Good bye to manned American Spaceflight

[Simon_Jester]

I don't particularly approve of Obama at this point, though I'm going to hold off a good long while before pronouncing final verdict.

He has been dealt a truly shitty hand coming into office, but since he has yet to show any signs of actually manning up and coping with that hand in a useful way, or taking meaningful steps to stop the mess from propagating down for the next several decade... he doesn't get any positive credit from me.

God damn it.

[Garibaldi]

Obama is pretty much a disaster on virtually all fronts of his policy regime -- the only fronts he hasn't been a disaster on -- are the ones that he kept Bush Era policies in place -- like WAR FOR THE BLOOD GOD in Iraq and Afghanistan and BLOOD FOR THE DRONE GOD in Pakistan.

This is pretty hilarious quote because Afpak has been and continues to be a total disaster with no resolution and no way out.

Of course, what's the alternative? The Republicans just spent eight years inflicting the biggest series of policy disasters on the United States since the Buchanan Administration. The eternal choice, floundering incompetence or active malevolence...

[Uraniun235]

What's your problem?

There are huge financial problems in the US right now. While I'm all for NASA projects just as much as the next guy I also recognize the fact that money doesn't grow on trees and other things come first.

While true, such endeavors could mean a lot of good jobs.

Isn't there also a big potential issue of losing a lot of skills and knowledge by letting go of people who work on developing manned spacecraft?

[Big Orange]

WRONG. The U.S. Army was developing rockets and planning for the future, along with the U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force --

Not surprising, since the US Army stole much of Germany's hardware and personnel to begin with, and NASA's astronauts are USAF and Navy pilots anyway.

it was only Kennedy's stupid "spaceflight should be CIVILIAN" thing that stripped Juno/Saturn and Von Braun from the U.S. Army's Redstone Arsenal.

Military rocketry was beset with rivalry once the US Army's Air Corps. branched off to become the Department of Air Force, while the the US Army became more concerned about shooting down Soviet aircraft and missiles (the ARAACOM).

I know the US Air Force developing a scary space plane known as the X20 Dyna-Soar, but since they were more into strategic rocketry, weren't the US Air Force formulating their own moon landing that was seperate from the plans formulated at the civilian run NACA/NASA?

[stormthebeaches]

Because he is claiming that Obama is removed from the consideration as a coward and/or useless.

I am saying that he is in fact a great representation of the current Democratic Party as he is both a coward and useless on a number of issues.

Why he should be excused or elevated above the current feeling of the rest of the Democrat party I can't understand as he has not done anything other give a fuckton of eloquent speeches to prove otherwise.

See a trend in his approaches to different policies? They mostly all start with "Talk a big game" and end with a dick in your ass (And not the good kind, he forgot the lube).

This of course avoids the Republican role if the health care mess. Opposing anything the Democrats do and making up outright lies. It's hard to push through an agenda when your own side is a divided mess and the other party is determined to oppose anything you do.

[MKSheppard]

Not surprising, since the US Army stole much of Germany's hardware and personnel to begin with

Right, because in BO World, V-2 = The End all to everything.

There's nothing in common between the V-2 and the later U.S Army rockets -- except the nametags on some of the personnel -- what Von Braun and the others did bring to the table was knowledge and expertise -- they knew the little tricks they'd developed over the years with the V-2; like:

1.) Exhaustive 24 hour long final checks of the rocket do nothing but waste time and ruin people's health. Just go and do a 15-60 minute countdown. (It took the USAF a bit to learn this)

2.) Do not drag LOX hoses along sand, it gets sand into the hose nozzles, and a speck of sand in them can cause...explosive effects (Again, USAF took a bit to learn this with some NICE explosions).

This saves a year or two of development time, in that your rockets don't keep exploding for no apparent reason, which upsets the timetable.

Also, the US ARMY had their own MOONBASE plans:




Link

In 1959 the US Army completed a plan for a manned military outpost on the moon. The Horizon lunar outpost was said to be necessary to protect United States interests on the moon; to conduct moon-based surveillance of the earth and space, to act as a communications relay, and to serve as a base for exploration of the moon. The permanent outpost would cost $6 billion and become operational in December 1966 with 12 soldiers.

In designing the base, Wernher von Braun appointed Heinz Koelle to head the project team at Redstone Arsenal. Spacecraft components would be lofted in 147 Saturn C-I and C-II booster launches, and then assembled in low earth orbit at an austere spent-tank space station. A Lunar landing and return vehicle would shuttle up to sixteen astronauts at a time to the base and back. Construction would begin in April 1965 and the base was to become operational by December 1966 at Sinus Aestuum or Mare Imbrium. The base would be defended against Russian overland attack by man-fired weapons - unguided Davy Crockett rockets with low-yield nuclear warheads, and conventional claymore mines modified to puncture pressure suits.

[PeZook]

Isn't there also a big potential issue of losing a lot of skills and knowledge by letting go of people who work on developing manned spacecraft?

That's exactly the problem. The US will probably still have a kickass commercial aerospace industry, but the expertise required for manned launches will be gone after 20 years of no manned flights (or flights handled exclusively by Russians). You will have things like mission controllers with no experience at running manned missions and engineers used to making satellites for corporations instead of manned spacecraft. If you just maintained some tiny amount of manned capability, you could expand it with relative ease thanks to your experienced cadre.

[Vehrec]

Yes, NASA was officially formed in 1958 in response to Sputnik, but splitting hairs aside its direct predecessor was making the first tentative steps out into space and developing rockets when the Korean War was raging

WRONG. The U.S. Army was developing rockets and planning for the future, along with the U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force -- it was only Kennedy's stupid "spaceflight should be CIVILIAN" thing that stripped Juno/Saturn and Von Braun from the U.S. Army's Redstone Arsenal.

...Ok, wasn't it under Eisenhower that the US missed it's chance to be first in space? Didn't Eisenhower try to avoid using Redstone at all because it was military? And wasn't it Eisenhower who laid the foundations of the agency that would become NASA? In other words, aren't you blaming things on Kennedy that were already endemic in the system?

[SirNitram]

'THIS IS HORRIBLE! HE'S NOT GOING TO THE MOON! THE MOON IS IMPORTANT!'

Actually, it's pretty worthless until we need the interesting bits of hydrogen there for power. Cutting a moon mission is.. Wow, just what alot of people hoping for real advances wanted. Scrap this silly peice of notalgia and seek other things.

Space News had a peice on this..

Link

WASHINGTON — A top White House budget official suggested to reporters Jan. 26 that NASA could still see a budget increase for 2011 despite U.S. President Barack Obama’s proposed three-year freeze on most non-defense discretionary spending.

During a conference call the day before Obama’s first State of the Union address, Rob Nabors, deputy director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), told reporters that while NASA is among non-defense agencies otherwise subject to the freeze, not every such agency would see its budget held at current levels when Obama sends his 2011 budget request to Congress on Feb. 1.

“I’m not in a position to say how NASA fared,” Nabors said. “But it would not be the case that a request for NASA will be identical to the request that happened last year.”

Nabors was responding to a question about whether the spending freeze means no budget boost for NASA next year.

Obama asked Congress last year for $18.68 billion for NASA for 2010 and said he intended to request slightly less for the space agency for 2011, 2012 and 2013. Sources close to the administration have told Space News that NASA now stands to get an increase for 2011, but nowhere near the $1 billion boost some space advocates have been expecting since NASA Administrator Charles Bolden met with Obama in December to discuss the agency’s future.

Bolden is set to unveil NASA’s budget proposal during a Feb. 1 news conference at the agency’s headquarters here. Bolden is scheduled to participate in a Feb. 2 newsmakers event at the National Press Club here, according to the club’s events calendar.

Not the billion and change I'd like, but losing a glorified redo of Apollo is not the end of manned spaceflight. Now, let's look at the bits relevent to the axing:

Article

The Obama administration plans to kill a program to return astronauts to the moon, the Orlando Sentinel reported Wednesday, quoting unnamed White House officials.

The budget proposal that the White House is set to release Monday will include no money for the Constellation program, the late, over-budget Ares I rocket or its bigger brother, the Ares V cargo rocket, the Sentinel said.

Instead, the administration would have NASA focus on a new "heavy-lift" rocket that could be as much as a decade away, Earth-science projects such as climate change and a new program that would one day make human exploration of asteroids and the inner solar system possible, the story said. It would also fund private companies to develop capsules and rockets that could ferry astronauts on fixed-price contracts to and from the International Space Station.

While Boeing is heavily involved in these programs, it also could benefit from the new programs.

The proposed change would have to overcome significant congressional opposition, so stay tuned.

Let's see. The Ares I, whose head designer said 'Don't look under the hood. Looking under the hood means you don't trust me'(Honestly, all engineering personnel should openly gag a bit when reading that), is dead. A new heavy lifter, new science projects, work on long-range human exploration, and trying to get the private sector into it, as so many whine we should do.

Seems like someone wants to spin the budget increase(Even planned with the 'spending freeze'!) as another sign Obama is an awful, awful man.

[Themightytom]

This of course avoids the Republican role if the health care mess. Opposing anything the Democrats do and making up outright lies. It's hard to push through an agenda when your own side is a divided mess and the other party is determined to oppose anything you do.

...
There's politics and there's rhetoric, I can't believe anybody here with more than single digit posts would have survived here long enough without being able to grasp on SOME level that Democrats and Obama don't exist in a vacuum. Most of the decisions moderates and linberals object to comes about as the result of an inability to stand up to conservatives.

We say "Damn you Leiberman for blocking healthcare like he wasn't able to do it because EVERY Republican didn't as well. We blast Obama for killing the space program like he isn't responding to several months worth of townhalls accusing him of singlehandedly racking up debt we'd never pay off....

there is recognition on some level of the role Republicans have played in creating and perpetuating this mess, but I think while liberals are apopolectic, conservatives are deeply amused and moderates are pretty much tied to the ceiling and trying to kick the stool away before someone else tries to get their vote.

I mean we knew this would happen, the Republicans ALWAYS make the mess, the Democrats ALWAYS look like complete pedantic bumbling toolbags cleaning it up, and the Republicans sweep in to start it all over again. Throughout the whole cycle its generally more fun to be Republican.

if Obama kills the manned space program, the Republicans will resurrect it the next time they need to unify Joe the Plumbers behind an idiot. or they'll be the ones owning civillian space companies and fighting for mineral rights in space,

Obama has a habit of drawing atention with one hot issue as a strategy for passing a dozen others, I'm not leaping to conclusions until they turn off the lights.

[Patrick Degan]

OK, for post-Shuttle manned flight in the immediate future, there are now essentially three options:

Development of a space capsule adaptable to current NASA rocketry (like Centaur) or purchase of Soyuz or Shenzhou systems. The third would be for American astronauts to ride up on Russian Soyuz rockets the way their ESA bretheren are doing now.

Long-term, there is the prospect of the United States becoming the Portugal of the Space Age unless the manned space programme is taken seriously once again.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Because he is claiming that Obama is removed from the consideration as a coward and/or useless.

Actually, I'm not. Since he belongs to the democratic party, as you were so quickly to point out, he is also held accountable. It was you that imagined and projected that removal of consideration.

I responded to your post because it appeared like you hold him solely accountable for the failures in each of those categories. If this is not the case then we have nothing futher to discuss.

I am saying that he is in fact a great representation of the current Democratic Party as he is both a coward and useless on a number of issues.

Since I doubt that you possess the ability to change into a fly and be present for all the meetings this statement seems unsupported. If you can't get your people to move forward on an issue because of whatever reason then you need to compromise so it becomes more acceptable to them.

Why he should be excused or elevated above the current feeling of the rest of the Democrat party I can't understand as he has not done anything other give a fuckton of eloquent speeches to prove otherwise.

What would you like to see him do?

[MKSheppard]

'THIS IS HORRIBLE! HE'S NOT GOING TO THE MOON! THE MOON IS IMPORTANT!

Fuck off you piece of shit.

Ares I-X Launch

A lot of work has been done on Constellation, we have actual boilerplates being tested; we've even flown Ares I-X; and we're cancelling it in favor of Barack Obama's thing, a nebulous new "heavy lifter" with no real detail work done on it?

It's a way for Obama to be "strong" on space while not actually having to pay the bills until he's long out of office.

[open_sketchbook]

Who the fuck cares? Space is goddamn useless. It costs, and will always cost, tons of money to move stuff there and to move it around once it is there, we can never realistically leave the solar system, we can't keep our own planet in a condition to sustain life, nevermind terraform another, mining asteroids is a pipe-dream at best, nothing in space will ever justify the costs short of artificial satellites. Space programs are a relic of a time when it was used for political dickwaving and all it's ever been good for is letting insecure governments build massive penises and shoot them into the sky. Good riddance.

[MKSheppard]

Who the fuck cares? Space is goddamn useless. It costs, and will always cost, tons of money to move stuff there and to move it around once it is there,

I'm sure your GPS receiver and DirecTV set love you for that.

I'm also sure legions of SCIENTISTS love you for that, and are lining up to beat you to death with laminated copies of all the stuff we learned from Apollo, Voyager, Pioneer, and Spirit.

[SirNitram]

'THIS IS HORRIBLE! HE'S NOT GOING TO THE MOON! THE MOON IS IMPORTANT!

Fuck off you piece of shit.

Ares I-X Launch

A lot of work has been done on Constellation, we have actual boilerplates being tested; we've even flown Ares I-X; and we're cancelling it in favor of Barack Obama's thing, a nebulous new "heavy lifter" with no real detail work done on it?

It's a way for Obama to be "strong" on space while not actually having to pay the bills until he's long out of office.

Like Republicans did to be strong on everything? Was their own members saying they never paid for things.

Of course, if you stopped hopping like a stupid little child with his toy taken, you'd note I addressed why the Ares should not be trusted. And that NASA is getting a budgetary increase.

But you prefer one tiny sentence so you can screech loudly. Over returning to the moon. Call me when it's a mission with real value that's scrapped. Like, oh, the one he outlined for testing how to do long-term human exploration. But you'll ignore that.

[Mr Bean]

@open sketchbook
Let me be blunt on this issue, the faster we get into space, the better the chance that the human race survives. We are on one tiny little rock floating in a vast ocean of other tiny little rocks, and all it takes is one tiny little accident and the human race is gone forever. Be it a nearby supernova melting our atmosphere away. A large scale asteroid strike. Nuclear exchange or simple kill happy version of the common cold, it won't take much to kill us. The sooner we have colonies out elsewhere in the system, the better our survivability chances become. And who knows what we will learn along that voyage of discovery.

If you can't see how much the space program benefits us, you are blind to both it's and our own shared history. We must get into space and this blow by Obama very much is a typical political dodging the bill now so he can pay a larger one later. We have the technology, we have the timeline. And the cost? It's a goddamn pittance compared to the overall US budget. Even in a major recession the cost of the space program in full is equal to the amount of bonuses Goldman Sachs will be handing out this year of US taxpayer funded money via either direct bailout or 0% interest rate loans.

[Srelex]

@open sketchbook
Let me be blunt on this issue, the faster we get into space, the better the chance that the human race survives. We are on one tiny little rock floating in a vast ocean of other tiny little rocks, and all it takes is one tiny little accident and the human race is gone forever. Be it a nearby supernova melting our atmosphere away. A large scale asteroid strike. Nuclear exchange or simple kill happy version of the common cold, it won't take much to kill us. The sooner we have colonies out elsewhere in the system, the better our survivability chances become. And who knows what we will learn along that voyage of discovery.

If you can't see how much the space program benefits us, you are blind to both it's and our own shared history. We must get into space and this blow by Obama very much is a typical political dodging the bill now so he can pay a larger one later. We have the technology, we have the timeline. And the cost? It's a goddamn pittance compared to the overall US budget. Even in a major recession the cost of the space program in full is equal to the amount of bonuses Goldman Sachs will be handing out this year of US taxpayer funded money via either direct bailout or 0% interest rate loans.

I think you're being a bit optimistic about the practicality of space colonization.

[ray245]

@open sketchbook
Let me be blunt on this issue, the faster we get into space, the better the chance that the human race survives. We are on one tiny little rock floating in a vast ocean of other tiny little rocks, and all it takes is one tiny little accident and the human race is gone forever. Be it a nearby supernova melting our atmosphere away. A large scale asteroid strike. Nuclear exchange or simple kill happy version of the common cold, it won't take much to kill us. The sooner we have colonies out elsewhere in the system, the better our survivability chances become. And who knows what we will learn along that voyage of discovery.

If you can't see how much the space program benefits us, you are blind to both it's and our own shared history. We must get into space and this blow by Obama very much is a typical political dodging the bill now so he can pay a larger one later. We have the technology, we have the timeline. And the cost? It's a goddamn pittance compared to the overall US budget. Even in a major recession the cost of the space program in full is equal to the amount of bonuses Goldman Sachs will be handing out this year of US taxpayer funded money via either direct bailout or 0% interest rate loans.

I think you're being a bit optimistic about the practicality of space colonization.

Space colonization is going to be an extremely long process anyway. The main issue is that we continue to maintain the skilled workforce to ensure we can continue to progress forward.

[MKSheppard]

Of course, if you stopped hopping like a stupid little child with his toy taken, you'd note I addressed why the Ares should not be trusted.

You really are a stupid sack of shit are you?

Guess what's used on both Ares I and V?

Why, the same solid rocket boosters (except Ares V has an extra one); and the same liquid hydrogen fuelled J-2X engine system for the final upper stage.

Guess what just flew?

Why yes, Ares I-X



That proofed the concept of using solid rocket segmented motors in a single stack. Now comes adding a workable J-2 Upper stage for the next stage in Ares I proving.

As much as I don't like the concept of Ares (ew, use as much shuttle derived parts as possible, eww) it works, and has come along to actual flight hardware -- and has a much saner concept for manned space flight -- having one small rocket for sending crews into space, and a big one for sending cargo into space -- so you don't waste nearly 70 tons of cargo lift each time you send a bunch of astronauts into space (ref: Space Shuttle).

Cancel Constellation and it's Ares Launch vehicles, and you won't see anything approaching the technical maturity of Constellation for five years.

And that NASA is getting a budgetary increase.

One that won't support Constellation at all.

Over returning to the moon. Call me when it's a mission with real value that's scrapped. Like, oh, the one he outlined for testing how to do long-term human exploration. But you'll ignore that.

You're a dumb fucking piece of shit aren't you? Constellation isn't a hop, plant the flag, and leave mission like the Apollo G, H, and J series missions were.

They're more applicable to the cancelled I Series missions with long term stays by the astronauts.

The plan for constellation is to begin with 7 day moon stays early in the Constellation program to prepare the hardware for the ultimate -- the Lunar Outpost missions -- where the astronauts stay on the moon for.....get ready for it..up to 210 fucking days.

That BTW is the ultimate capacity of the Altair Lunar Module.

If that isn't long term exploration, on a fucking non terrestial body too, I don't know what is.

Retard.

[SirNitram]

Of course, if you stopped hopping like a stupid little child with his toy taken, you'd note I addressed why the Ares should not be trusted.

You really are a stupid sack of shit are you?

Guess what's used on both Ares I and V?

Why, the same solid rocket boosters (except Ares V has an extra one); and the same liquid hydrogen fuelled J-2X engine system for the final upper stage.

Guess what just flew?

Why yes, Ares I-X.

Wow. You've mastered the art of posting a picture in a thread. I am so proud of you.

Were you perhaps more honest, more intelligent, or just more literate, you'd note the lead designer showed himself to be a pretty damn bad engineer.

That proofed the concept of using solid rocket segmented motors in a single stack. Now comes adding a workable J-2 Upper stage for the next stage in Ares I proving.

As much as I don't like the concept of Ares (ew, use as much shuttle derived parts as possible, eww) it works, and has come along to actual flight hardware -- and has a much saner concept for manned space flight -- having one small rocket for sending crews into space, and a big one for sending cargo into space -- so you don't waste nearly 70 tons of cargo lift each time you send a bunch of astronauts into space (ref: Space Shuttle).

Cancel Constellation and it's Ares Launch vehicles, and you won't see anything approaching the technical maturity of Constellation for five years.

I'm OK with that. I'm not okay with you stuffing the strawman of 'shuttle derived parts' being preference. You're a goddamn moron though, so I can't get upset with you being unable to address points properly.

I addressed why I didn't like Ares. Repeatedly. You, of course, have no real means to argue with it, so you make shit up. As for my preference, a lifting body with a MITEE-B derived engine would be ideal. I love my nuke propulsion. It's thrust to weight is much better than the glorified firecracker you're humping.

And that NASA is getting a budgetary increase.

One that won't support Constellation at all.

But will support work on a heavy lifter that, with luck, will not include so poor an engineer as to make a public fuss and scene over the fact he doesn't want anyone checking his work. In your world, I guess, we should buy a car when we hear about it from the manufacturor, not when we have people test, consider, analyze, and check under the hood(You know, that phrase the Ares designer specifically used to say people shouldn't)?

Oh. And long-term manned spaceflight research. And more science missions. And more push to private enterprise to man up.

Over returning to the moon. Call me when it's a mission with real value that's scrapped. Like, oh, the one he outlined for testing how to do long-term human exploration. But you'll ignore that.

You're a dumb fucking piece of shit aren't you? Constellation isn't a hop, plant the flag, and leave mission like the Apollo G, H, and J series missions were.

They're more applicable to the cancelled I Series missions with long term stays by the astronauts.

The plan for constellation is to begin with 7 day moon stays early in the Constellation program to prepare the hardware for the ultimate -- the Lunar Outpost missions -- where the astronauts stay on the moon for.....get ready for it..up to 210 fucking days.

That BTW is the ultimate capacity of the Altair Lunar Module.

If that isn't long term exploration, on a fucking non terrestial body too, I don't know what is.

Retard.

Oh wow. A moonbase. SHould I be impressed? The moon remains a useless rock outside of getting fusion up and running. Once we have fusion, there's financial incentive to return, but we're not doing anything useful there. Hell, a mission to set a manned station in a LaGrange spot is more useful!

The moon isn't even viable as a port. It's in it's own gravity sink.

But hey, you keep whinging and coming up with arguments I already dismissed(Long term moon exploration! BECAUSE SHEPPY LIKES IT!), and whining about a rocket from a guy I wouldn't trust to do engine work in my car.

I don't care about the moon. Next stop is Mars or Venus. Spaceflight doesn't deserve to be mired in an eternal repeat of the cold war stunts. We do science and start prepping for real long term exploration.

210 days? YOu mean.. LESS than a half of a single mission to Mars, as projected by people researching how to accomodate people doing that? Link. 210 days is not long term anything in spaceflight.

[Guardsman Bass]

I think you're being a bit optimistic about the practicality of space colonization.

Hard to say. The real trick is setting up largely self-sustaining colonies off-world that could survive being cut-off from the Earth for long periods of time, but we won't know how to do that until we actually get out there and start testing off-world agricultural, manufacturing, and long-term habitat capabilities.

Who the fuck cares? Space is goddamn useless. It costs, and will always cost, tons of money to move stuff there and to move it around once it is there, we can never realistically leave the solar system, we can't keep our own planet in a condition to sustain life, nevermind terraform another, mining asteroids is a pipe-dream at best, nothing in space will ever justify the costs short of artificial satellites. Space programs are a relic of a time when it was used for political dickwaving and all it's ever been good for is letting insecure governments build massive penises and shoot them into the sky. Good riddance.

And then an asteroid comes along, and civilization dies. Or (and Stuart has talked about this) some crazy asshole develops the equivalent disease to Captain Trips in a laboratory and unleashes it on the world, and most of us die that way. Perhaps you don't mind that, but it bothers me, and I'd don't mind my tax dollars going towards it (as opposed to the Iraq War).

[paladin]

The President is talking about America needs to be better in Math and Science, so we can still be a leader in the world but he's going to cut the space program. Did I miss something?

[Srelex]

The President is talking about America needs to be better in Math and Science, so we can still be a leader in the world but he's going to cut the space program. Did I miss something?

I think he's still going to increase NASA's budget.

[SirNitram]

The President is talking about America needs to be better in Math and Science, so we can still be a leader in the world but he's going to cut the space program. Did I miss something?

As the two articles I posted showed, he's INCREASING NASA's budget despite his proposed spending freeze. He's cutting one badly mad overbudget clunker and the mission to the Moon. Because, well, what will going to the moon get us?