Quote from: sdsds on 07/12/2011 07:59 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 07/12/2011 07:51 pmHe didn't say that he wouldn't provide the information. He simply said that he doesn't want the information printed in the NY times. That is as much as to say he does not want public debate. This was the fatal flaw of the original Obama FY11 proposal. A small cabal of "experts" decided what would work, and didn't bother to consult the broader community. It was a recipe for disaster then, and it still is. What we need as a nation isn't to be told the answer, but to be engaged in the discussion!And here I always thought of it as the secret society of White House political clowns and now we learn it was A small cabal of "experts" decided what would work, and didn't bother to consult the broader community. Live and learn. I do like your use of the word cabal. We could compromise and say that 'A small cabal of White House clowns continues to do everything they can to illegally delay implementing the legally mandated SLS and Orion. With any luck the law-breaking clowns will someday give daily performances in the prisons they live in.'
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/12/2011 07:51 pmHe didn't say that he wouldn't provide the information. He simply said that he doesn't want the information printed in the NY times. That is as much as to say he does not want public debate. This was the fatal flaw of the original Obama FY11 proposal. A small cabal of "experts" decided what would work, and didn't bother to consult the broader community. It was a recipe for disaster then, and it still is. What we need as a nation isn't to be told the answer, but to be engaged in the discussion!
He didn't say that he wouldn't provide the information. He simply said that he doesn't want the information printed in the NY times.
Quote from: marsavian on 07/14/2011 07:02 amQuote from: aquanaut99 on 07/14/2011 06:31 amMaybe we should just come away from that unhealthy Mars focus. Ever since Apollo, Mars has always been dangled before us as the "next big thing". Part of the reason CxP failed was because of Griffin's intention to have a rocket big enough to eventually send humans to Mars (hence the name "Ares").Since we obviously cannot afford a manned Mars mission now nor in the forseeable future, is it really intelligent to base our decision what kind of launch architecture to get (HLV or multiple EELVs) on a manned Mars architecture? I think this is just asking for trouble.It's time to lower our sights. Mars can wait.Once ISS is eventually ditched or costs transferred to other entities serious HLV missions can be executed including the Moon and Mars. I see your point… but we should think twice about throwing away an asset like ISS as a National Lab or destroying the tooling or the knowledge base that created it just like we did with Project Apollo hardware. After all we didn’t close Oak Ridge after we built the Atomic Bomb. As a nation we should not have to reinvent at great expense down the road, we need to think in the long term and not as we all have collective ADD.RegardsRobert
Quote from: aquanaut99 on 07/14/2011 06:31 amMaybe we should just come away from that unhealthy Mars focus. Ever since Apollo, Mars has always been dangled before us as the "next big thing". Part of the reason CxP failed was because of Griffin's intention to have a rocket big enough to eventually send humans to Mars (hence the name "Ares").Since we obviously cannot afford a manned Mars mission now nor in the forseeable future, is it really intelligent to base our decision what kind of launch architecture to get (HLV or multiple EELVs) on a manned Mars architecture? I think this is just asking for trouble.It's time to lower our sights. Mars can wait.Once ISS is eventually ditched or costs transferred to other entities serious HLV missions can be executed including the Moon and Mars.
Maybe we should just come away from that unhealthy Mars focus. Ever since Apollo, Mars has always been dangled before us as the "next big thing". Part of the reason CxP failed was because of Griffin's intention to have a rocket big enough to eventually send humans to Mars (hence the name "Ares").Since we obviously cannot afford a manned Mars mission now nor in the forseeable future, is it really intelligent to base our decision what kind of launch architecture to get (HLV or multiple EELVs) on a manned Mars architecture? I think this is just asking for trouble.It's time to lower our sights. Mars can wait.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 07/14/2011 01:31 pmQuote from: marsavian on 07/14/2011 07:02 amQuote from: aquanaut99 on 07/14/2011 06:31 amMaybe we should just come away from that unhealthy Mars focus. Ever since Apollo, Mars has always been dangled before us as the "next big thing". Part of the reason CxP failed was because of Griffin's intention to have a rocket big enough to eventually send humans to Mars (hence the name "Ares").Since we obviously cannot afford a manned Mars mission now nor in the forseeable future, is it really intelligent to base our decision what kind of launch architecture to get (HLV or multiple EELVs) on a manned Mars architecture? I think this is just asking for trouble.It's time to lower our sights. Mars can wait.Once ISS is eventually ditched or costs transferred to other entities serious HLV missions can be executed including the Moon and Mars. I see your point… but we should think twice about throwing away an asset like ISS as a National Lab or destroying the tooling or the knowledge base that created it just like we did with Project Apollo hardware. After all we didn’t close Oak Ridge after we built the Atomic Bomb. As a nation we should not have to reinvent at great expense down the road, we need to think in the long term and not as we all have collective ADD.RegardsRobertThe costs of running it can be transferred to another agency or commercial entity or even countries. It should not be part of NASA's fixed costs in perpetuity.
Suboptimal? Definitely. So is democracy. Got a better idea?
. I posit the opposite is true; provide a large market and they will come to serve it, and evolution over time may very well result in your deus ex machina.
and how exactly did the 'cheap' 'high flight rate' Soviet R-7 BEO exploration and space commercialization plan work out, one Lunar flyby in all that time ? $150m for the next one !
Quote from: HappyMartian on 07/14/2011 01:30 pmQuote from: sdsds on 07/12/2011 07:59 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 07/12/2011 07:51 pmHe didn't say that he wouldn't provide the information. He simply said that he doesn't want the information printed in the NY times. That is as much as to say he does not want public debate. This was the fatal flaw of the original Obama FY11 proposal. A small cabal of "experts" decided what would work, and didn't bother to consult the broader community. It was a recipe for disaster then, and it still is. What we need as a nation isn't to be told the answer, but to be engaged in the discussion!And here I always thought of it as the secret society of White House political clowns and now we learn it was A small cabal of "experts" decided what would work, and didn't bother to consult the broader community. Live and learn. I do like your use of the word cabal. We could compromise and say that 'A small cabal of White House clowns continues to do everything they can to illegally delay implementing the legally mandated SLS and Orion. With any luck the law-breaking clowns will someday give daily performances in the prisons they live in.' What of the "secret society" of the Senate Compromise language that brings us SLS? We could just as easily say that a bunch of Senate "clowns" got together and created the Senate Launch System and rammed it down our throats during a time of last minute, at-the-buzzer, no time for more debate legislative maneuvers. The House didn't want it; the White House didn't want it. It only got passed and signed due to the fact that everyone's back was against the wall as time ran out on the budget process. Lots of crap gets through when time runs out and there's only time for an up or down vote.
My thinking is generally along these lines as well. As the human presence in space gets larger, the economies of a larger rocket will make themselves clear.
Congress has repeatedly indicated a preference for a Space Shuttle Derived HLV over a long period of time. President Obama's transition team knew about the affordable J-130/J-246 and J-130/J-241 options.
Here's a small summary of the Exploration budget. All amounts are in millions of dollars. Authorisation CR PBR HA 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2012-------------------------------------------------------MPCV $1120 $1400 $1400 $1200.0 $1010.2 $1063SLS $1631 $2650 $2640 $1800.0 $1800.0 $1985Tech. Develop. $250 $437 $449 $167.4 0.0 $289Human Research $155 $165 $175 $103.8 $164.1 $0COTS $300 $0 $0 $200.8 $0.0 $0CCDEV $312 $500 $500 $269.3 $850.0 $312Robotic Prec. $100 $100 $100 $67.0 $0.0 $0Advanced Explor. $0 $0 $0 $0.0 $124.4 $0-------------------------------------------------------Exploration $3868 $5252 $5264 $3808.3 $3948.7 $3649Explor. Tech. Dev. $0 $0 $0 $0.0 $310.0 $0-------------------------------------------------------Total $3868 $5252 $5264 $3808.3 $4258.7 $3649CR = Continuing ResolutionPBR = President's Budget RequestHA = House Appropriations...
Authorisation CR PBR HA 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2012-------------------------------------------------------MPCV $1120 $1400 $1400 $1200.0 $1010.2 $1063SLS $1631 $2650 $2640 $1800.0 $1800.0 $1985Tech. Develop. $250 $437 $449 $167.4 0.0 $289Human Research $155 $165 $175 $103.8 $164.1 $0COTS $300 $0 $0 $200.8 $0.0 $0CCDEV $312 $500 $500 $269.3 $850.0 $312Robotic Prec. $100 $100 $100 $67.0 $0.0 $0Advanced Explor. $0 $0 $0 $0.0 $124.4 $0-------------------------------------------------------Exploration $3868 $5252 $5264 $3808.3 $3948.7 $3649Explor. Tech. Dev. $0 $0 $0 $0.0 $310.0 $0-------------------------------------------------------Total $3868 $5252 $5264 $3808.3 $4258.7 $3649
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 07/14/2011 07:52 amHere's a small summary of the Exploration budget. All amounts are in millions of dollars. Authorisation CR PBR HA 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2012-------------------------------------------------------MPCV $1120 $1400 $1400 $1200.0 $1010.2 $1063SLS $1631 $2650 $2640 $1800.0 $1800.0 $1985Tech. Develop. $250 $437 $449 $167.4 0.0 $289Human Research $155 $165 $175 $103.8 $164.1 $0COTS $300 $0 $0 $200.8 $0.0 $0CCDEV $312 $500 $500 $269.3 $850.0 $312Robotic Prec. $100 $100 $100 $67.0 $0.0 $0Advanced Explor. $0 $0 $0 $0.0 $124.4 $0-------------------------------------------------------Exploration $3868 $5252 $5264 $3808.3 $3948.7 $3649Explor. Tech. Dev. $0 $0 $0 $0.0 $310.0 $0-------------------------------------------------------Total $3868 $5252 $5264 $3808.3 $4258.7 $3649CR = Continuing ResolutionPBR = President's Budget RequestHA = House Appropriations...Interesting. Obama proposed hundreds of millions more for NASA exploration. Because he hates exploration.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/14/2011 04:32 pmQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 07/14/2011 07:52 amHere's a small summary of the Exploration budget. All amounts are in millions of dollars. Authorisation CR PBR HA 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2012-------------------------------------------------------MPCV $1120 $1400 $1400 $1200.0 $1010.2 $1063SLS $1631 $2650 $2640 $1800.0 $1800.0 $1985Tech. Develop. $250 $437 $449 $167.4 0.0 $289Human Research $155 $165 $175 $103.8 $164.1 $0COTS $300 $0 $0 $200.8 $0.0 $0CCDEV $312 $500 $500 $269.3 $850.0 $312Robotic Prec. $100 $100 $100 $67.0 $0.0 $0Advanced Explor. $0 $0 $0 $0.0 $124.4 $0-------------------------------------------------------Exploration $3868 $5252 $5264 $3808.3 $3948.7 $3649Explor. Tech. Dev. $0 $0 $0 $0.0 $310.0 $0-------------------------------------------------------Total $3868 $5252 $5264 $3808.3 $4258.7 $3649CR = Continuing ResolutionPBR = President's Budget RequestHA = House Appropriations...Interesting. Obama proposed hundreds of millions more for NASA exploration. Because he hates exploration.Proposed millions more not billions, first of all, and second of all proposed no plan by which to effectively and QUICKLY, AS IN MY LIFETIME, use those dollars...
Quote from: HappyMartian on 07/14/2011 03:14 pmCongress has repeatedly indicated a preference for a Space Shuttle Derived HLV over a long period of time. President Obama's transition team knew about the affordable J-130/J-246 and J-130/J-241 options. Yes they did. We presented the entire architecture - in excruciating detail – to them in January of 2009 at NASA HQ in DC.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 07/14/2011 05:01 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/14/2011 04:32 pmQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 07/14/2011 07:52 amHere's a small summary of the Exploration budget. All amounts are in millions of dollars. Authorisation CR PBR HA 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2012-------------------------------------------------------MPCV $1120 $1400 $1400 $1200.0 $1010.2 $1063SLS $1631 $2650 $2640 $1800.0 $1800.0 $1985Tech. Develop. $250 $437 $449 $167.4 0.0 $289Human Research $155 $165 $175 $103.8 $164.1 $0COTS $300 $0 $0 $200.8 $0.0 $0CCDEV $312 $500 $500 $269.3 $850.0 $312Robotic Prec. $100 $100 $100 $67.0 $0.0 $0Advanced Explor. $0 $0 $0 $0.0 $124.4 $0-------------------------------------------------------Exploration $3868 $5252 $5264 $3808.3 $3948.7 $3649Explor. Tech. Dev. $0 $0 $0 $0.0 $310.0 $0-------------------------------------------------------Total $3868 $5252 $5264 $3808.3 $4258.7 $3649CR = Continuing ResolutionPBR = President's Budget RequestHA = House Appropriations...Interesting. Obama proposed hundreds of millions more for NASA exploration. Because he hates exploration.Proposed millions more not billions, first of all, and second of all proposed no plan by which to effectively and QUICKLY, AS IN MY LIFETIME, use those dollars...Yes, he has. NEO by 2025, Mars by the 2030s, ISS until at least 2020.
...Case and point: He doesn't care because his plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/14/2011 05:03 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 07/14/2011 05:01 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/14/2011 04:32 pmQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 07/14/2011 07:52 am...Interesting. Obama proposed hundreds of millions more for NASA exploration. Because he hates exploration.Proposed millions more not billions, first of all, and second of all proposed no plan by which to effectively and QUICKLY, AS IN MY LIFETIME, use those dollars...Yes, he has. NEO by 2025, Mars by the 2030s, ISS until at least 2020.Wrong, no time table was offered as how to make those happen (besides ISS extension), and no near term goals were mentioned eithier. Also those dates were termed *loose* dates and consequentely have sinced changed, quite considerably I might add, out to the right. Like 2040-2050 to the right. Oh and btw 2025-2030 is not acceptable, sorry but that's the same timeline the finished product of CXP had (which it STILL would not have met anyway).No plan, no timeline, no goals, no nothing.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 07/14/2011 05:01 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/14/2011 04:32 pmQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 07/14/2011 07:52 am...Interesting. Obama proposed hundreds of millions more for NASA exploration. Because he hates exploration.Proposed millions more not billions, first of all, and second of all proposed no plan by which to effectively and QUICKLY, AS IN MY LIFETIME, use those dollars...Yes, he has. NEO by 2025, Mars by the 2030s, ISS until at least 2020.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/14/2011 04:32 pmQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 07/14/2011 07:52 am...Interesting. Obama proposed hundreds of millions more for NASA exploration. Because he hates exploration.Proposed millions more not billions, first of all, and second of all proposed no plan by which to effectively and QUICKLY, AS IN MY LIFETIME, use those dollars...
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 07/14/2011 07:52 am...Interesting. Obama proposed hundreds of millions more for NASA exploration. Because he hates exploration.
...
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 07/14/2011 05:06 pm...Case and point: He doesn't care because his plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens. Demonstrably false.He's said NEO by 2025, Mars by 2030s, and ISS until at least 2020. And he's funded it better than the House Republicans, which you seem eager to have take over the White House.
...Granted the current House proposal is not much better but the 2012 PBR is actually worse.
No plan, no timeline, no goals, no nothing.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 07/14/2011 05:09 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/14/2011 05:03 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 07/14/2011 05:01 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/14/2011 04:32 pmQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 07/14/2011 07:52 am...Interesting. Obama proposed hundreds of millions more for NASA exploration. Because he hates exploration.Proposed millions more not billions, first of all, and second of all proposed no plan by which to effectively and QUICKLY, AS IN MY LIFETIME, use those dollars...Yes, he has. NEO by 2025, Mars by the 2030s, ISS until at least 2020.Wrong, no time table was offered as how to make those happen (besides ISS extension), and no near term goals were mentioned eithier. Also those dates were termed *loose* dates and consequentely have sinced changed, quite considerably I might add, out to the right. Like 2040-2050 to the right. Oh and btw 2025-2030 is not acceptable, sorry but that's the same timeline the finished product of CXP had (which it STILL would not have met anyway).No plan, no timeline, no goals, no nothing. You keep saying those words, because they don't mean what you think they mean.And I suppose JFK outlined in detail Mercury, Gemini, and the mission mode of Apollo in 1961 along with what "mare" to visit?I'm sorry, but NO president has done what you've suggested Obama has to do.Obama has laid out ambitious yet realistic goals, and space cadets complain that he hasn't said we should go to Alpha Centauri within 5 years and half the budget.