Author Topic: LIVE: Full Committee Hearing - A Review of NASA's Space Launch System  (Read 475779 times)

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
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.

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. 
« Last Edit: 07/14/2011 01:41 pm by EE Scott »
Scott

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
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.

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.
Regards
Robert


The 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.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2011 01:40 pm by marsavian »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
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.

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.
Regards
Robert


The 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.
Agreed... I have said that myself.
Regards
Robert
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
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.

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.
Regards
Robert


The 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.

That would be sweet.  Looking back on it, NASA got "used" to promote a political goal that did not match up with what NASA would have done without that outside pressure.  And unlike the Apollo-Soyuz mission of the seventies, it's not a one-off cost that we get to move on from.  ISS is working on three decades of budget-sucking existence.
Scott

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
NASA  got “used” from the beginning as the “soft arm” of the defense department with Moon race to beat the Soviets in the 60’s. Mission accomplished…Project Apollo gone…
Regards
Robert
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Suboptimal?  Definitely.  So is democracy.  Got a better idea?

Yeah.  I got two better ideas.  First, no baiting.  This discussion, about SLS, is not about whether or not democracy is "suboptimal" in any way, shape, or well, form.  So don't bring that up as if it's some sort of inescapable logic.

Second.  Yes, it is suboptimal, altho there is a somewhat perverse silver lining in your logic:  Congress is so busy with its fascination for BFR's, that other budgetary issues of NASA may be overlooked at this time, with the effect that funding for all parts of NASA could rise a small amount, and that would be better.  But the suboptimality also serves the other perverse apparent purpose of the corporate insiders: endless profit with no required accomplishment.  And that would end up with yet another failed program, this time with maybe even LEO not being an American capability any more.

I don't like these suboptimal implementations of a so-called "democratic" process.  Neither does anyone else who is paying attention to the political narrative being played out on the Hill.

Quote from: LibsOn
.  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. 

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.  This presupposes that our government prime the pump of that economy with a soundly considered manifest of missions of gradually increasing complexity and skill.  For example, that newest shuttle experiment with Dextre and the refilling of comsats with stationkeeping fuel.

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 !

The point made was a simple one, that there had been a lot of cheap flights, and that a lot of cheap flights can be a viable strategy for space access, all else being equal.  Whether or not the missions for those flights was well considered or well executed is a different question.

Here today, we have EELV's that are physically capable of launching Orion capsules, but the manrating requirements are being fiddled with so that the EELV's won't be allowed to launch people.  The HLV proponents do not have their system anywhere near ready to launch, and seem more amenable to blocking other systems than getting their system flight ready.  The administrative infighting is a worse enemy than the physics of the problem.

And then of course, "Mars can wait".  There is only one argument that would call for an immediate imperative for Mars first: intelligent life past or present.  This is not being called for.  Even the important issue of primitive life, past or present, can wait.  We can, and should, check that out with rovers and Mars orbiting sats.  There is a strong desire to visit the planet, and that's fine, but the human visitation should wait til we have the necessary skills, and those skills should properly be developed, practiced, and improved upon in the cis-lunar arena.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
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.

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. 

Yep, time certainly does run out. 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.

President Obama had well over two years to come up with a politically viable and affordable support system for a fully utilized ISS and also an affordable Lunar exploration plan. He has not done that. He knew CxP had issues and he dithered and dithered. Nowadays he gives us noise about 'commercial' doing everything and NASA maybe going to an undiscovered NEO some distant day in the future. He even laughs about it. He doesn't even believe his own PR NEO nonsense as he is spinning it. His NEO nonsense is a cruel political insider joke that he thinks is funny.

The House appears perfectly willing to reduce the subsidies to 'commercial' and is tired of being ignored by this President and his political cabalists. The safety and maybe even the existence of the International Space Station, a 100,000,000,000 dollar National Laboratory investment by American taxpayers, is a hostage to the secretly devised plans of the unknown White House political cabalists who are jerking around NASA HQ on a day to day basis. NASA makes an SLS decision and it gets 'unmade' by the cabalists. Congress isn't kept informed, despite the laws that they be kept informed, and they are the ones who are supposed to 'pay' for the SLS, not the President.

Lots of folks are getting real uneasy as they see White House folks thinking the law only exists for common citizens and that good cabalists should be able to do whatever they want.  That small cabal of White House clowns are making NASA HQ break the law about the SLS. The clowns apparently don't care because they work for the chief police officer of America. In previous decades other White House clowns have had similar delusions about their immunity to legal prosecution.

The Moon is where NASA is going. The dithering President and his political cabalists cannot quite get their political minds around that fact. Lunar ice, and the rocket propellant that can be made from it, has a lot of folks, including some people in Congress, pretty excited. Even folks that want sustainable missions to NEOs and Mars and Ceres should know that their propellant will come from the Moon.

See:
NASA Missions Uncover the Moon's Buried Treasures   http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2010/10-89AR.html 

:)

Edited.
« Last Edit: 07/15/2011 12:40 am by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
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. 

What comes to mind is how small pickup-sized trucks used to bring goods to a small town once a month or so. But as the town grew it took several trucks and more often. As the town continued to grow and became a city it became larger and larger trucks until the city is now visited several times a day by fleets of 18-wheel tractor trailers.

As the population in space gradually increases there will be a tipping point where larger launch vehicles flying less often will actually cost less than smaller launch vehicles flying more often. Does that mean that the smaller rockets will no longer fly? Of course not. It does mean that they will serve different markets than they did in the beginning because *those* markets will have been taken over by economies of scale.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
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.

Yes they did. We presented the entire architecture - in excruciating detail – to them in January of 2009 at NASA HQ in DC.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
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 $1063
SLS             $1631 $2650 $2640 $1800.0 $1800.0 $1985
Tech. Develop.   $250  $437  $449  $167.4     0.0  $289
Human Research   $155  $165  $175  $103.8  $164.1    $0
COTS             $300    $0    $0  $200.8    $0.0    $0
CCDEV            $312  $500  $500  $269.3  $850.0  $312
Robotic Prec.    $100  $100  $100   $67.0    $0.0    $0
Advanced Explor.   $0    $0    $0    $0.0  $124.4    $0
-------------------------------------------------------
Exploration     $3868 $5252 $5264 $3808.3 $3948.7 $3649
Explor. Tech. Dev. $0    $0    $0    $0.0  $310.0    $0
-------------------------------------------------------
Total           $3868 $5252 $5264 $3808.3 $4258.7 $3649

CR = Continuing Resolution
PBR = President's Budget Request
HA = House Appropriations
...
Interesting. Obama proposed hundreds of millions more for NASA exploration than the House. Because he hates exploration and Congress loves exploration.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2011 04:57 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
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 $1063
SLS             $1631 $2650 $2640 $1800.0 $1800.0 $1985
Tech. Develop.   $250  $437  $449  $167.4     0.0  $289
Human Research   $155  $165  $175  $103.8  $164.1    $0
COTS             $300    $0    $0  $200.8    $0.0    $0
CCDEV            $312  $500  $500  $269.3  $850.0  $312
Robotic Prec.    $100  $100  $100   $67.0    $0.0    $0
Advanced Explor.   $0    $0    $0    $0.0  $124.4    $0
-------------------------------------------------------
Exploration     $3868 $5252 $5264 $3808.3 $3948.7 $3649
Explor. Tech. Dev. $0    $0    $0    $0.0  $310.0    $0
-------------------------------------------------------
Total           $3868 $5252 $5264 $3808.3 $4258.7 $3649

CR = Continuing Resolution
PBR = President's Budget Request
HA = 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


I have demonstrated point by point why I hold the view that this man does not like NASA and would prefer if it was gone, and why I hold the view that his attitude is comparable to a small child when he doesn't get what he wants, he makes the biggest fuss about it possible or mucks up the plan of those who DID get what they want.

Case and point: The president stormed out of debt meetings in a rage yesterday because he wants the other side to captiulate and either raise taxes or delay any spending cuts until after he is out of office. Since they wouldn't do it, he stormed out of the meeting.

And yes, he did "storm" out not just walk out, of a critical meeting that may well hold our country's fate at stake.


@Robot, my views are not necessarily held by anyone else on this forum and most of the SLS/DIRECT supporters don'd hold them either, so please stop the tongue in cheek arm-waving your not convincing anyone of anything and your assuming more people hold this view than actually do. 
« Last Edit: 07/14/2011 05:02 pm by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
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 $1063
SLS             $1631 $2650 $2640 $1800.0 $1800.0 $1985
Tech. Develop.   $250  $437  $449  $167.4     0.0  $289
Human Research   $155  $165  $175  $103.8  $164.1    $0
COTS             $300    $0    $0  $200.8    $0.0    $0
CCDEV            $312  $500  $500  $269.3  $850.0  $312
Robotic Prec.    $100  $100  $100   $67.0    $0.0    $0
Advanced Explor.   $0    $0    $0    $0.0  $124.4    $0
-------------------------------------------------------
Exploration     $3868 $5252 $5264 $3808.3 $3948.7 $3649
Explor. Tech. Dev. $0    $0    $0    $0.0  $310.0    $0
-------------------------------------------------------
Total           $3868 $5252 $5264 $3808.3 $4258.7 $3649

CR = Continuing Resolution
PBR = President's Budget Request
HA = 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.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2011 05:08 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
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.

Yes they did. We presented the entire architecture - in excruciating detail – to them in January of 2009 at NASA HQ in DC.


And they totally ignored you. Not suprising, they ignored other people and other ideas as well.


The man's "transition team" was nothing more than a dog and pony media show. He had all those experts from all those fields on all those issues tell him point by point what needed to be done and where and for the most part he ignored all of them and did what HE personally wanted instead, that's how we got where we are today.


Spaceflight is no different, he had literally a damn near perfect solution dropped in his lap that would have REALLY done some exploration in the next 10 years or even the next 5, but instead of choosing that he just did away with everything.


That's why I can prove he doesn't care about spaceflight, he had numerous options including DIRECT and commercial sector plans dropped in his lap and he chose none of them. BTW if your thinking fy 2011 was a commercial plan, your wrong, he had advice from ULA/Spacex/ others on how to do a robust commercial exploration plan and that is *not* what presented.



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.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
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 $1063
SLS             $1631 $2650 $2640 $1800.0 $1800.0 $1985
Tech. Develop.   $250  $437  $449  $167.4     0.0  $289
Human Research   $155  $165  $175  $103.8  $164.1    $0
COTS             $300    $0    $0  $200.8    $0.0    $0
CCDEV            $312  $500  $500  $269.3  $850.0  $312
Robotic Prec.    $100  $100  $100   $67.0    $0.0    $0
Advanced Explor.   $0    $0    $0    $0.0  $124.4    $0
-------------------------------------------------------
Exploration     $3868 $5252 $5264 $3808.3 $3948.7 $3649
Explor. Tech. Dev. $0    $0    $0    $0.0  $310.0    $0
-------------------------------------------------------
Total           $3868 $5252 $5264 $3808.3 $4258.7 $3649

CR = Continuing Resolution
PBR = President's Budget Request
HA = 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.

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.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
...
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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
...
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.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2011 05:16 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
...
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.


Wrong your the one who is demonstrably false, he SAID that but then no actual plan was developed to show how that was going to happen and where to start now, beyond ofc dismantling the current infrastructure.


Case and point again: For example he didn't say, we will have an immediate program begin to determine who gets to build the next BEO vehicle, we will have an immediate program to determine who gets to build the next propulsions system, and we we all have an immediate program to determine who's exploration system idea (i.e. DIRECT vs. ULA vs SPACEX plans) gets used and we will start those programs RIGHT NOW, which is exactly what should have happened if he gave a rats arse about it.


Also if you actually look at the numbers you are posting there are only two line items that have a higher PBR request than that of congress, in many cases the PBR is actually 0 for some of the so called advanced R&D programs he promised AND for COTS and some other commercial elements as well, where as the congressional request still provides some funding to these things.


How the heck can you say republicans want less when, despite being higher overall, the PBR cuts several critical line items needed for exploration, commercial OR otherwise????


Granted the current House proposal is not much better but the 2012 PBR is actually worse


3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
...
Granted the current House proposal is not much better but the 2012 PBR is actually worse.
No, it isn't worse. The House version is worse, it proposes less for NASA as a whole (a cut of ~$2 billion) and less for exploration in particular.

The money may move around, with different names (COTS money isn't needed, that's part of ISS/CRS now), but fundamentally, Obama proposed MORE money for NASA and MORE money for exploration than the House Republicans.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2011 05:20 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Rabidpanda

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 572
No plan, no timeline, no goals, no nothing.

Obama said NEO by 2025, Mars by 2030s.  That is a GOAL.  It is now NASA's job to develop a plan and timeline of how to meet that goal.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
...
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.


Stop sidetracking he has laid out no such goals just lofty timelines which have since been removed from discussion entirely. Not only was there never a plan presented as to how to meet those dates, but in addition they totally fell off the radar in fairly short order, now we have bolden saying no manned flight even until 2020 thus no backup to a commercial provider failing and no added/backup capability to ISS.


He didn't lay out any sort of guideline like JFK, JFK  said IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS, and when he actually went to the drawing board and wrote his plan he SPECIFIED interim goals and NASA did the rest.


Obama specified a timeline THIRTY OR MORE YEARS away (do you have any idea how many election cycles that is??) and specified no details to get there and instead of directing NASA to develop a plan or interim goals, essentially directed them to sit down shutup and do NOTHING, which is why there have been so many bloody hearings.


How in the world can you think this man has a bold plan when his 2012 request actually zeros out some things needed for exploration and when he is using delaying tactics to slow down the development of a plan to make his lofty goals actually happen ?? ?

We will never agree on this, the only thing we agree on is that the house request is no better. I stand by my point if Obama cared he would be helping NASA and Congress to develop near term programs and near term goals with set timeline and milestones, and if commercial is involved immediate bidding competitions, instead of delaying and mucking up thing whilst simply talking about how great this country used to be and how anything useful cannot take place until 20 or 30 years from now rather than during his presidency.


You realize that the reason the debt talks have gone on this long is because the president has been unwilling to produce a counter proposal to republican plans? That's why they cannot compromise because he won't even develop a counter plan to save his own country from default



Heck I will even go a step further and say that the man does not care about the American people just his own personal agenda JUST LIKE BUSH  Otherwise he would have compromised weeks ago or actually TRIED to fix the space program instead of kicking the can down the road and leaving the mess to Congress to sort out. That's also the reason why your seeing cuts in the House budget.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1