PDA

View Full Version : NO Money - NO Shuttle - NO Ares - NO Orion - NO ISS - NO Moon - NO Mars



gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-13, 04:19 PM
.

NASA worse than Lehman Brothers...

NO Money... heavy budget cut...

NO Shuttle... retired next year...

NO Ares... lots of problem and too high cost...

NO Orion... without a rocket to launch it...

NO ISS... deorbited in 2015...

NO Moon... as a consequence of things above...

NO Mars... but we can buy the DVDs of the sci-fi movies about it...

it seems that little or nothing of that will happen in Space in the next ten years...

.

samkent
2009-Aug-13, 04:21 PM
NO More Please

Glom
2009-Aug-13, 04:31 PM
So how's SRB getting on?

(By SRB, I mean Sir Richard Branson, the soon to be only relevant use of such an abbreviation.)

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-13, 04:35 PM
By SRB, I mean Sir Richard Branson

which version?

the 4-segments Sir Richard Branson or the 5-segments Sir Richard Branson... :)

.

nauthiz
2009-Aug-13, 04:57 PM
Considering how very worried you were about the risks associated with the last Hubble servicing mission, shouldn't you be happy that we might be sending robots instead?

A trip to the Moon or Mars would likely expose the crew to more danger than a trip to Hubble's orbit.

Nicolas
2009-Aug-13, 05:02 PM
How many "very very very... dangerous" very's would that take? The board software must have an upper limit somewhere.

btw is any of the claims in the first post a fact? For example, is it already certain ISS will be deorbited in 2015?

BetaDust
2009-Aug-13, 05:04 PM
.

NASA worse than Lehman Brothers...

NO Money... heavy budget cut...

NO Shuttle... retired next year...

NO Ares... lots of problem and too high cost...

NO Orion... without a rocket to launch it...

NO ISS... deorbited in 2015...

NO Moon... as a consequence of things above...

NO Mars... but we can buy the DVDs of the sci-fi movies about it...

it seems that little or nothing of that will happen in Space in the next ten years...

.

What is the reason for this post?
Seriously, gaetanomarano, why did you post this?

--Denns

mike alexander
2009-Aug-13, 05:15 PM
What is the reason for this post?
Seriously, gaetanomarano, why did you post this?

Pretty obvious to me, a frustrated scream at where manned spaceflight stands about now.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-13, 05:16 PM
A trip to the Moon or Mars would likely expose the crew to more danger than a trip to Hubble's orbit.

no, if properly made, they could have less risks

probably, you haven't still realized how much risky was the SM4 (especially if we consider that its "rescue ship" had over one month of delay... when requested to really fly...)

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-13, 05:18 PM
is it already certain ISS will be deorbited in 2015?

fortunately, it's not 100% sure... but (incredibly) I've seen a NASA slide in the last HSF meeting with this option!

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-13, 05:22 PM
What is the reason for this post?

because it the most close to realty consequence of what I've seen and read about the last HSF meeting

it seems there is nearly no money for nothing

and (I suppose) you want to talk about the reality and not about dreams

.

ugordan
2009-Aug-13, 05:22 PM
probably, you haven't still realized how much risky was the SM4 (especially if we consider that its "rescue ship" had over one month of delay... when requested to really fly...)

Wait. Do you actually believe the risk to a crew will be lower when they actually leave LEO and have at least several days of travel time to get home? You really need a reality check if you believe launch risk comprises the vast majority of overall mission LOC/LOM probability.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-13, 05:24 PM
Pretty obvious to me, a frustrated scream at where manned spaceflight stands about now.

sadly, it's not my sensation, but the pretty true reality of facts... today

.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-13, 05:31 PM
Wait. Do you actually believe the risk to a crew will be lower when they actually leave LEO and have at least several days of travel time to get home? You really need a reality check if you believe launch risk comprises the vast majority of overall mission LOC/LOM probability.

if accomplished with Apollo or ESAS sortie mission standards it's HIGHER

while, if made with an higher level or redundancy and a different mission architecture it could be lover

also for the SM4 there was some ways to make it less risky, like (e.g.) slip it to 2010 and use the extra-year to increase its life support time, so, in case of delay of its "rescue ship" (maybe, for a month or more.........) the astronauts have had more chances to remain alive enough days to be "rescued"

.

nauthiz
2009-Aug-13, 05:49 PM
probably, you haven't still realized how much risky was the SM4

I think it might be more likely that you are underestimating how risky Apollos 8 & 10-17 were. Humans have left low Earth orbit only nine times. One of those missions was a disaster, and Apollo 11's lunar landing was something of a close call. We may not have actually left any corpses on the moon, but we came close to doing so on multiple occasions and given the small sample group I'd say that it's still safe to assume that the Apollo project's safety profile was the worst of any manned space exploration program thus far.

You can say that future missions beyond LEO would be safer, and hopefully they would, but since pretty much none of the equipment for doing such a thing has been built or tested yet such a statement is merely wishful thinking.

KaiYeves
2009-Aug-13, 09:07 PM
the 4-segments Sir Richard Branson or the 5-segments Sir Richard Branson...
Thanks, now I have the disturbing mental image of Richard Branson cut up into pieces in my head.

timb
2009-Aug-13, 09:52 PM
.

NASA worse than Lehman Brothers...

NO Money... heavy budget cut...

NO Shuttle... retired next year...

NO Ares... lots of problem and too high cost...

NO Orion... without a rocket to launch it...

NO ISS... deorbited in 2015...

NO Moon... as a consequence of things above...

NO Mars... but we can buy the DVDs of the sci-fi movies about it...



Sounds good to me.

Damburger
2009-Aug-14, 12:42 PM
which version?

the 4-segments Sir Richard Branson or the 5-segments Sir Richard Branson... :)

.

Currently, they are testing a 4 segment Branson with a dummy 5th segment, referred to internally by engineers as 'a hat'

Nicolas
2009-Aug-14, 01:26 PM
Wouldn't animal rights activists protest when you divide an Ape from Manila* (http://tubular.net/discography/Platinum.shtml) into segments?



*see "other notes", first paragraph.

matthewota
2009-Aug-14, 05:33 PM
"No bucks, no Buck Rogers"

The Office of Management and Budget cut NASA's budget. It is unlikely for the current administration to fully support a program initiated by the previous president.

It may be time for NASA to get out of the business of building manned spacecraft and rockets and leave it to private industry to provide these services. THen NASA could concentrate on research.

Argos
2009-Aug-14, 05:59 PM
it seems that little or nothing of that will happen in Space in the next ten years...


... from the American public sector [perhaps - not sure]. But I expect interesting things coming from the private enterprise.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-14, 07:08 PM
--
after the pessimistic side of the thread... I post a (slightly) optimistic vision of it...
--
I hope that Barack Obama and his W.H. experts will NOT believe in what the Augustine Commission will say them, since...
--
first of all, the AG hasn't really examined ALL proposals it has received
--
I've sent them over a dozen emails and links without receive just ONE answer or feedback!
--
that, despite, I've two blogs that talks about Space from four years and are regularly visited weekly by space agencies and aerospace companies, I've contributed to several space and science forums and blogs with (at least) 8000 posts (so far) in four years, I've developed and published dozens suggestions about Space, ESAS and Constellation and, despite, the rocket that will (likely) be used, could be one of which I've designed and published the concept 3.5 years ago:
--
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html
--
I'm not alone in saying that, since, on the HSF Facebook Wall page, other have claimed to have send documents and suggestions NEVER taken in consideration by the HSF Committee!
--
since I've not received any answer to my email to the HSF, I've posted many ideas, opinions and links on the HSF Facebook Wall page
--
well, the (unknown) moderator of the HSF page, has FIRST warned me to send my ideas ONLY through the HSF-email/BLACK-HOLE, then, he has BLOCKED my comment privileges
--
but, before and after that, the HSF moderator HASN'T blocked the guys that posted LOTS of propaganda for the Ares-1/5 and (try to imagine...) ..."Direct"... (from the homonymous LOBBY)
--
ALL the (7-8) "options" proposed by the AC's "experts" (but, which kind of "experts" are they, if not able to know EXACTLY the right choice?) are WRONG and PRETTY SIMILAR, that, since, the AC looks DEEPLY INFLUENCED by LOBBIES and, with their conclusion, they JUST want to demonstrate that NASA, contractors and new.space companies need MUCH MORE MONEY (maybe, also the $35 Bn to develop the Ares-1) if the US President did not want to be the one that allowed NASA and USA to be surpassed by China, Russia and India in the new (commercial) "moon-race" (that, however, could happen anyway...)
--
there are SEVERAL OTHER options that can be taken in consideration to come back to the Moon or go to Mars, but the AC hasn't discussed proposed them, while, they have discussed and taken in consideration old/wrong designs like the Shuttle-C, crazy and expensive technologies like the "orbital refuel" and things like the RESIZED-Ares-5 called "Direct"... (from the homonymous LOBBY)
--
in fact, it's NOT TRUE that $81 Bn in the next ten years are "not enough" to accomplish ALL the orbital and Moon mission planned and it's NOT TRUE that NASA absolutely needs three more billion$ per years to accomplish these missions
--
clearly, if NASA will receive more funds will be a very good news (hoping they'll not burn them like the $9 Bn spent in lats four years for nothing...) but, $81 Bn (or a slightly higher) budget could be enough just IF the right choices are made and no one further cent is burned in crazy and bad things!
--

NEOWatcher
2009-Aug-14, 07:41 PM
--
after the pessimistic side of the thread... I post a (slightly) optimistic vision of it...
--
I hope that Barack Obama...
How about keeping your self-promotional posts to a single thread so there can be a single discussion? No wonder you have 8000 posts elsewhere, you just copy and paste (http://www.bautforum.com/1552112-post161.html).

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-14, 07:45 PM
How about keeping your self-promotional posts to a single thread so there can be a single discussion? No wonder you have 8000 posts elsewhere, you just copy and paste (http://www.bautforum.com/1552112-post161.html).

I've posted it twice because the two discussions are similar (but not exactly the same)

.

NEOWatcher
2009-Aug-14, 07:52 PM
I've posted it twice because the two discussions are similar (but not exactly the same).
This whole thread seems reduntant, and you're the one who started it.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-14, 08:02 PM
This whole thread seems reduntant, and you're the one who started it.

no, it's only the conclusion (in short) from the HSF committee work: no money for (nearly) nothing (they said)

.

naelphin
2009-Aug-14, 10:01 PM
"No bucks, no Buck Rogers"

The Office of Management and Budget cut NASA's budget. It is unlikely for the current administration to fully support a program initiated by the previous president.

It may be time for NASA to get out of the business of building manned spacecraft and rockets and leave it to private industry to provide these services. THen NASA could concentrate on research.
But then what will they do with all the shuttle employees? All the states which they're based in will not accept just terminating all those jobs, especially since there's an election next year.

matthewota
2009-Aug-14, 11:36 PM
There was a MUCH larger employment loss following the Apollo Program. Thousands of technicians and engineers had to find new careers. The same goes today for shuttle workers.

JonClarke
2009-Aug-15, 12:14 AM
There was a MUCH larger employment loss following the Apollo Program. Thousands of technicians and engineers had to find new careers. The same goes today for shuttle workers.

And what a tragic waste of expertise that was.

Jon

Glom
2009-Aug-15, 06:25 AM
They all went to work for Boeing, back when Boeing was capable of building planes.

nauthiz
2009-Aug-15, 06:51 AM
Boeing still builds all sorts of planes.


It's just getting them to fly that's been a problem lately. :p

Paul Beardsley
2009-Aug-15, 08:33 AM
I've sent them over a dozen emails and links without receive just ONE answer or feedback!
If the emails or links are anything like the Mars thing you linked to earlier this the week, it is not at all surprising that you didn't get an answer. If you want to deal with professional people, you need to act like a professional.

Antice
2009-Aug-15, 05:22 PM
the smart shuttle employees are already fleeing to SpaceX and orbital.....

matthewota
2009-Aug-15, 10:39 PM
We will know by the end of this month where the Obama administration decides the manned space program will go. I cannot believe that it will be totally abandoned. We would be foolish to give up our leadership in this arena.

The Europeans are considering a modified version of their ATV as a manned spacecraft. The Russians are developing a follow-on to the Soyuz. The Indian government is developing a manned spacecraft, and the Chinese are gradually developing their program.

If the United States gives up on their manned space program, it will be a sure sign of the decline of American dominance in science and technology. We gave up our leadership in particle physics when the Supercollider in Texas was canceled.

We must continue our development of our spaceflight capability, lest we be remembered best in world history as the purveyor of pop culture, and not science and technology.

GoneToPlaid
2009-Aug-15, 11:47 PM
...We gave up our leadership in particle physics when the Supercollider in Texas was canceled...

Amazing that it was given the axe after it was over 80% completed. I could rant about that, but I tend to avoid political debates.

mugaliens
2009-Aug-16, 04:35 AM
.

NASA worse than Lehman Brothers...

NO Money... heavy budget cut...

NO Shuttle... retired next year...

NO Ares... lots of problem and too high cost...

NO Orion... without a rocket to launch it...

NO ISS... deorbited in 2015...

NO Moon... as a consequence of things above...

NO Mars... but we can buy the DVDs of the sci-fi movies about it...

it seems that little or nothing of that will happen in Space in the next ten years...

.

YES to DIRECTv3 (http://www.directlauncher.com/)...

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-16, 04:42 AM
.

the RESIZED-Ares-5-called-Direct to be exact... something NASA already has and don't need to "buy" from the Direct-LOBBY

.

mugaliens
2009-Aug-20, 08:03 AM
...but since pretty much none of the equipment for doing such a thing has been built or tested yet such a statement is merely wishful thinking.

Actually, Nauthiz, it has (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT). We've simply not configured or used it for that purpose, yet.

gaetanomarano
2009-Aug-20, 08:46 AM
Actually, Nauthiz, it has (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT). We've simply not configured or used it for that purpose, yet.

it seems the Direct-LOBBY is still alive, but...

Look better !!! Direct is ONLY a slightly RESIZED Ares-5 !!!

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/046directdesignflaws.html

and no one has DELETED yet the "fake rocket" called "Direct" from Wikipedia!

so, I've a question: "is Wikipedia really INDEPENDENT from LOBBIES and product placement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_placement)?"

.

Antice
2009-Aug-20, 11:10 AM
Wikipedia is infested with that kind of thing. it's an open system after all.

KaiYeves
2009-Aug-21, 01:48 AM
NO optimism around here, or at least not much... :whistle: