of the fiscal year, it's
still the current program, even if it has one foot in the grave.

What you need to do is to read news articles, especially those where the NASA
Administrator makes statements. That's about as "official" as you're going
to get right now. Note the final decision hasn't been made. The Obama
Administration has proposed a new direction and a proposed budget for NASA,
but nothing has yet been written into law (i.e. Congress and Senate decide
the budget and the President signs off on it).

Jeff

It just waiting what the Congress does??
For now I just have to wait for more info I guess...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
What you need to do is to read news articles, especially those where the
NASA Administrator makes statements.

Example of such an article:

NASA unveils sweeping new programs
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/0....html?hpt=Sbin

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

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:19:01 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
puked:


"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
What you need to do is to read news articles, especially those where the
NASA Administrator makes statements.

Example of such an article:

NASA unveils sweeping new programs
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/0....html?hpt=Sbin

Jeff

Uninspiring. Not that inspiring is supposed to be NASA's job, but
public perception that what they are doing is important to the
program. They need to set up a public relations budget and let the
public know what they've done, what they are doing and what can be
done.

I said it before, today's up and coming generation is largely
unimpressed by robots scooting around on the surface or cameras in the
sky. Manned missions outside of LEO are a game changer.
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

"lab~rat :-)" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:19:01 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
puked:


"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
What you need to do is to read news articles, especially those where the
NASA Administrator makes statements.

Example of such an article:

NASA unveils sweeping new programs

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/0....html?hpt=Sbin

Jeff

Uninspiring. Not that inspiring is supposed to be NASA's job, but
public perception that what they are doing is important to the
program. They need to set up a public relations budget and let the
public know what they've done, what they are doing and what can be
done.

You may call it uninspiring, but to me this looks like NASA refocusing on
enabling technologies for future missions. In fact, it looks like they'd be
switching to a much more NACA model for space travel (develop technologies
that enable US private industry to become more competative in space) than
the traditional, socialist, government run programs of the past.

I said it before, today's up and coming generation is largely
unimpressed by robots scooting around on the surface or cameras in the
sky. Manned missions outside of LEO are a game changer.

Unsupported assertion. In fact, this assertion is unsupported by history.
Certainly Apollo 11 was a landmark achievement and many around the world
watched the landing. But the attention span for space is very short. By
the time Apollo 13's O2 tank ruptured, the public didn't much care. The
public attitude seemed to be that setting foot on the moon had already been
done, why bother with several more missions to do the same? For example,
what's to prevent this from happening with multi-billion dollar missions to
Mars once the first mission is over?

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

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:17:38 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
puked:


"lab~rat :-)" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 10:19:01 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
puked:


"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
.. .
What you need to do is to read news articles, especially those where the
NASA Administrator makes statements.

Example of such an article:

NASA unveils sweeping new programs

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/0....html?hpt=Sbin

Jeff

Uninspiring. Not that inspiring is supposed to be NASA's job, but
public perception that what they are doing is important to the
program. They need to set up a public relations budget and let the
public know what they've done, what they are doing and what can be
done.

You may call it uninspiring, but to me this looks like NASA refocusing on
enabling technologies for future missions. In fact, it looks like they'd be
switching to a much more NACA model for space travel (develop technologies
that enable US private industry to become more competative in space) than
the traditional, socialist, government run programs of the past.

I said it before, today's up and coming generation is largely
unimpressed by robots scooting around on the surface or cameras in the
sky. Manned missions outside of LEO are a game changer.

Unsupported assertion. In fact, this assertion is unsupported by history.
Certainly Apollo 11 was a landmark achievement and many around the world
watched the landing. But the attention span for space is very short. By
the time Apollo 13's O2 tank ruptured, the public didn't much care. The
public attitude seemed to be that setting foot on the moon had already been
done, why bother with several more missions to do the same? For example,
what's to prevent this from happening with multi-billion dollar missions to
Mars once the first mission is over?

Nothing. The fact is that it would take years to get to that point,
and having a goal, an extra-orbital goal, would be far more inspiring
than what it looks like from that link.

I would say that even private industry lobs into lower space are less
inspiring to most people. My point is that if NASA wants funding,
they need to sell their plans more aggressively to the public. Oh
yeah, and have a plan, that would be good, too...
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

"lab~rat :-)" wrote in message
...

Nothing. The fact is that it would take years to get to that point,
and having a goal, an extra-orbital goal, would be far more inspiring
than what it looks like from that link.

I would say that even private industry lobs into lower space are less
inspiring to most people. My point is that if NASA wants funding,
they need to sell their plans more aggressively to the public. Oh
yeah, and have a plan, that would be good, too...

Please get a clue. They had a "plan". The "plan" would have required
several billion dollars more per year than the politicians were willing to
fund. Aside from some localized protests in districts which were directly
benefiting from the current "plan", there was no public outcry or uproar
over this. The fact is, the public doesn't much care about anything space
related. That's why NASA's budget is so small compared to other, much
bigger, government agencies.

If NASA can't enable lower cost access to space, there simply won't be a
manned mission "plan" that's affordable.

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

lab~rat " wrote in message
I would say that even private industry lobs into lower space are less
inspiring to most people. My point is that if NASA wants funding,
they need to sell their plans more aggressively to the public. Oh
yeah, and have a plan, that would be good, too...

I'd have to disagree.

Yes, I think NASA could use some inspiring plans, but honestly I'm more
thrilled by private industry right now.

I have a FAR better chance of flying into space on a private industry craft
than I do on an NASA spacecraft.

Pretty pictures are nice, but they're even nicer when I get to take them
first hand.

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

I said it before, today's up and coming generation is largely
unimpressed by robots scooting around on the surface or cameras in the
sky. �Manned missions outside of LEO are a game changer.
--
lab~rat �:-)


Start sending some AI artificial Intelligence unmanned robots, both
orbiters and crawlers, with some advanced human like explorers, and
watch the excitement

Heck look at the buzz of spirit and opportunity when they first
landed........