I would assume he was referring to that Commercial Crew was always funded below what was requested in the budget to meet the original planned first flight of 2015.
Quote from: QuantumG on 07/16/2015 10:13 pmQuote from: Kansan52 on 07/16/2015 05:00 pmLess money for commercial every budget cycle.Huh? It's consistently gone up every budget cycle.I would assume he was referring to that Commercial Crew was always funded below what was requested in the budget to meet the original planned first flight of 2015.
Quote from: Kansan52 on 07/16/2015 05:00 pmLess money for commercial every budget cycle.Huh? It's consistently gone up every budget cycle.
Less money for commercial every budget cycle.
...supports the position that the separation of powers is somehow a bad thing.
The President kicks things off every budget cycle by proposing a funding level. Congress goes from there but doesn't deviate much from what is proposed.
Quote from: brovane on 07/16/2015 10:22 pmI would assume he was referring to that Commercial Crew was always funded below what was requested in the budget to meet the original planned first flight of 2015. Probably.. consistently vague language supports the position that the separation of powers is somehow a bad thing. Ever get the feeling that maybe this administration is more interested in making Congress look bad than they are in actually flying crew this decade? Once the first flight went beyond their term they lost interest in maintaining the schedule.
He's already in office, but Xi Jinping might be "best for the space program" if China starts accomplishing some lunar successes...
Quote from: rsnellenberger on 07/17/2015 02:19 amHe's already in office, but Xi Jinping might be "best for the space program" if China starts accomplishing some lunar successes...Ahh, the great China hope.. if you're lucky they might duplicate Apollo in a decade or two. They've got a head start on their 35-years-stuck-in-LEO phase, and have already started evaluating everything in terms of "science return".
The entire manned US space program, or more particularly: the political support for the manned US space program, is all about 'firsts': First man on the moon. First space shuttle system. First long-duration international space station.
Quote from: woods170 on 07/17/2015 09:41 amThe entire manned US space program, or more particularly: the political support for the manned US space program, is all about 'firsts': First man on the moon. First space shuttle system. First long-duration international space station.What if it doesn't have to be. What if spaceflight, yes even human spaceflight, could be about something that actually matters. Which presidential candidate, if any, would be best for that?
Quote from: QuantumG on 07/17/2015 10:43 amQuote from: woods170 on 07/17/2015 09:41 amThe entire manned US space program, or more particularly: the political support for the manned US space program, is all about 'firsts': First man on the moon. First space shuttle system. First long-duration international space station.What if it doesn't have to be. What if spaceflight, yes even human spaceflight, could be about something that actually matters. Which presidential candidate, if any, would be best for that?Answer: none. Because human spaceflight is, currently, not about something that actually matters. Forget the BS about spreading humankind over multiple planets to ensure the survival of the species. It would require efforts so massive that no country, and not even humankind in total, could afford to do so.As long as we have a monetary system and every good and/or service requires payment, mankind will be doomed to remain a single-planet species because of unaffordabilty.And with that manned spaceflight is pretty much pointless.
As long as we have a monetary system and every good and/or service requires payment, mankind will be doomed to remain a single-planet species because of unaffordabilty.And with that manned spaceflight is pretty much pointless.
Quote from: woods170 on 07/17/2015 11:16 amAs long as we have a monetary system and every good and/or service requires payment, mankind will be doomed to remain a single-planet species because of unaffordabilty.And with that manned spaceflight is pretty much pointless.I share a good degree of your pessimism, but I don't agree that our current monetary system (and capitalism too by extension) dooms us to remain a single-planet species. If anything, I think Elon Musk is proof that capitalism will be able to provide the funding engine for our efforts to expand off of Earth.But will a President or Presidential candidate make having humanity be multi-planetary a formal goal? Absent some corresponding "National Imperative" I don't see that happening, and could even be a negative against them if they mentioned it - there are too many priorities here on Earth.
Can we agree that if we had new technology to reach LEO that governments would be more inclined to send things into space? The technology I'm thinking of it carbon nanotubes or some such so that a space elevator is possible.
Can we agree that if we had new technology to reach LEO that governments would be more inclined to send things into space?
The entire manned US space program, or more particularly: the political support for the manned US space program, is all about 'firsts': First man on the moon. First space shuttle system. First long-duration international space station.Landing on the moon again, is not a first. Therefore, odds are this is never going to happen.