Don't count on it My reply is no My sources say no Outlook not so good Very doubtful
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 05/16/2013 01:10 pmQuote from: Mike GallagherWhile I agree with all the reasons for returning to the Moon, we can't lurch between Moon and not-Moon every four or eight years, and the transition to anti-Constellation should prove why.Don't count on it My reply is no My sources say no Outlook not so good Very doubtful Remember, in space policy, no one can hear you scream.And they'll ignore your carefully constructed application of clear and concise logic, too.
Quote from: Mike GallagherWhile I agree with all the reasons for returning to the Moon, we can't lurch between Moon and not-Moon every four or eight years, and the transition to anti-Constellation should prove why.Don't count on it My reply is no My sources say no Outlook not so good Very doubtful
While I agree with all the reasons for returning to the Moon, we can't lurch between Moon and not-Moon every four or eight years, and the transition to anti-Constellation should prove why.
Remember, in space policy, no one can hear you scream.And they'll ignore your carefully constructed application of clear and concise logic, too.
.... It is not about the missions ....
.... its about developing things NASA and country do not need....
Quote from: muomega0 on 05/16/2013 02:43 pm.... It is not about the missions .... Actually it is, because unless someone has figured out to make antimatter by the ton for a reasonable price, we're at the mercy of celestial mechanics: Where you go determines when you can go, how long the trip is, and then there's the question of what you do when you get there. Targets in cisulunar space, including the asteroid retrieval, are one thing, and other planets are another. The choice has to be made sooner or later, and getting that made is like pulling teeth from a stone at the bottom of the ocean. But you can't avoid it and talk about generic "exploration" forever. Quote .... its about developing things NASA and country do not need.... Without more guidance from inside the Beltway, what NASA does or does not need is an academic discussion between rival tribes of propeller heads, and accomplishes nothing.
(snip)
Quote from: RanulfC on 05/14/2013 05:06 pmDeep, clear and oh so true! Thanks Gramps!(That last just sounds SO wrong no matter how I write it.... He's not much older than me! )RandyThanks again, but if your having problems with the signature, just add Cro-Magnon, and it pushes my age at least up to 43,000 yeas; should make it easier
Deep, clear and oh so true! Thanks Gramps!(That last just sounds SO wrong no matter how I write it.... He's not much older than me! )Randy
btw, you've written some awesome posts recently
Quote from: muomega0 on 05/16/2013 03:59 pm(snip)This plan makes way too much sense to ever be adopted. Plus it doesn't have enough pork.
I'm in agreement with Gramps too. Commercial is where exploitation (== infrastructure) comes fromWhat I am struggling with is... what is holding commercial back? Commercial has been doing "things" (communication satellites but not much else) for close on to 50 years now... why hasn't it done more. Is there something that government should be doing? should be NOT doing? My Libertarian Macho Flash is, of course, that "Government Should GET OUT OF THE WAY..." but then I am left with "ok what does that mean, really"
O is the one who starts wars without Congress, and the one who changes the direction of NASA without Congressional approval.So getting the Congress on board is the way one gets consistent funding and direction. The reason we have the Senate Launch System is the Senate didn't feel O was going in right direction.Not that I support SLS, but generally the Senate doesn't get involved unless they feel the President is going rogue.It's tedious to hear this from this administration.
So sit back and watch the mess continue, that is your solution?...
Quote from: gbaikie on 05/15/2013 10:44 pmO is the one who starts wars without Congress, and the one who changes the direction of NASA without Congressional approval.So getting the Congress on board is the way one gets consistent funding and direction. The reason we have the Senate Launch System is the Senate didn't feel O was going in right direction.Not that I support SLS, but generally the Senate doesn't get involved unless they feel the President is going rogue.It's tedious to hear this from this administration.?Congress "felt" that ANYTHING Obama does/did is "wrong" and therefore needs to be opposed and changed.
The reason we have the SLS is because Congress wanted work done on a "shuttle replacement" that they have been putting off for decades prior to "suddenly" deciding that keeping people working in their home states might actually be important.
(Not important enough mind you to look to a "near-term" solution though that would avoid massive lay-offs in the first place but something "designed" to make appropriate work in appropriate places. Recall please that 130-tons is "required" because that is the size that certain Congress-critters were "assured" by "experts" that would require Solid Rocket Boosters. This is in the public record)Congress and the Senate get "involved" with NASA decisions and budget all the time. Usually to the detriment of both! They go as far as to zero-out budgets and veto line-item appropriations and transferring the money to specific "pork" applications on a regular basis. This is nothing new or special.
Getting Congress "on-board" for ANY systematic or serious space exploration program has been historically problematic simply because they have no interest in supporting manned space flight in general and serious space exploration specifically. It was specifically arranged that no matter what the "President/Administration" proposes that Congress would in the end be the final arbitrator and decision maker on what would actually be done. There is some leeway in the Administrators office in how some funding is applied but the majority of it has to be authorized and approved by Congress and if they do NOT want something they can and have gone as far as to zero out the budget without director or Administrative approval and cancel the program or line of work.
Change is only going to be possible when and if a general consensus can be reached where EVERYONE takes the space program seriously enough to NOT make it a political and rhetorical football. Figure out how to achieve that particular little "miracle" and we can be on our way anywhere we want to go...Randy
Quote from: cro-magnon gramps on 05/14/2013 04:32 pmWhen OB, said that been there done that, he was not disparaging NASA or it's mission direction, he was just stating a fact. I'm afraid I disagree with your assessment of this part of the President's speech. By my take, his wording "because frankly, we've been there", clearly illustrated the paucity of his argument against the proximate destination. I don't imagine that he disparages NASA at all; he was simply disparaging the idea of a lunar base because that's what he has been told by his inner circle of close knit advisors. Mr. Obama is not known to welcome a diversity of thought, nor are his advisors.The vast majority of life is "being there and doing that" over and over again. There's only one Columbus, or one Lewis and Clark, or whoever, who discover something for the first time; the rest of humanity's march consists of returning and settling those new areas.
When OB, said that been there done that, he was not disparaging NASA or it's mission direction, he was just stating a fact.
The Congress and politicians will not take it seriously unless NASA is serious.NASA developing a low cost fuel depots and low cost lunar exploration would be something serious ....
Quote from: gbaikie on 05/16/2013 11:53 pmThe Congress and politicians will not take it seriously unless NASA is serious.NASA developing a low cost fuel depots and low cost lunar exploration would be something serious .... And how is NASA supposed to do it on its own without the politicians approving of it and paying for it? It can't. Which brings us back to the politicians.
Quote from: RanulfC on 05/16/2013 04:47 pmChange is only going to be possible when and if a general consensus can be reached where EVERYONE takes the space program seriously enough to NOT make it a political and rhetorical football. Figure out how to achieve that particular little "miracle" and we can be on our way anywhere we want to go...RandyAgreed.
Quote from: CNYMike on 05/17/2013 03:32 amQuote from: RanulfC on 05/16/2013 04:47 pmChange is only going to be possible when and if a general consensus can be reached where EVERYONE takes the space program seriously enough to NOT make it a political and rhetorical football. Figure out how to achieve that particular little "miracle" and we can be on our way anywhere we want to go...RandyAgreed.Me too.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 05/17/2013 02:03 pmQuote from: CNYMike on 05/17/2013 03:32 amQuote from: RanulfC on 05/16/2013 04:47 pmChange is only going to be possible when and if a general consensus can be reached where EVERYONE takes the space program seriously enough to NOT make it a political and rhetorical football. Figure out how to achieve that particular little "miracle" and we can be on our way anywhere we want to go...Agreed.Me too.Mee three. But who bells the cat? Public love for space is wide, but shallow. Also, I'm with Jim... much of what I want isn't really in NASA's remit, but rather needs to be done by private enterprise.
Quote from: CNYMike on 05/17/2013 03:32 amQuote from: RanulfC on 05/16/2013 04:47 pmChange is only going to be possible when and if a general consensus can be reached where EVERYONE takes the space program seriously enough to NOT make it a political and rhetorical football. Figure out how to achieve that particular little "miracle" and we can be on our way anywhere we want to go...Agreed.Me too.
Quote from: RanulfC on 05/16/2013 04:47 pmChange is only going to be possible when and if a general consensus can be reached where EVERYONE takes the space program seriously enough to NOT make it a political and rhetorical football. Figure out how to achieve that particular little "miracle" and we can be on our way anywhere we want to go...Agreed.
Change is only going to be possible when and if a general consensus can be reached where EVERYONE takes the space program seriously enough to NOT make it a political and rhetorical football. Figure out how to achieve that particular little "miracle" and we can be on our way anywhere we want to go...