Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by MKSheppard »

...along with Jim Lovell, and Gene Cernan.

You might remember Jim Lovell from such movies as Apollo 13; and Gene Cernan, the "Last Man on the Moon".

What's astonishing about this is that Armstrong NEVER speaks out on anything really.

Da Lettar
Editor's note: In an open letter obtained by NBC's Jay Barbree, former astronauts Neil Armstrong, James Lovell and Eugene Cernan urge President Obama to reconsider what they warn would be "devastating" new policies for the future of NASA.

The United States entered into the challenge of space exploration under President Eisenhower’s first term, however, it was the Soviet Union who excelled in those early years. Under the bold vision of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, and with the overwhelming approval of the American people, we rapidly closed the gap in the final third; of the 20th century, and became the world leader in space exploration.

America’s space accomplishments earned the respect and admiration of the world. Science probes were unlocking the secrets of the cosmos; space technology was providing instantaneous worldwide communication; orbital sentinels were helping man understand the vagaries of nature. Above all else, the people around the world were inspired by the human exploration of space and the expanding of man’s frontier. It suggested that what had been thought to be impossible was now within reach. Students were inspired to prepare themselves to be a part of this new age. No government program in modern history has been so effective in motivating the young to do “what has never been done before.”

World leadership in space was not achieved easily. In the first half-century of the space age, our country made a significant financial investment, thousands of Americans dedicated themselves to the effort, and some gave their lives to achieve the dream of a nation. In the latter part of the first half century of the space age, Americans and their international partners focused primarily on exploiting the near frontiers of space with the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station.

As a result of the tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia in 2003, it was concluded that our space policy required a new strategic vision. Extensive studies and analysis led to this new mandate: meet our existing commitments, return to our exploration roots, return to the moon, and prepare to venture further outward to the asteroids and to Mars. The program was named "Constellation." In the ensuing years, this plan was endorsed by two Presidents of different parties and approved by both Democratic and Republican congresses.

The Columbia Accident Board had given NASA a number of recommendations fundamental to the Constellation architecture which were duly incorporated. The Ares rocket family was patterned after the Von Braun Modular concept so essential to the success of the Saturn 1B and the Saturn 5. A number of components in the Ares 1 rocket would become the foundation of the very large heavy lift Ares V, thus reducing the total development costs substantially. After the Ares 1 becomes operational, the only major new components necessary for the Ares V would be the larger propellant tanks to support the heavy lift requirements.

The design and the production of the flight components and infrastructure to implement this vision was well underway. Detailed planning of all the major sectors of the program had begun. Enthusiasm within NASA and throughout the country was very high.

When President Obama recently released his budget for NASA, he proposed a slight increase in total funding, substantial research and technology development, an extension of the International Space Station operation until 2020, long range planning for a new but undefined heavy lift rocket and significant funding for the development of commercial access to low earth orbit.

Although some of these proposals have merit, the accompanying decision to cancel the Constellation program, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets, and the Orion spacecraft, is devastating.

America’s only path to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station will now be subject to an agreement with Russia to purchase space on their Soyuz (at a price of over 50 million dollars per seat with significant increases expected in the near future) until we have the capacity to provide transportation for ourselves. The availability of a commercial transport to orbit as envisioned in the President’s proposal cannot be predicted with any certainty, but is likely to take substantially longer and be more expensive than we would hope.

It appears that we will have wasted our current $10-plus billion investment in Constellation and, equally importantly, we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded.

For The United States, the leading space faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature. While the President's plan envisages humans traveling away from Earth and perhaps toward Mars at some time in the future, the lack of developed rockets and spacecraft will assure that ability will not be available for many years.

Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity. America must decide if it wishes to remain a leader in space. If it does, we should institute a program which will give us the very best chance of achieving that goal.

Neil Armstrong
Commander, Apollo 11

James Lovell
Commander, Apollo 13

Eugene Cernan
Commander, Apollo 17
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by MKSheppard »

Also, there has been leaks galore about Obama's speech to NASA tomorrow.

Link
Obama speech to outline his plans for returning U.S. to space

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 14, 2010; A04



President Obama will announce plans Thursday to revise and retain one element of the discarded Constellation rocket and space capsule system, commit to selecting a rocket capable of carrying astronauts to deep space within five years and allocate $40 million to put together a job-retraining program for Florida space workers who will lose their positions when the space shuttle is grounded next year.

Addressing workers, astronauts and lawmakers in a much-anticipated speech at the Kennedy Space Center, Obama will flesh out the new NASA architecture for returning Americans to space that was first proposed in his 2011 budget announcement. Those proposals -- to kill the Constellation program that was supposed to return humans to the moon and to jump-start development of a commercial space industry that could take its place -- met with substantial bipartisan opposition.

Obama's new proposals will be his answer to critics and his effort to make more specific the plan to re-create NASA's human exploration program, which the administration says will be cheaper than Constellation and get astronauts back into space more quickly. A senior White House official said the speech will show that Obama has a "bold and daring" vision for human space exploration.

One of the specifics will be to use some of the $3.8 billion spent in research and technology for the Orion space capsule to design and build a slimmed-down version of the spacecraft. A White House fact sheet outlining the plan said a crewless Orion would be launched "within the next few years" to the International Space Station on commercial rockets used by the military. It would be tethered there for use as a potential astronaut escape vehicle.

In addition, Obama will outline concrete plans to send astronauts to nearby asteroids, to the Earth's moon and the moons of Mars, and to Mars itself. The administration has proposed spending $3.1 billion during the next five years to develop the "heavy lift" rocket needed for that task and will commit to selecting by 2015 which design will be built.

Opposition to the Obama space plan has centered around his decision to kill the Constellation program, which included the Ares I rocket, the Orion spacecraft and a heavy-lift Ares V. The administration said the program was well over budget and behind schedule and needed to be replaced. But many astronauts, space policy experts and lawmakers said the decision was a misguided step back from human space exploration. Three of America's most renowned astronauts -- Neil Armstrong, James Lovell and Eugene Cernan -- wrote an open letter to Obama on Tuesday that called the cancellations "devastating."

Some of the most vocal opposition to Obama's plan came from representatives of the Gulf Coast states that stand to lose thousands of space jobs in the coming years. Construction of Constellation was supposed to replace some of the job opportunities that will be lost when the space shuttle is grounded, as planned during the Bush administration. Obama will tell the Kennedy Space Center crowd that the combination of billions of dollars to upgrade the facility in the next few years, new jobs that will come from launches of the new commercial rockets and work on the Orion will produce 2,500 more jobs by 2012 than Constellation would have created.

Critics also accused the administration of trying to end the entire human space program and cede space exploration to Russia and China. The White House official said that the plan Obama will announce calls for resuming flights on American-built spacecraft to the space station sooner than under the Constellation plan and that formal plans for a heavy-lift rocket will be in place two years sooner than outlined under Constellation. It will also support research and development of in-space refueling and the development of a lightweight, inflatable habitat for astronauts living in space.

Obama's Florida speech will be followed by four break-out sessions in which rocket experts and policymakers will discuss how to move the plan forward.
So lets see now, he's going to basically toss away the billions we've spent in designing the Orion CSM to be the most advanced manned spacecraft ever built, strip it down, and dock it as a lifeboat for the ISS.

Also, he's going to throw away all the design and money spent in developing Ares I and V, in favor of some "unnamed" heavy lift rocket which will have it's design picked FIVE YEARS from now.

Brilliant move there champ.

Also, nice try championing "to the asteroids, and MARS"; because you imbecile, that was the PLAN ALL ALONG for Constellation -- land on the moon, get experience, and then use the hardware to go ever further away from earth, to the asteroids, and then to Mars....just like Apollo Applications.

Bush II set his sights on the moon as a first objective, because he rememered his daddy's NASA plan; which had MARS as Step 1; which got nowhere.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Einzige
LOLbertarian Douchebag
Posts: 400
Joined: 2010-02-28 01:11pm

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by Einzige »

Who cares? Who gives a shit? The program ought to have been cancelled a long time ago, and had it been so done under Bush, you'd now be championing it as exemplary of his fiscal responsibility. Constellation was a massive waste and I'm glad to see it go.
When the histories are written, I'll bet that the Old Right and the New Left are put down as having a lot in common and that the people in the middle will be the enemy.
- Barry Goldwater

Americans see the Establishment center as an empty, decaying void that commands neither their confidence nor their love. It was not the American worker who designed the war or our military machine. It was the establishment wise men, the academicians of the center.
- George McGovern
Samuel
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4750
Joined: 2008-10-23 11:36am

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by Samuel »

Einzige wrote:Who cares? Who gives a shit? The program ought to have been cancelled a long time ago, and had it been so done under Bush, you'd now be championing it as exemplary of his fiscal responsibility. Constellation was a massive waste and I'm glad to see it go.
I do. I want to see humanity eventually colonize space and this is a good first step.
User avatar
Shroom Man 777
FUCKING DICK-STABBER!
Posts: 21222
Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
Contact:

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by Shroom Man 777 »

Einzige wrote:Who cares? Who gives a shit? The program ought to have been cancelled a long time ago, and had it been so done under Bush, you'd now be championing it as exemplary of his fiscal responsibility. Constellation was a massive waste and I'm glad to see it go.
I don't think Shep would cheer Constellation's cancellation if it had been done by Bush. Shep isn't partisan at all, and he'd equally hate anyone who'd take his rockets away from him. Doubly so, if those rockets were nuclear-armed.
Image "DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source)
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people :D - PeZook
Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic
Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
User avatar
Einzige
LOLbertarian Douchebag
Posts: 400
Joined: 2010-02-28 01:11pm

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by Einzige »

Samuel wrote:
Einzige wrote:Who cares? Who gives a shit? The program ought to have been cancelled a long time ago, and had it been so done under Bush, you'd now be championing it as exemplary of his fiscal responsibility. Constellation was a massive waste and I'm glad to see it go.
I do. I want to see humanity eventually colonize space and this is a good first step.
Not especially. I'm a layman in the field, but a fairly well-read one, and nothing I've read indicates to me that the Moon is an essential stepping-stone on our way to the stars. Despite the fairly-well wanked over helium-3, it doesn't offer any real benefits: by the time we're ready to colonize anything we'll be ready to tackle Mars, which offers a Hell of a lot more without the drawbacks usually associated with hard vacuum.
When the histories are written, I'll bet that the Old Right and the New Left are put down as having a lot in common and that the people in the middle will be the enemy.
- Barry Goldwater

Americans see the Establishment center as an empty, decaying void that commands neither their confidence nor their love. It was not the American worker who designed the war or our military machine. It was the establishment wise men, the academicians of the center.
- George McGovern
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by MKSheppard »

Excuse me? Mars has an atmospheric pressure of 30 pascals; by contrast, the air pressure at 51,000 feet is 66~ pascals, and you must wear a pressure suit or else you die at that altitude.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Einzige
LOLbertarian Douchebag
Posts: 400
Joined: 2010-02-28 01:11pm

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by Einzige »

MKSheppard wrote:Excuse me? Mars has an atmospheric pressure of 30 pascals; by contrast, the air pressure at 51,000 feet is 66~ pascals, and you must wear a pressure suit or else you die at that altitude.
And the Moon has an atmospheric pressure of - oh, right, imperceptible.

I'm not saying Mars gives us a lot to work with, either. But there's really no contest.
When the histories are written, I'll bet that the Old Right and the New Left are put down as having a lot in common and that the people in the middle will be the enemy.
- Barry Goldwater

Americans see the Establishment center as an empty, decaying void that commands neither their confidence nor their love. It was not the American worker who designed the war or our military machine. It was the establishment wise men, the academicians of the center.
- George McGovern
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by MKSheppard »

Einzige wrote:And the Moon has an atmospheric pressure of - oh, right, imperceptible.
Let me sum it up in small words:

Surface of Mars = you need a pressure suit or you die.
Surface of the Moon = you need a pressure suit or you die.

What's the difference? Absolutely zero.

By contrast, you need an atmospheric pressure of about 5,500 pascals if you just want to wear a heated suit plus suck on an oxygen mask. And the highest pressure on Mars is 66 pascals. So, you're stuck wearing a pressure suit no matter what.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Einzige
LOLbertarian Douchebag
Posts: 400
Joined: 2010-02-28 01:11pm

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by Einzige »

MKSheppard wrote:
Einzige wrote:And the Moon has an atmospheric pressure of - oh, right, imperceptible.
Let me sum it up in small words:

Surface of Mars = you need a pressure suit or you die.
Surface of the Moon = you need a pressure suit or you die.

What's the difference? Absolutely zero.
Say you've got your colony up and going a few centuries from now, a little glass bubble pressurized from the inside by the power of magic. Now, it's going to be damn difficult to keep the artificial atmosphere inside on either Mars or the Moon, but the relatively higher pressure of Mars is going to contribute, in however minuscule an amount, to keeping your glass bubble from rupturing and spilling you out. And I was under the impression, possibly delusional, that every little bit counts.

As I said, the field isn't my specialty. But from everything I've read, the Moon looks absolutely unattractive as a site for man's first extraplanetary colony. I see nothing tangible it offers that Mars doesn't and in greater abundance.

(Moreover, I'd like to see our long-term efforts focus first on colonizing previously inhospitable areas of our own planet, a vastly more doable project in any human time-frame.)
When the histories are written, I'll bet that the Old Right and the New Left are put down as having a lot in common and that the people in the middle will be the enemy.
- Barry Goldwater

Americans see the Establishment center as an empty, decaying void that commands neither their confidence nor their love. It was not the American worker who designed the war or our military machine. It was the establishment wise men, the academicians of the center.
- George McGovern
User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by Coyote »

The Moon is a useful stepping-stone only if we truly intend to put the Helium-3 resources there to good use as ship fuel to go to Mars. Going to the Moon just to "practice" means delaying the trip to Mars by God-knows-how-long.

And as we all know, the way political priorities shift back and forth, putting Mars off means writing Mars off for decades if not generations.

If we go to the Moon, too many people will be content to --once again-- pat ourselves on the back and kick back to rest on our laurels for another 30 years, thinking, "ahh, there, we've done it and proved our point. No need to strain ourselves now."
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by Darth Wong »

Einzige wrote:Say you've got your colony up and going a few centuries from now, a little glass bubble pressurized from the inside by the power of magic. Now, it's going to be damn difficult to keep the artificial atmosphere inside on either Mars or the Moon, but the relatively higher pressure of Mars is going to contribute, in however minuscule an amount, to keeping your glass bubble from rupturing and spilling you out. And I was under the impression, possibly delusional, that every little bit counts.
If atmospheric pressure really is just 30 Pa, compared to 100KPa on Earth, then the reduction in net pressure would be 0.03%. This is completely insignificant compared to normal engineering safety factors, even for aerospace. Variations in material strength alone would exceed that. So no, it doesn't count for shit. You do not make the job of designing an atmospheric pressure vessel any easier by putting it on Mars.
As I said, the field isn't my specialty. But from everything I've read, the Moon looks absolutely unattractive as a site for man's first extraplanetary colony. I see nothing tangible it offers that Mars doesn't and in greater abundance.
It's vastly easier to get to. I don't see why you dismiss that as a tangible advantage. The difficulties of getting to and from Mars are enormous, particularly for manned missions, in large part due to the sheer length of travel.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by Darth Wong »

Coyote wrote:The Moon is a useful stepping-stone only if we truly intend to put the Helium-3 resources there to good use as ship fuel to go to Mars. Going to the Moon just to "practice" means delaying the trip to Mars by God-knows-how-long.

And as we all know, the way political priorities shift back and forth, putting Mars off means writing Mars off for decades if not generations.

If we go to the Moon, too many people will be content to --once again-- pat ourselves on the back and kick back to rest on our laurels for another 30 years, thinking, "ahh, there, we've done it and proved our point. No need to strain ourselves now."
A manned mission to Mars is a pipe dream at this point. People need to accept that. There's nothing that will happen in the near future to change that.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Einzige
LOLbertarian Douchebag
Posts: 400
Joined: 2010-02-28 01:11pm

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by Einzige »

Darth Wong wrote:It's vastly easier to get to. I don't see why you dismiss that as a tangible advantage. The difficulties of getting to and from Mars are enormous, particularly for manned missions, in large part due to the sheer length of travel.
This I understand. Now, like I've said, the sciences are absolutely not an area where I could even bullshit my way through, so let me pose you a question: presumably, by the time we're seriously considering establishing a planetary colony in the first, we'll have solved the problem of fuel enough to allow a spacecraft to carry enough to make at least one round trip (it does you little good to make a colony only to have to sever all ties with it). Now, in such a circumstance where fuel is cheap and reasonably plentiful - likely nuclear-powered - isn't the problem of distance at least somewhat mitigated?
When the histories are written, I'll bet that the Old Right and the New Left are put down as having a lot in common and that the people in the middle will be the enemy.
- Barry Goldwater

Americans see the Establishment center as an empty, decaying void that commands neither their confidence nor their love. It was not the American worker who designed the war or our military machine. It was the establishment wise men, the academicians of the center.
- George McGovern
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by Darth Wong »

Einzige wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:It's vastly easier to get to. I don't see why you dismiss that as a tangible advantage. The difficulties of getting to and from Mars are enormous, particularly for manned missions, in large part due to the sheer length of travel.
This I understand. Now, like I've said, the sciences are absolutely not an area where I could even bullshit my way through, so let me pose you a question: presumably, by the time we're seriously considering establishing a planetary colony in the first, we'll have solved the problem of fuel enough to allow a spacecraft to carry enough to make at least one round trip (it does you little good to make a colony only to have to sever all ties with it).
Why would you assume that we can "solve" the fuel problem?
Now, in such a circumstance where fuel is cheap and reasonably plentiful - likely nuclear-powered - isn't the problem of distance at least somewhat mitigated?
Only somewhat. You still have the problem of sustaining astronauts in livable conditions for a trip of many months. The need to keep living, breathing astronauts alive for long periods in cramped quarters is a major hurdle. The deeper gravity well of Mars will also make it much more difficult to land and then take off and reach orbit again.

In a very long-term project to reach Mars, the first thing you'd probably do is establish an orbital presence, rather than a surface-based one. Once you had a space station going for a while, you'd be able to ferry supplies to it, sufficient to build up enough resources to assemble and fuel something which can land on the surface and then actually take off and reach orbit again.

The difference in difficulty between the Moon and Mars is vast.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Einzige
LOLbertarian Douchebag
Posts: 400
Joined: 2010-02-28 01:11pm

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by Einzige »

Darth Wong wrote:Why would you assume that we can "solve" the fuel problem?
Not solve it permanently, but at least stave it off until our supply of fissile materials is depleted.
Only somewhat. You still have the problem of sustaining astronauts in livable conditions for a trip of many months. The need to keep living, breathing astronauts alive for long periods in cramped quarters is a major hurdle. The deeper gravity well of Mars will also make it much more difficult to land and then take off and reach orbit again.
True. I suppose, then, that the reasonable thing to do, even for an ignoramus like me, would be to measure the cost-to-benefit ratio. What can be gotten from Mars and the Moon, respectively, and can enough of it be had from Mars to outweigh the greater start-up costs? And it looks to my untrained eye that Mars is more valuable for a (very) long-term project.
In a very long-term project to reach Mars, the first thing you'd probably do is establish an orbital presence, rather than a surface-based one. Once you had a space station going for a while, you'd be able to ferry supplies to it, sufficient to build up enough resources to assemble and fuel something which can land on the surface and then actually take off and reach orbit again.
This leads me to an aside: wouldn't it be easier, rather than colonizing either Mars or the Moon as a first-step, to instead simply build habitats in Earth orbit? It seems as if it'd be far cheaper and more easily done than either project here under consideration.
When the histories are written, I'll bet that the Old Right and the New Left are put down as having a lot in common and that the people in the middle will be the enemy.
- Barry Goldwater

Americans see the Establishment center as an empty, decaying void that commands neither their confidence nor their love. It was not the American worker who designed the war or our military machine. It was the establishment wise men, the academicians of the center.
- George McGovern
User avatar
Guardsman Bass
Cowardly Codfish
Posts: 9281
Joined: 2002-07-07 12:01am
Location: Beneath the Deepest Sea

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by Guardsman Bass »

Darth Wong wrote:
Einzige wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:It's vastly easier to get to. I don't see why you dismiss that as a tangible advantage. The difficulties of getting to and from Mars are enormous, particularly for manned missions, in large part due to the sheer length of travel.
This I understand. Now, like I've said, the sciences are absolutely not an area where I could even bullshit my way through, so let me pose you a question: presumably, by the time we're seriously considering establishing a planetary colony in the first, we'll have solved the problem of fuel enough to allow a spacecraft to carry enough to make at least one round trip (it does you little good to make a colony only to have to sever all ties with it).
Why would you assume that we can "solve" the fuel problem?
I think he's saying, in a roundabout way, that by the time we're able to seriously consider colonizing Mars, we'll probably have better and faster engines. Things like Nuclear-Thermal Rockets, or that VASIMR engine they were testing. It is an assumption, mind you, but probably not too bad of one.
Enzige wrote: True. I suppose, then, that the reasonable thing to do, even for an ignoramus like me, would be to measure the cost-to-benefit ratio. What can be gotten from Mars and the Moon, respectively, and can enough of it be had from Mars to outweigh the greater start-up costs? And it looks to my untrained eye that Mars is more valuable for a (very) long-term project.
It is, but the key word is "long-term". In the shorter term, if you want to get your colonization program off the ground (pun not intended, but it works), the Moon is a better option to aim for. Mars shares most (if not all) of the problems that colonizing the Moon does, with the additional massive problems of distance and transmission time (there's a 10-minute delay in signaling between Mars and Earth due to the distance).
Enzige wrote:This leads me to an aside: wouldn't it be easier, rather than colonizing either Mars or the Moon as a first-step, to instead simply build habitats in Earth orbit? It seems as if it'd be far cheaper and more easily done than either project here under consideration.
Those would be even closer, but there are plenty of problems, like micro-gravity, radiation, and the fact that the colony would still be wholly dependent on either Earth or another source of resources (asteroids or the Moon, I'd guess, although that would be long-term) more or less indefinitely. At least on the Moon, you can build your colony right into the lunar bedrock to protect it from radiation, mine much of your materials there if necessary, and there even may be water ice down at the Moon's south pole for you to use.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.”
-Jean-Luc Picard


"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
-Margaret Atwood
User avatar
Shroom Man 777
FUCKING DICK-STABBER!
Posts: 21222
Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
Contact:

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by Shroom Man 777 »

Einzige wrote:True. I suppose, then, that the reasonable thing to do, even for an ignoramus like me, would be to measure the cost-to-benefit ratio. What can be gotten from Mars and the Moon, respectively, and can enough of it be had from Mars to outweigh the greater start-up costs? And it looks to my untrained eye that Mars is more valuable for a (very) long-term project.
Yeah. But cosmonauts can't just teleport straight to Mars. It'll take years and a crapload of technological development, and milestones and babysteps before the capability to colonize Mars is had. One of the milestones and babysteps would include the Moon. In getting to the Moon (again), the tech needed to eventually get to the Mars will be developed and the expertise and whatevers necessary for getting to Mars will also be gained. Practice makes perfect, after all, and it's not a quick process. Just like how they kept on building bigger and bigger rockets, until their rocket was so big and hard that it could jack off to the Moon. :D
This leads me to an aside: wouldn't it be easier, rather than colonizing either Mars or the Moon as a first-step, to instead simply build habitats in Earth orbit? It seems as if it'd be far cheaper and more easily done than either project here under consideration.
They call it Mir. :D
Image "DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source)
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people :D - PeZook
Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic
Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by MKSheppard »

And now Gene Kranz is in it too:

Link
Dear President Obama;

America is faced with the near-simultaneous ending of the Shuttle program and your recent budget proposal to cancel the Constellation program. This is wrong for our country for many reasons. We are very concerned about America ceding its hard earned global leadership in space technology to other nations. We are stunned that, in a time of economic crisis, this move will force as many as 30,000 irreplaceable engineers and managers out of the space industry. We see our human exploration program, one of the most inspirational tools to promote science, technology, engineering and math to our young people, being reduced to mediocrity. NASA’s human space program has inspired awe and wonder in all ages by pursuing the American tradition of exploring the unknown. We strongly urge you to drop this misguided proposal that forces NASA out of human space operations for the foreseeable future.

For those of us who have accepted the risk and dedicated a portion of our lives to the exploration of outer space, this is a terrible decision. Our experiences were made possible by the efforts of thousands who were similarly dedicated to the exploration of the last frontier. Success in this great national adventure was predicated on well defined programs, an unwavering national commitment, and an ambitious challenge. We understand there are risks involved in human space flight, but they are calculated risks for worthy goals, whose benefits greatly exceed those risks.

America’s greatness lies in her people: she will always have men and women willing to ride rockets into the heavens. America’s challenge is to match their bravery and acceptance of risk with specific plans and goals worthy of their commitment. NASA must continue at the frontiers of human space exploration in order to develop the technology and set the standards of excellence that will enable commercial space ventures to eventually succeed. Canceling NASA’s human space operations, after 50 years of unparalleled achievement, makes that objective impossible.

One of the greatest fears of any generation is not leaving things better for the young people of the next. In the area of human space flight, we are about to realize that fear; your NASA budget proposal raises more questions about our future in space than it answers.

Too many men and women have worked too hard and sacrificed too much to achieve America’s preeminence in space, only to see that effort needlessly thrown away. We urge you to demonstrate the vision and determination necessary to keep our nation at the forefront of human space exploration with ambitious goals and the proper resources to see them through. This is not the time to abandon the promise of the space frontier for a lack of will or an unwillingness to pay the price.

Sincerely, in hopes of continued American leadership in human space exploration.

Walter Cunningham
Apollo 7

Chris Kraft
Past Director JSC

Jack Lousma
Skylab 3, STS 3

Vance Brand
Apollo-Soyuz, STS-5,
STS-41B, STS-35

Bob Crippen
STS-1, STS-7,
STS-41C, STS-41G
Past Director KSC

Michael D. Griffin
Past NASA Administrator

Ed Gibson
Skylab 4

Jim Kennedy
Past Director KSC

Alan Bean
Apollo 12, Skylab 3

Alfred M. Worden
Apollo 15

Scott Carpenter
Mercury Astronaut

Glynn Lunney
Gemini-Apollo Flight Director

Jim McDivitt
Gemini 4, Apollo 9
Apollo Spacecraft Program Manager

Gene Kranz
Gemini-Apollo Flight Director
Past Director NASA Mission Ops.

Joe Kerwin
Skylab 2

Fred Haise
Apollo 13,
Shuttle Landing Tests

Gerald Carr
Skylab 4

Jim Lovell
Gemini 7, Gemini 12,
Apollo 8, Apollo 13

Jake Garn
STS-51D,
U.S. Senator

Charlie Duke
Apollo 16

Bruce McCandless
STS-41B, STS-31

Frank Borman
Gemini 7, Apollo 8

Paul Weitz
Skylab 2, STS-6

George Mueller
Past Associate Administrator
For Manned Space Flight

Harrison Schmitt
Apollo 17,
U.S. Senator

Gene Cernan
Gemini 9, Apollo 10,
Apollo 17

Dick Gordon
Gemini 11, Apollo 12
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by Flagg »

Einzige wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:
Einzige wrote:And the Moon has an atmospheric pressure of - oh, right, imperceptible.
Let me sum it up in small words:

Surface of Mars = you need a pressure suit or you die.
Surface of the Moon = you need a pressure suit or you die.

What's the difference? Absolutely zero.
Say you've got your colony up and going a few centuries from now, a little glass bubble pressurized from the inside by the power of magic. Now, it's going to be damn difficult to keep the artificial atmosphere inside on either Mars or the Moon, but the relatively higher pressure of Mars is going to contribute, in however minuscule an amount, to keeping your glass bubble from rupturing and spilling you out. And I was under the impression, possibly delusional, that every little bit counts.

As I said, the field isn't my specialty. But from everything I've read, the Moon looks absolutely unattractive as a site for man's first extraplanetary colony. I see nothing tangible it offers that Mars doesn't and in greater abundance.

(Moreover, I'd like to see our long-term efforts focus first on colonizing previously inhospitable areas of our own planet, a vastly more doable project in any human time-frame.)
You're an idiot.

1) Who in their right fucking mind would build a big fucking dome to to get pummeled by meteorites (moon) or dust storms (Mars)? Any rational colonial plan would to build low to the ground shelters first, and then build down, extracting the oxygen and hydrogen in the rock being mined for more living space. And once you have enough space you start planting shit to make yourself as self-sufficient as possible. Only then do you start building larger structure on the surface.

2) The moon has resources we will be able to use within the next 50-100 years. Namely, helium-3 for powering nuclear fusion reactors. You think oil is a big deal? That shit ain't nothing compared to helium-3. And it's so very much easier to launch craft from the moon to the Earth that once Luna is self-efficient about the only shit coming from the Earth anymore will be consumer goods and tourists/colonists.

3) When going to Mars is you know, feasible, who the fuck do you think it going to be the bulk of the crew going there? It ain't gonna be Earthlings. It's going to be people used to living in a more difficult environment. It's going to be the Lunists who build the spacecraft, and it's gonna be from the moon that the craft are launched.

So in summary, until we get our asses back to, living on, and producing on the moon, fuck Mars.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by MKSheppard »

So apparently the stripped down Orions that Obama wants will not be launched into orbit on man-rated rockets -- they will be launched unmanned and dock with the ISS for use as lifeboats or emergency re-entry vehicles.

We will need to pay to the russians $50+ million a pop to put astronauts into space on Soyuz. BRILLIANCE!

Link
Heavy-lift rocket, scaled Orion in Obama's plans
BY WILLIAM HARWOOD
STORY WRITTEN FOR CBS NEWS "SPACE PLACE" & USED WITH PERMISSION
Posted: April 13, 2010


As part of a sweeping post-shuttle change of direction for NASA, the Obama administration's shift to private-sector rockets and spacecraft will include government development of a new heavy-lift rocket for eventual manned flights to a variety of deep space targets including, ultimately, Mars, an administration official said Tuesday.

While committed to terminating the Bush administration's Constellation moon program, the president supports development of a scaled-down version of Constellation's Orion crew capsule for use as a space station emergency escape vehicle and possible technology test bed.

Speaking on background, a senior administration official said Tuesday the Orion capsule could be launched unmanned to the International Space Station using commercial rockets as part of a broad effort to reduce reliance on Russian Soyuz spacecraft.

The official said the use of a scaled-down version of Orion, along with the development of new private-sector rockets and capsules to replace the shuttle, would end NASA's reliance on Russia for space transportation services sooner than would have been possible with the Constellation program's Ares rockets.

The president will discuss his new strategy for NASA during a conference at the Kennedy Space Center on Thursday, outlining a series of robotic and eventual manned deep-space missions that will build in an evolutionary, step-by-step approach to eventual flights to Mars, the official said.

While no timetable for such flights will be specified, a decision on what sort of heavy lift rocket architecture to pursue will be made in 2015, based in part on advanced technologies research that will be funded at more than $3 billion over the next five years.

As previously announced, the administration's plan for NASA includes an additional $6 billion over the next five years to fund a variety of technology and infrastructure development efforts that by 2012 will result, the administration official said, in 2,500 more jobs at the Kennedy Space Center than would have been expected under Constellation.

Looming job losses across NASA's contractor workforce have cast a pall over the space program in recent months. With the shuttle program's retirement late this year or early next - only three more missions are planned beyond Discovery's current flight - some 7,000 jobs will be lost at the Kennedy Space Center alone, with thousands more at other NASA field centers.

The Obama administration's change of course for NASA will not restore the lost shuttle jobs, but the additional spending will more than make up for the expected Constellation losses, the official said. Along with a shift to commercial launch services, the administration plans a $2 billion upgrade to the Kennedy Space Center's launch infrastructure.

And in the near term, the administration will spend $40 million to fund an "economic development action plan" to help the local workforce make the transition.

Taken together, the new initiatives mark a "more ambitious space strategy" than Constellation offered, the official said, adding that critics who have charged the president's approach represents an end to government-sponsored manned spaceflight "are just flat wrong."

Development of a new heavy lift super rocket will "unlock the solar system," the official said, and do it sooner than would have otherwise been possible.

Whether these new elements - commitment to a heavy lift rocket and use of Orion technology - will satisfy the administration's critics in Congress and elsewhere remains to be seen.

In a recent open letter to the president signed by legendary Apollo flight directors Chris Kraft, Gene Kranz, Glynn Lunney and more than 20 former astronauts, including Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell and Apollo 17 commander Gene Cernan, the administration's plan was criticized for ceding America's "hard earned global leadership in space technology to other nations."

"We are stunned that, in a time of economic crisis, this move will force as many as 30,000 irreplaceable engineers and managers out of the space industry," they wrote. "We see our human exploration program, one of the most inspirational tools to promote science, technology, engineering and math to our young people, being reduced to mediocrity."

In the wake of the 2003 Columbia disaster, President Bush decided to complete the space station and retire the shuttle by 2010. At the same time, he directed NASA to begin development of new rockets, capsules and landers to carry astronauts back to the moon by the early 2020s. NASA came up with the Constellation program to implement those directives, spending some $9 billion over the past five years.

But funding shortfalls resulted in a projected five-year gap between the end of shuttle operations and the debut of the Ares I rocket and Orion crew capsule. To bridge the gap, NASA is paying the Russians some $50 million a seat to launch U.S. and partner astronauts to the space station aboard Soyuz rockets.

During the presidential campaign, Obama expressed support for Constellation but after the election, he set up a panel of outside experts to review NASA's plans and how much they might ultimately cost.

The panel concluded NASA could not afford to implement Constellation, or any other reasonable exploration program, without an additional $3 billion or so per year, primarily to make up for earlier budget reductions. And that did not take into account the cost of operating the International Space Station beyond 2015.

The group favored a shift to commercial launch services to carry astronauts to and from low-Earth orbit while NASA focused on development of a new heavy-lift rocket system that would enable eventual flights to the moon, nearby asteroids or even the moons of Mars.

The Obama administration agreed with the idea of commercial launch services, but it did not explicitly embrace the "flexible path" approach to deep space exploration suggested by the panel, focusing instead on development of enabling technologies and somewhat vague long-range goals.

The result, administration officials said, was an affordable, more sustainable space program.

The new commitment to development of a heavy lifter may defuse at least some of the outside criticism. But the benefits of using a scaled-down version of Orion for space station crew escape are not as clear. Seats purchased on Russian Soyuz rockets include launch and landing and the capsules remain docked at the station throughout a crew's stay, available as emergency lifeboats if needed.

Former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, chief architect of the Constellation program and a signer of the open letter to the president, said in an email "the people who are offering this plan are flailing."

Launching the capsules atop unmanned rockets would eliminate the need for complex abort systems, he said, but even unmanned rockets are expensive, the capsules would need an autonomous rendezvous and docking capability and they would have to be periodically replaced.

"The proposed 'Orion Lite' vehicles will not carry crew to the ISS," Griffin said. "Indeed, the first time they carry crew will be in an emergency. So we will need to replace them periodically to ensure that a fresh vehicle is available. ... Through all this we will have to continue to pay the Russians for crew transfer services until and unless commercial capability emerges.

"In the end, this seems like an expensive proposition that makes simply continuing to use the Russians for crew rescue look like a bargain."
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by Coyote »

Reading along and thinking about what is being said, I'll certainly concede the point that a Moon return is a more realistic goal that will enable us to "get more, later". I'll pitch in with the Moon crowd-- it can be done now, with the political will.

But Moon or Mars are both out of the picture now. I am dismayed that Obama shows such a lack of vision on space sciences --of course, he never really said much about it, beyond the usual sweeping pap about "ensuring leadership blah blah blah" that every politician mumbles.

But then, we'll have to see what the reaction is from space-investment-heavy states like Florida, Texas, and California. A backpedal of sorts may yet develop considering the voting blocs being dealt with.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by MKSheppard »

So Coyote, explain to me how we are going to go anywhere in space if we don't even have man rated capsules to fly us there?
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by Coyote »

MKSheppard wrote:So Coyote, explain to me how we are going to go anywhere in space if we don't even have man rated capsules to fly us there?
We're not-- bear in mind, I agree with your criticisms. In spades. My original posiution was "fuck da Moon, been there done that, go to Mars" but after reading along I realize the hurdles of practicality that represents, so I'd shift gears and go for the Moon.

But Obama's plan leaves us with neither option on the table. Years from now, when we finally do decide to land on the Moon again, orbital control there will give us instructions in either Mandarin, Russian or Hindi, and we'll all wonder why.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

Post by MKSheppard »

The thing is; the same hardware designed for a moon mission can be repurposed to a mars mission -- in many ways, the mars environment is simply easier on equipment:

Moon: 240 degrees in the sun, -280 in the darkness
Mars: 68 degrees in the summer, -125 degrees in the winter.

But like you said, Obama simply is forcing NASA to go back to Square One -- eliminating the Ares I and V, which are pretty much finalized, in favor of a nebulous design which won't even be picked on paper until 2015!. How the hell do you plan for a mission when the specs of the launch vehicle are five years from finalization?
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Post Reply