Mad Mike Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Looks much farther along than I expected. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/02/progress_on_nasas_constellatio.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 The first two pictures- I heard Beavis & Butthead in the background. hehehe- hehehe- huhuhuh- huhuhuh- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I heard Obama is seriously considering scrapping the Constellation, and Ares I and Ares IV rockets. The idea is the country can't afford two spaces efforts. Ever since the mid 1980's the military and civilian spaces efforts have become decoupled and no longer share equipment, technology, or collaborate in any way. When the shuttle fleet was grounded for more than a year after Columbia blew up, the Pentagon decided NASA was no longer a reliable way to launch satellites and developed their own independent capability. The military's space agency's budget is currently larger than NASA's and has been for more than two decades. The thinking is to re-couple the two efforts as they were in the 60's 70's and early 1980's, or through the Gemini, Mercury, and Apollo projects. Then they could use the same equipment and potentially save billions. NASA's budget is currently 20 billion a year. The military loves this idea because they would save significant money through cost sharing and a new economy of scale for their equipment. NASA hates this idea because they want their new rockets to help them recapture the nations imagination. These new rockets are also the first one's NASA has developed in decades and are designed to take us back to the moon and eventually to Mars. Which direction the administration picks depends upon how much money can be saved. How much money is left to be spent on the new Constellation and the Ares I and Ares IV rockets to make them production ready. Both rockets were scheduled to have live fire testing of their new engines this year. The military uses an updated Saturn IV rocket, same rocket which took us to the moon the first time. They've kept the assemble line open, as it remains their heavy lift rocket to launch military satellites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Looks much farther along than I expected.http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/02/progress_on_nasas_constellatio.html Great to see them making progress. Putting people on Mars is way overdue and is a worthy goal for our great nation. The first two pictures- I heard Beavis & Butthead in the background. hehehe- hehehe- huhuhuh- huhuhuh- I thought I heard this song in the background when they were laughing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I heard Obama is seriously considering scrapping the Constellation, and Ares I and Ares IV rockets. No surprise there, really. Over the last forty years or so Democrats are generally against spending on space exploration and Republicans are usually in favor of it. Seems to me that Congress has a lot more to say about it than Obama himself, though. The military uses an updated Saturn IV rocket, same rocket which took us to the moon the first time. They've kept the assemble line open, as it remains their heavy lift rocket to launch military satellites. I didn't know that. At least a few people kept their common sense the last four decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Great to see them making progress. Putting people on Mars is way overdue and is a worthy goal for our great nation.I thought I heard this song in the background when they were laughing. Yeah they haven't actually committed to going to Mars yet, and the Democratic Congress has explicitly forbid them to spend money on that goal. We are currently in a new space race with the Chinese, Russians, Japanese, and Indians; to return to the moon. We are scheduled to do so before 2015. I believe the Chinese are scheduled to do so a few years ahead of us. The Chinese have also stated their goal as to create a permanent base on the moon, and use that base as a launching point to Mars. NASA has voiced similar goals but so far they only have the funding for the Moon and can only do that after we retire the shuttle fleet 2010. We need to continue to fly the shuttle until we complete our obligated work on the International Space Station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 They have a plasma rocket in testing and they are trying to test it on the space station by 2011. This should be the mode of propulsion to mars. Chemical rockets are not the answer to a manned Mars trip. Plasma Rocket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Looks cool...I hope to see it fly, sounds like a good stimulus package to me. As for the pics, there's a whole lot of stuff going on in those things that I know nothing about, pay them fellers 'cause thur purdy smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Photo 5: Looks like the new "capsule" is noticeably larger than Apollo. Photo 21: My mind is going, Dave. I can feel it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 The first two pictures- I heard Beavis & Butthead in the background. hehehe- hehehe- huhuhuh- huhuhuh- I thought I heard this song in the background when they were laughing. Odd, I heard a different song: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 No surprise there, really. Over the last forty years or so Democrats are generally against spending on space exploration and Republicans are usually in favor of it. Seems to me that Congress has a lot more to say about it than Obama himself, though. Well the Democrats (Kennedy) were originally the ones who set the goal of going to the moon and LBJ was probable NASA's biggest cheerleader. ( no coincidence Texas got a lot of the NASA dollars ). I think what really crushed NASA was the Shuttle. When they first proposed it it was supposed to cut costs by an order of magnitude and make all future space flights more affordable. It was going to do this by re-use. When the Shuttle actually became operational it turned out it cost an order of magnitude more to operate it than to shoot off one use rockets like the Atlas or Saturns. The huge expense of the shuttle fleet is what has kept NASA's manned missions flying in circles for the last three decades. I didn't know that. At least a few people kept their common sense the last four decades. Yeah none of the candidates actually got behind the manned moon and mars missions.. Not the Republicans or the Democrats. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4260504.html Obama Clashes With NASA Moon Program (december 2008) http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2008-12/chicago-we-have-problem Combinning the two programs.. http://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/01/15/the-future-of-nasa/ And finally the problem with combining the programs... Jobs jobs jobs... NASA's administrator pitches to save Aries rockets programs 1/14/2009. http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/local/5261153/nasa-funding-boost-create-jobs-griffin/r/qp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 They have a plasma rocket in testing and they are trying to test it on the space station by 2011. This should be the mode of propulsion to mars. Chemical rockets are not the answer to a manned Mars trip. Plasma Rocket They're working with plasma and ion drives at the advanced propulsion laboratory up at Goddard just outside Washington. I hadn't heard they were candidates for the mars mission. the entire reason for going to the moon is to use the water located their to make liquid oxygen fuel. this makes the entire mars mission much more practical because fuel is one of the heaviest components of any mission. Besides the ion and plasma engines NASA's developing aren't like the ones in scifi books and movies. Those things are very efficient, but don't exactly perform like a porsche engine for acceleration. They work by very slow constant small force. Last I heard they were candidates for robotic missions outside the solar system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I think what really crushed NASA was the Shuttle. When they first proposed it it was supposed to cut costs by an order of magnitude and make all future space flights more affordable. It was going to do this by re-use. When the Shuttle actually became operational it turned out it cost an order of magnitude more to operate it than to shoot off one use rockets like the Atlas or Saturns. The huge expense of the shuttle fleet is what has kept NASA's manned missions flying in circles for the last three decades.This is because space exploration became a govt controlled program. No one else was allowed to even attempt to go. Now, we have the first privately built spacecraft, that was built on a fraction of a fraction of a fraction the govt spends on the shuttle. If the govt had regulated private exploration, space would be a much cheaper and efficient operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 This is because space exploration became a govt controlled program. No one else was allowed to even attempt to go. Now, we have the first privately built spacecraft, that was built on a fraction of a fraction of a fraction the govt spends on the shuttle. And accomplishes a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 The military uses an updated Saturn IV rocket, same rocket which took us to the moon the first time. They've kept the assemble line open, as it remains their heavy lift rocket to launch military satellites. You sure about that? I was under the impression, for example, that the only ground facilities capable of handling those things were 39A/B and the VAB, both of which were completely refit to handle shuttle missions, instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 And accomplishes a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the mission.So you are going to claim that if the govt regulated private competition, we would not be able to accomplish just as much as the govt does on a smaller budget? And if so, I am sure there is tons of anecdotal evidence supporting the govt beating private industry at anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 So you are going to claim that if the govt regulated private competition, we would not be able to accomplish just as much as the govt does on a smaller budget? And if so, I am sure there is tons of anecdotal evidence supporting the govt beating private industry at anything. Nope. You and I can compare hypothetical scenarios all day long. What I'm pointing out is that claims that the private space industry has accomplished more than NASA are outright fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I still cant believe they have to land with parachutes. The Russians came up with a design in the 80's for a space plane, like the shuttle, that launched on top of the rockets, negating the debris danger. Since there will be no payloads to carry, like the shuttle, it could have been much smaller and lighter... and land like a plane. Oh well.... I guess this is kinda cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 This is because space exploration became a govt controlled program. No one else was allowed to even attempt to go. Now, we have the first privately built spacecraft, that was built on a fraction of a fraction of a fraction the govt spends on the shuttle. If the govt had regulated private exploration, space would be a much cheaper and efficient operation. Yeah, not so much. NASA was always a government agency, both when it was a disaster in the 80's and 90's and when it was in it's hey days of the 60's, 70's. The primary reason being manned space travel wasn't economical and only the government of super powers like the US and Soviet Union could afford to go. It's no coincidence that only the US and Soviets developed a manned space program initially. Nobody else, even governments could afford to do so. I think Europe has a manned space program today, but only because they combined the effort across Britain, France, Italy and Germany... And they don't even have their own launch vehicle capable of going to the International space station yet.... Likewise India, Japan, China are all following in our footsteps using government funding. After the Government developed and proved the basic technology, then after decades of civilian advancement based upon that government spending; did it become cost effective to build a civilian space vehicle just recently. Even so the civilian space vehicle just barely scrapes the edge of space and can't even achieve geo-synchronous orbit. Something the Government has been able to do since the 1960's. Governments are always the first in exploration. Who do you think sponsored Hsuan-tsang, Christopher Columbus, Vasco de Balboa, or Ferdinand Magellan.... Governments!!! Private enterprise comes second. Like the "Virginia Company of London" who founded Jamestown. Or the Plymouth company, or the East Indian Trade company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Nope. You and I can compare hypothetical scenarios all day long. What I'm pointing out is that claims that the private space industry has accomplished more than NASA are outright fraud. I think that's self evident. The space programs are in control of the Government because they were spawned in the days of the cold war. No private business could compete with the full resources of the US or USSR governments. This was a pride thing for many, part of the overall race for global domination by both countries. Now that we are up there and Iran is going to space, I think we can safely say that pride of country is long gone. We could privatize much of the space programs we have today. It would be interesting to know the efficiencies surrounding a private satellite vs a public satellite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 So you are going to claim that if the govt regulated private competition, we would not be able to accomplish just as much as the govt does on a smaller budget? And if so, I am sure there is tons of anecdotal evidence supporting the govt beating private industry at anything. I believe when Rutan the designer of the X Prize winner launched he claimed he only had to fill out a single one page form. I don't think government regulation was the sticking point in the early space program. No doubt it did play a role in the early civilian race to develop the technology in the 70's. When space launches could lead to nuclear alerts by the soviet or US ICBM's this is understandable. If the claim is government regulation set back and held back the civilian program, especially in the late 70's and early 80's. Then you have a point. If the claim is government regulation is what enabled the government to achieve their initial successes first, before private industry; then I think you are on pretty shaky ground.. I know of no private group who had the resources or who had any significant resources who attempted to go into space. Besides the government only restricted launches in the US. Any consortium to wanted to attempt such a launch was free to go elsewhere and attempt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I heard Obama is seriously considering scrapping the Constellation, and Ares I and Ares IV rockets. FYI the cargo heavy lifter is Ares V, not Ares IV. And Obama is definitely interested in sharing some resources between the two efforts -- although it's very risky to NASA to start mingling more tightly with the military space effort, if you ask me. The Pentagon started looking elsewhere for its launches long before the Columbia accident. It was the Challenger explosion that led to a real reconsideration of how many military launches would go up. Challenger also killed the west-coast polar launch concept, which was one of the Air Force's major requirements and which led to several design aspects of the Shuttle that were never fully utilized. The military uses an updated Saturn IV rocket, same rocket which took us to the moon the first time. They've kept the assemble line open, as it remains their heavy lift rocket to launch military satellites.This is not true. Every launch system in use today, military or civilian, owes a great technological debt to the Apollo program. But to call any of the military's rockets "an updated Saturn IV" is provably false. Saturn production was permanently shuttered in the 1970s.Here is a listing of all heavy lift systems in use today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talk show host Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Great to see them making progress. Putting people on Mars is way overdue and is a worthy goal for our great nation. The economy is in the crapper. unemployment is on the rise. world-wide, 1 in 5 people still go to bed hungry every night. sure, it would be exciting and fascinating to see man go to mars in our lifetime. im a huge sci-fi geek and fully appreciate the "coolness" of such an accomplishment. but when people are starving and dying of preventable disease, how can you possibly say that going to mars is a worthy goal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 The economy is in the crapper. unemployment is on the rise. world-wide, 1 in 5 people still go to bed hungry every night. sure, it would be exciting and fascinating to see man go to mars in our lifetime. im a huge sci-fi geek and fully appreciate the "coolness" of such an accomplishment. but when people are starving and dying of preventable disease, how can you possibly say that going to mars is a worthy goal? I'm not really disputing your point, but where have you read that 20% of our nation is going hungry?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 I'm not really disputing your point, but where have you read that 20% of our nation is going hungry?? He said worldwide. But if we stopped exploring until we solved all of our own major problems, we'd never go anywhere. For the record, I think Mars is too expensive right now. We should have gone to Mars a few times instead of beating up on Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.