[thefinalfrontier]

Dont know if this is the proper place to post this but here goes,

White House Panel Backs Commercial Alternatives to NASA's New Rocket

The independent blue-ribbon panel that reviewed NASA's plans to replace its space shuttles said Thursday that the agency should consider using commercial vehicles to help achieve its goal, and perhaps nix the new Ares I rocket slated to fly future astronauts.

In a 155-page report entitled "Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great Nation," the 10-member committee expanded on the five potential options it drew up over the summer for NASA's human spaceflight future, including more detail and data to be reviewed by President Barack Obama.

Committee chairman Norman Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, said NASA's plan to replace the space shuttle fleet with capsule-based Orion spacecraft and Ares I rockets — a prototype of which is poised to launch Oct. 27 — suffers from a lack of funding so severe the agency may now have the wrong vehicle for its mission.

NASA's stated vision for human spaceflight is to retire its space shuttle fleet around 2010 and replace them with Orion spacecraft, to be launched on Ares I rockets by around 2015 at the earliest. A larger Ares V rocket would launch heavy cargo and lunar landers into orbit to support new manned missions to the moon by 2020.

Full article;

http://news.yahoo.co...onasasnewrocket

[Dimension_X]

WASHINGTON — NASA's human space flight program is too underfunded to fly, an independent panel of experts has said in their final report to US President Barack Obama.

The 155-page document is pretty much along the lines of the review panel's summary report in August. It presents five options for Obama's advisors to choose from to push the space program forward.

"The US human space flight program appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory" due to lack of funds, panel leader Norman Augustine said in the report.

The former president of aerospace giant Lockheed Martin and ex-US Army undersecretary said the goals of the Constellation program launched in 2004 by then president George W. Bush were too much to chew for NASA.

Constellation aims to return to the moon by 2020 and then establish a lunar launchpad for a first human trip to Mars.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's yearly budget is about 18 billion dollars, 10 of which are plowed into the human space flight program, chiefly in developing the successor of the space shuttle: the Ares 1 rocket and the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle.

The Augustine Committee said an additional three billion dollars a year are needed for NASA to meet Constellation program goals or take human space flight the next step beyond the existing International Space Station (ISS).

"The committee concludes that the ultimate goal of human exploration is to chart a path for human expansion into the solar system," the report said.

"This is an ambitious goal, but one worthy of US leadership in concert with a broad range of international partners."

The report highlights the uncertain future of the Ares 1, the launch vehicle for the space shuttle's successor. NASA is preparing for the long-awaited maiden test launch of the Ares 1 from Florida's Kennedy Space Center next Tuesday.

The committee made five chief observations and recommendations:

- Space shuttle: the six remaining space shuttle missions should be extended to the first half of 2011 since the present schedule cutoff date of September 2010 is too tight to ensure a maximum safety margin.

- Intervening period: the shuttle successor will not be up and running before 2017, the committee estimates. In the meantime, NASA will rely on Russia's Soyuz program to send astronauts to the ISS, and the private sector should be encouraged to ferry cargo into low orbit.

- Launchers: several combinations are possible including the Orion launcher Ares 1 rocket; the heavier, more powerful but still undeveloped Ares V rocket; and the shuttle's current launch system technology.

- ISS: the orbiting space station should be maintained beyond 2015 to 2020 to optimize its investment and, above all, to ensure US international leadership in future space exploration missions.

- Mars: the red planet is the ultimate destination of human space exploration but not its prime objective. Returning to the moon and extending the ISS program to 2020 are more practical strategies to follow.

What do you think? From www.google.com

[DONTEATUS]

We as the Still Leaders of Space Research,and Travel need to commit our Resources to Manned Space exploration. Its the only Nobel Goal we have to bring all of this planets adventurious Peoples together.
I vote for more is better, more money,more people getting involved sciences,and tech,and research.
Too the Stars and Beond !

[behaviour???]

I think Obama has options to do this now but its pathetic to understand that we are in need of so much money to do this...

Thanks
B???

[Waspie_Dwarf]

thefinalfrontier, on 23 October 2009 - 01:49 PM, said:

Dont know if this is the proper place to post this but here goes,

There was nothing wrong with where you posted it (in the Ares 1-X thread), but as Dimension_X also started a new thread on this I thought it would be better moved to that thread.

[MID]

Dimension_X, on 23 October 2009 - 09:34 AM, said:

WASHINGTON — NASA's human space flight program is too underfunded to fly, an independent panel of experts has said in their final report to US President Barack Obama.

What do you think?

It is most certainly not too underfunded to fly.
However, it is most certainly underefunded to do what we must do. This is not news, and we needed no committee to tell us this. It's been this way since 1967, and it has progressively gotten worse.

Quote

The former president of aerospace giant Lockheed Martin and ex-US Army undersecretary said the goals of the Constellation program launched in 2004 by then president George W. Bush were too much to chew for NASA.

He's full of crap.
The goals of the Constellation program aren't too much for anyone at NASA to chew. They're more than the agency can reasonably afford. There's a large difference between the two things.
And never again should we think about compromising due to lack of funding, as we did with the Shuttle program. We should fund it adequately, and completely, no question.

Quote

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's yearly budget is about 18 billion dollars, 10 of which are plowed into the human space flight program, chiefly in developing the successor of the space shuttle: the Ares 1 rocket and the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle.

The Augustine Committee said an additional three billion dollars a year are needed for NASA to meet Constellation program goals or take human space flight the next step beyond the existing International Space Station (ISS).

"The committee concludes that the ultimate goal of human exploration is to chart a path for human expansion into the solar system," the report said.

"This is an ambitious goal, but one worthy of US leadership in concert with a broad range of international partners."

Agreed. Again, that's a no-brainer.
3 billion is a start, despite it's paltryness. Another 12 billion would take NASA's funding level to something workable, and another 120 billion, would take NASA to funding levels it had during the Apollo peak (5% of the Federal budget).

I don't think that's needed, however.


And, there's no way with Obama's spending that NASA's ever going to see it...if anything.

Quote

The committee made five chief observations and recommendations:

- Space shuttle: the six remaining space shuttle missions should be extended to the first half of 2011 since the present schedule cutoff date of September 2010 is too tight to ensure a maximum safety margin.

I think the schedule should be extended, not because of safety, but becausae we can and need the capability for a longer time. More missions, not stretching the schedule.

Quote

- Intervening period: the shuttle successor will not be up and running before 2017, the committee estimates. In the meantime, NASA will rely on Russia's Soyuz program to send astronauts to the ISS, and the private sector should be encouraged to ferry cargo into low orbit.

2015. If private sector has the capability, they should be called upon. Problem is, they don't. The Europeans, Russians, and Japanese do, and we'll be using them.

Quote

- Launchers: several combinations are possible including the Orion launcher Ares 1 rocket; the heavier, more powerful but still undeveloped Ares V rocket; and the shuttle's current launch system technology.

No kidding.

Quote

- ISS: the orbiting space station should be maintained beyond 2015 to 2020 to optimize its investment and, above all, to ensure US international leadership in future space exploration missions.

Agreed.

Quote

- Mars: the red planet is the ultimate destination of human space exploration but not its prime objective. Returning to the moon and extending the ISS program to 2020 are more practical strategies to follow.

Also agreed.

[DONTEATUS]

So BRing bacl all the Troops around th eworld and you will have almost a Trillion dollars to spend in America! Like that plan did anything positive, Killing our youth?
The Real American Way!

[MID]

DONTEATUS, on 24 October 2009 - 10:56 PM, said:

So BRing bacl all the Troops around th eworld and you will have almost a Trillion dollars to spend in America! Like that plan did anything positive, Killing our youth?
The Real American Way!

Well, I don't think that's gonna happen (at least not entirely), but the principal is sound.

There is plenty to cut out of Government expenditures in order to provide NASA with adequate funding. There are large chunks of Government agencies that can be cut back or elimninated in order to get Government out of the day to day lives of people, and put money where it is most useful.

Homeland Security, Education, The Post Office Department....it's a long list of things that need to be re-vamped, or eliminated, or scaled back and absorbed into other agencies. Things that make NASA look like small potatoes (and, it is small potatoes).

We're not going to see any truly progressive things like that happen under the current administration though. After all, the largest Government growth in history has been pushed through by this administration in record time.

For NASA, we're just going to have to hope that the government funnels a few more billion a year it's way.

[DONTEATUS]

ITs Like Carl Segan was running the National Budget ! Billions,And Billions! but no`s not where or why they are going.
Only IF Carl was running it ! We would all be better for it!

This post has been edited by DONTEATUS: 25 October 2009 - 06:46 PM

[Waspie_Dwarf]

DONTEATUS, on 25 October 2009 - 03:56 AM, said:

So BRing bacl all the Troops around th eworld and you will have almost a Trillion dollars to spend in America! Like that plan did anything positive, Killing our youth?
The Real American Way!

Let's try to keep political issues in this conversation only to the direct subject of spaceflight. There are plenty of in depth, heated (and frequently unpleasant) topics on these sort of political issues in the the political sections of the site, we could do without that here. Thank you.

[Guardsman Bass]

Quote

3 billion is a start, despite it's paltryness. Another 12 billion would take NASA's funding level to something workable, and another 120 billion, would take NASA to funding levels it had during the Apollo peak (5% of the Federal budget).

The thought of that much annual funding for NASA (the equivalent of the 1966 budget) makes my mouth water. Imagine what we could get done -

1. We could probably do a mass-buy of the best private space plane (jump-starting the space industry),

2. Do serious research in orbit on agricultural growth and manufacturing in microgravity and possibly on the Moon, as well as hydroponics research in general (which would be invaluable for the prospects of long-term colonization),

3. Set-up a permanent lunar colony, including telescopes on the far side,

4. (Probably) set-up a permanent Mars colony, or at least send a mission that ways,

5. Do all manner of research into types of interplanetary propulsion (particularly solar sails, ion drives, and nuclear thermal propulsion) for the purpose of developing faster spacecraft,

6. Build a better space station,

7. Do all manner of robotic expeditions to everywhere in-system,

8. Actually build a better version of the now-canceled Terrestrial Planet Finder,

9. Explore and land upon asteroids in order to test potential asteroid mining (and zero-g mining in general).

The list is frankly endless.

This post has been edited by Guardsman Bass: 27 October 2009 - 07:18 PM

[Lord Umbarger]

It is underfunded. Severely!

The part that burn me up the most about it is that now that NASA has finally decided to discontinue the shuttle program, which never lived up to it's expectations anyway, Obama has decided he'll cut funding even more. We're moving back to a more cost effective system that is far more versatile and the POTUS uses this time as an opertunity to punish the space agency. I see no logic in that at all.

s for me, I'm all a titter about the new rocket system that they're wanting to put into service. I really think that this could be the best option for getting us into space as well as deeper into space for the coming decades.

[fusionet24]

well all government should help and we all should have a fair share in space so no one country has to deal with it all or dominates space

[MID]

Guardsman Bass, on 27 October 2009 - 03:18 PM, said:

The thought of that much annual funding for NASA (the equivalent of the 1966 budget) makes my mouth water. Imagine what we could get done -


The list is frankly endless.

Absolutely agreed....it is endless.

[ninjadude]

Lord Umbarger, on 28 October 2009 - 08:10 AM, said:

It is underfunded. Severely!

The part that burn me up the most about it is that now that NASA has finally decided to discontinue the shuttle program, which never lived up to it's expectations anyway, Obama has decided he'll cut funding even more. We're moving back to a more cost effective system that is far more versatile and the POTUS uses this time as an opertunity to punish the space agency. I see no logic in that at all.

were he to increase funding you and others who believe as you would do continue to whine about unnecessary spending. all you're doing is whining that he did not fall for for it. yes nasa is underfunded. We are comming out of a depression the likes of which have not been seen since the 30s. I'm sure funding will increase later in his term or in his second term.