U.S. Space Program Broke - NASA asks for private proposals to get to Space Station 11-3-05

[dmcowen674]

U.S. Space Program Broke - NASA asks for private proposals to get to Space Station

I'm not surprised.

All of our efforts that last decade have been for War, Imperialism and Faith based initiatives at the sacrifice of Science, Space and Exploration.

NASA Names New Shuttle a Priority

WASHINGTON - NASA's top priorities are a replacement for the space shuttle and completing the international space station, and some other programs are being cut or deferred to concentrate the agency's resources, NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin said Thursday.

"NASA cannot afford to do everything on its plate today," he told the House Science Committee. Funding priorities required the agency to cancel several programs

NASA has been developing the new crew exploration vehicle, which is intended to fly to the moon but also can replace the space shuttle when it goes out of service.

Delaying that work could result in the United States being out of the manned spaceflight business for a few years after the shuttle is retired, at the same time other nations are increasing their space programs, Griffin said.

NASA is encouraging private industry to submit proposals to carry cargo and crew to the space station.

 

[amdxborg]

Thanx Dave. Wonder what great programs they're gonna cancel for this..

 

[Wiz]

NASA has had its collective head up its collective ass for way way way too long.
It's time for private enterprise to take over the Final Frontier.
If those X-prize guys had 10% of the money NASA has flushed away over the past few decades we would all be in space by now.

All IMHO of course.

 

[CheesePoofs]

Ugh. Why can we not get our priorities straight as a country? I have to say that IMO exploring space and helping to develop the means for humanity to survive after the eventual filling up of earth is much more important than killing people. My personal opinion is that we should completely stop all development of nuclear weapons (cause its not like we don't have enough already) and instead devote that money towards space exploration. If we could just rework the budget a tad, the world would probably be a better place.

 

[networkman]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
All of our efforts that last decade have been for War, Imperialism and Faith based initiatives at the sacrifice of Science, Space and Exploration.

I expect commentary like that in the Politics forum and in Off-Topic, but not here, so keep your political comments to yourself. :frown:

Wiz has got it right in my opinion - a bit more private enterprise would go a long way toward cutting out the red tape and making projects happen more economically.

 

[Crazee]

I have a lot of friends who work at NASA some who are fairly high positioned. You may not like Dave's comment, but many people there feel it to be true. Not only has funding been diverted, but there has been interference in how they run their agency too. Many of the problems that the shuttle has had recently are as a result of changes made to the original designs to make it a more military ready craft.

To compare NASA to the X project is like comparing an ant hill to a city. The X project is a remarkable achievement, however NASA has been in space for over 40 years. They have been to the moon and back. They have sent probes to or by almost every planet in our solar system. They have telescopes (Hubble) which can see deep in places we would have never thought possible. The X prize winner exceeded an altitude of 328,000 feet twice in 14 days. While a remarkable feat for a private craft, there is no comparison with the achievements NASA has made.

There is nothing stopping private space exploration right now. The problem is that if we were to kill NASA and go totally private, it would set US space exploration back 30 years at least. It is a nice concept, but we are not ready for it yet. We still need NASA and if we want manned space exploration, we need to fund them properly so they can carry out their mission safely. The military needs to not intercede in the designs for the shuttle's replacement either.

 

[mrwizer]

Well said Crazee. And about private industry, not only is nothing except technology holding them back, I think the money is there. It would seem that is evident by the amount of people willing to pay high prices to go into space as tourists.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Crazee
I have a lot of friends who work at NASA some who are fairly high positioned. You may not like Dave's comment, but many people there feel it to be true. Not only has funding been diverted, but there has been interference in how they run their agency too. Many of the problems that the shuttle has had recently are as a result of changes made to the original designs to make it a more military ready craft.

I think the point was that Dave should have left his political commentary out of it. We've got a forum for debating that aspect of this.

 

[Crazee]

I understood the point and I know we have a forum for debating politics, however, NASA funding has been affected by the very things he mentioned. All I was saying was that if you go talk to people at NASA many of them express the same sentiments expressed by Dave.

 

[networkman]

Thank you, Pabster, that was exactly my point.

As for NASA, I too have some friends there, as well as in other aerospace companies and it's not just money that's an issue. If you catch these folks off of company grounds, preferably relaxed at the bar, you'll hear comments about how the Russians aren't exactly rolling in the money and yet still manage to put up rockets on a fairly regular basis. To be effectively grounded here in the US, yet with greater funding than their Russian counterparts is more than a bit demoralizing.

I've heard it said on more than one or two, or even a dozen occasions, that our programs are too cautious. Certainly safety is always a factor, but the process like the US tax code has become so complex that it doesn't take much to create a failure. "The entire process needs to be re-streamlined." - not my quote.

 

[BadThad]

Originally posted by: networkman

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
All of our efforts that last decade have been for War, Imperialism and Faith based initiatives at the sacrifice of Science, Space and Exploration.

I expect commentary like that in the Politics forum and in Off-Topic, but not here, so keep your political comments to yourself. :frown:

Wiz has got it right in my opinion - a bit more private enterprise would go a long way toward cutting out the red tape and making projects happen more economically.

Indeed and thank you.

 

[Zbox]

Originally posted by: networkman
I expect commentary like that in the Politics forum and in Off-Topic, but not here, so keep your political comments to yourself. :frown:

right on the money.

 

[Crazee]

Originally posted by: networkman
Thank you, Pabster, that was exactly my point.

As for NASA, I too have some friends there, as well as in other aerospace companies and it's not just money that's an issue. If you catch these folks off of company grounds, preferably relaxed at the bar, you'll hear comments about how the Russians aren't exactly rolling in the money and yet still manage to put up rockets on a fairly regular basis. To be effectively grounded here in the US, yet with greater funding than their Russian counterparts is more than a bit demoralizing.

I've heard it said on more than one or two, or even a dozen occasions, that our programs are too cautious. Certainly safety is always a factor, but the process like the US tax code has become so complex that it doesn't take much to create a failure. "The entire process needs to be re-streamlined." - not my quote.

The Russian space program has launched more rockets because they do not vehicles like the shuttles. All but one of their launch vehicles are based on ICBMs. They tried their own shuttle the Buran in 1988. The test flight was unmanned since even after 18 years they still had no CRTs and no working life support. It was limited to two orbits because of a lack of computer memory. The funding was cut after the first flight and it was officially scrapped in 1993.

I live literally a few miles from Johnson Space Center. I have numerous friends that work there. One of them is one of the very top people on the shuttle contract and I have NEVER heard a single one of them say they were too cautious. They take the lives of the astronauts very seriously. To continue with missions without solving the problems that they have encountered before would be reckless at best. Because of budgeting they are dealing with vehicles that were not designed to last this long in the first place.

If you look at the history of the shuttle you will see that funding has been continually cut and interference from the Air Force has happened over and over. This is not political because both sides of the aisle have let this happen.

A very good timeline for the shuttle can be found here

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Crazee
I have a lot of friends who work at NASA some who are fairly high positioned. You may not like Dave's comment, but many people there feel it to be true. Not only has funding been diverted, but there has been interference in how they run their agency too. Many of the problems that the shuttle has had recently are as a result of changes made to the original designs to make it a more military ready craft.

To compare NASA to the X project is like comparing an ant hill to a city. The X project is a remarkable achievement, however NASA has been in space for over 40 years. They have been to the moon and back. They have sent probes to or by almost every planet in our solar system. They have telescopes (Hubble) which can see deep in places we would have never thought possible. The X prize winner exceeded an altitude of 328,000 feet twice in 14 days. While a remarkable feat for a private craft, there is no comparison with the achievements NASA has made.

There is nothing stopping private space exploration right now. The problem is that if we were to kill NASA and go totally private, it would set US space exploration back 30 years at least. It is a nice concept, but we are not ready for it yet. We still need NASA and if we want manned space exploration, we need to fund them properly so they can carry out their mission safely. The military needs to not intercede in the designs for the shuttle's replacement either.

Thanks Crazee.

It's very evident when you see many former once great NASA facilities turned in to Condominion properties or Industrial parks down here. Americans used to go to College looking forward to working for NASA and now it's like, what's NASA??? What jobs?

It's so sad

Oh and the comment, well it's pre-programmed from P&N, you have to comment, besides I was never shy about speaking my mind. We have become to quiet, too complacent and now no longer the Space leader to show for that. Now back to World's Policeman channel.

 

[dmcowen674]

11-8-2005 No More Science on the ISS Until Further Notice

NASA is canceling scientific research projects on the International Space Station until construction is complete. This may not happen before 2010 or 2012." From the article: "In addition to beginning development of a new manned launch system, expenses to return the shuttle fleet to flight following the 2003 Columbia disaster and delays completing the International Space Station have left NASA with a projected shortfall of up to $5 billion over the next five years"

 

[dmcowen674]

In other news I am on the move again like a vagabond like the Space program has become too. As you guys know Donna cut me loose in June 2004, I moved in with a great lady in New Orleans shortly after but I wasn't head over heels I guess you could say. Lady I have met now is moving to Oklahoma and wants me to go with her. She is getting out of New Orleans after the storm and does not want to face another one. The lake area in Oklahoma supposedly does not get tornadoes. So I'm packing as I type.

PS - I haven't heard from JW Middleton in months, is he around???

 

[CheesePoofs]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674It's very evident when you see many former once great NASA facilities turned in to Condominion properties or Industrial parks down here. Americans used to go to College looking forward to working for NASA and now it's like, what's NASA??? What jobs?

It's so sad

That doesn't apply to everyone. When I go to college, I will go looking forward to working for NASA (or some similar private corporation).

 

[Jeff7]

I really hope they don't cancel any in-progress missions, like the Voyagers and the Mars Rovers, once their mission extension is up. The Voyagers are way the heck out there, and still capable of returning useful information.
The Mars Rovers have an extension that'll last until Sol 1000 on the surface. With both of them in pretty good health, and experiencing regular cleanings of the solar panels, it's possibly that they could use yet another mission extension. Shutting them down for simple lack of funding is just plain moronic. It's like spending $100,000 on a nice house, but then abandoning it because the toilet leaks, and you don't want to pay $100 to have it fixed.

My view right now probably isn't very popular among the space-loving crowd, but I think that a mission to Mars carrying people, right now, is just not really necessary. As I've usually said, humans will generally complain if you don't feed them, or try to work them to death, or just drop them off on a planet with no chance of coming back. Robots couldn't care less about any of those things. They're also more durable, and easier to send. The rovers were sent in what amounted to a cocoon, with a lot of components folded down to save space. A person probably wouldn't appreciate spending 7 months in similar conditions. Other matter of concern - cosmic radiation. We're fine here on Earth with our sizable magnetic field. No such thing on Mars.
In time, maybe we'll find effective ways of using nuclear propulsion or other means to get people to Mars at far lesser expense. Right now though, it's expensive enough to just get to the Moon.

 

[CheesePoofs]

I think we need to start investing in new methods of propulsion. Specifically, nuclear propulsion. Most people are scared of anything with the word "nuclear" in it, which is probably why many of hte nuclear propulsion projects were cancelled. But they need to be restarted or something else needs to replace them, normal chemical rockets can only go so far and provide so much power.

 

[networkman]

As a member of "The Planetary Society", I completely agree with you CheesePoofs. Cosmos 1 was to have done just that, save for an untimely explosion in mid-flight of a former Russian ICBM.

Not to be deterred, we're going to do it again!

I don't know if "Cosmos 2" is the correct name or not, but I've already sent in a contribution toward this second effort. I plan to use some of my upcoming tax refund to make another donation this spring too.

I firmly believe "The Planetary Society" will realize the dream of solar-sailing.

 

[Kenazo]

The US has all these ICBM's sitting around, could they reach orbit?

 

[CheesePoofs]

Probably, but we need our thousands of ICBM's to protect us from the terrorists. :roll: Actually, thats what the Titan rocket series was, an ICBM turned normal rocket used to get stuff into orbit. I dont' think we really have a shortage of rockets, we just dont' have the heavy lifters needed to bring parts up to the ISS and nothing capable of reaching/landing on the moon or mars.

 

[networkman]

I don't know about whether we need our ICBMs to deter terrorists or not, but one of the interesting differences between the military of the former Soviet Union and the U.S. is that the U.S. worked to miniaturize their technology, while the Soviets were building BIG.

Depending on the application, bigger really can mean better.