Total Members Voted: 209
When do we get a poll asking if we are tired of seeing polls?
Don't know. Chris, what do you think?
Quote from: Longhorn John on 11/09/2009 04:30 pmDon't know. Chris, what do you think?Unlikely to survive due to costs and schedule.
Quote from: rdale on 11/09/2009 04:31 pmWhen do we get a poll asking if we are tired of seeing polls?We've had four polls in 12 months. You get sick of them real easy
Shuttle extension plus continued work on Ares 1 is a "kick the can down the road scenario" that allows the Administration to avoid making a tough decision that annoys those being paid to develop Ares 1.
Can't see NASA cancel RSRMV now. DM-2 is in work, aft segment was cast, forward segment cast begins today.
Quote from: renclod on 11/09/2009 07:20 pm Can't see NASA cancel RSRMV now. DM-2 is in work, aft segment was cast, forward segment cast begins today. That is no guarantee. See ASRM.
A lot depends on whether the President really wants a fight with the special interests in Congress over space policy so soon after this bruising fight over health-care and with another fight over AfPak policy looming very close on the horizon. Obama could easily view this as another chance to be seen as a reforming visionary. On the other hand, he could see it as picking an unnecessary fight when there are a lot more critical and important issues on which to spend his political capital.
I woted yes because if we abandon Ares I now, NASA won't have human rated launcher until 2025 and NASA will return on the Moon by 2035 and on Mars by 2060. That's my opinion.
Depends on the path, as there are options which give us a man-rated vehicle by 2013.
Quote from: Downix on 11/10/2009 11:24 amDepends on the path, as there are options which give us a man-rated vehicle by 2013.Only one: Keep the current vehicle.Analyst
Such as?Analyst
I just hope he can pull it off, regardless of what launch vehicle is ultimately selected...
Not a chance for Ares I. I have a feeling we'll be seeing more things like this in print:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/why-we-need-better-rocket_b_351335.htmlTalk about coming out and saying we're on the wrong path with the POR.
Voted yes.I think the 4-seg SRB will retire with the Shuttle. Can't see NASA cancel RSRMV now. DM-2 is in work, aft segment was cast, forward segment cast begins today. 5-seg is the future.I also think the same goes for the SSME - retired with the Shuttle. What Jeff Hanley said in the leaked email. What Dr. Douglas Stanley said Nov 2nd at the AIAA moderated debate in D.C. What some forum members here are saying.
It will survive despite the disadvantages...strictly political
Quote from: texas_space on 11/10/2009 05:34 pmNot a chance for Ares I. I have a feeling we'll be seeing more things like this in print:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/why-we-need-better-rocket_b_351335.htmlTalk about coming out and saying we're on the wrong path with the POR.What I find facinating is how Buzz´ design is a hybred NSC and DIRECT 2.0.
Quote from: C5C6 on 11/20/2009 07:14 pmIt will survive despite the disadvantages...strictly politicalWhen do we start the will Ares V survive poll?
Ares-I has got no chance at all of surviving this process. CxP already accept this internally, though not publicly
It is just taking time for some people to wake up to the reality of the difficult budgetary situation they are actually facing. Its called denial.
In the end, I had to vote, "Don't know." Common sense tells me the answer should be, "No," because there are so many better choices, many of which could fly by the end of 2016, at the very latest. Piling money on SpaceX, Orbital, and a combine that works toward Orion-Lite on Atlas V *and* Delta IV should result in at least one HSF to LEO system by 2014-2015. SD-HLV (NSC) and Jupiter-130 (if not -246) could also be ready to go by 2016 at the latest (2014 at the soonest, in a "piling money on" scenario). But I think money piling is unlikely. And I suspect the effect of US politics works powerfully in favor of PoR as-is. So I guess my answer-in-detail is, "50:50."
I posted this elsewhere but it applies here, too, in helping answer the question "SHOULD Ares-1 survive?"This was a slide posted on NASAWatch that was reportedly NOT included in the Ares-1 presentation to the Augustine HSF Review. A few lines have been added to assist in reading values from the chart.From the PRA calculations of NASA's contractor, the probability of losing a crew on Ares-1 is one in ~820. The calculated probability of losing a crew on an EELV based system is ~1/530.ASSUMING that these were true, and further ASSUMING that NASA were to fly 4 Ares-1 missions a year for 25 years (a wild exaggeration that benefits the Ares-1) the odds of one or more LOC events is ~10.3% for Ares-1 and 17.2% for EELV. The difference is 6.8%. (There are more exact ways to do this calculation, but here the small number approximations should be adequate.)In round numbers, it will probably cost $30B MORE to develop Ares-1 than it would to man-rate an EELV like the Delta-IV Heavy that has already flown, or perhaps the Atlas-V Heavy which has gone through CDR. That would mean that we would be spending more than $400 Billion per LOC event prevented. If the number of flights goes down to 50, the cost rises to $800 Billion per prevented LOC. This is clearly not cost effective.
I voted yes, because I think they are that naive.
I voted "I don't know"Because I don't know.And I was surprised more people didn't pick that one.
{snip} Struggling to imagine what an abort during re-entry might look like!
First we need some real leadership who understand the importance of not giving up on manned space....
Quote from: saturnsky on 11/22/2009 01:12 pmFirst we need some real leadership who understand the importance of not giving up on manned space....What does real leadership mean? Believing everything that NASA politicians say and blindly throwing more money at the problem? Or going back to the fly-off planned by Admiral Steidle and allowing demonstrated performance define the future?