Jump to content

Constelation program restart?


Spacetraindriver

What do you think about NASA's Future?  

42 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think about NASA's Future?

    • Things will go as planned
      12
    • Next president will improve NASA
      7
    • NASA is dead
      16
    • Other (if so please state)
      6


Recommended Posts

Claiming territory on other worlds is illegal anyways:P.

"Illegal" in international relations is functionally meaningless. There a number of long-standing historical mechanisms to solve such disagreements. One is called war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Space Shuttle was designed and built without any clear idea of what it would actually be used for. After struggling to find a role for the Shuttle, the decision was made to initiate the ISS program to give the Shuttle something to do. These programs have kept the agency busy in LEO for decades at great cost.

After the loss of the Columbia, the Constellation Program was established as an eventual replacement for the Space Shuttle. This called for NASA to return to the Moon by 2020, which meant that NASA would not be required to do much toward achieving that goal before the Bush administration left office. The program was never fully funded and was eventually cancelled.

The Obama administration preferred a "flexible path". This consisted of giving NASA various make-work projects that are rationalised by distant pseudogoals. The idea is that NASA will develop various hardware elements in the hope that they come in handy in the future.

With the advent of "New Space" companies, such as SpaceX, there have been numerous proposals for affordable programs that can return humans to the Moon and send them to Mars in the near term. The space advocacy community hopes to persuade the current presidential candidates to set worthy goals for NASA.

Here are some useful videos from the recent Mars Society Convention in Washington DC:-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhm, why exactly would we Califonians never let that happen? They have big space centers. We have a puney little lab.:mad:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Flight_Research_Center

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_Research_Center

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstone_Deep_Space_Communications_Complex

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_AFB_Space_Launch_Complex_6

All of those bring in federal money. And that doesn't include businesses that benefit from NASA contracts. Rocketdyne, for example, is headquartered in California.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel as If people forget that Apollo took place during the Vietnam war.

I know, right?

Not to mention that the Viernam War cost nearly ten times as much and killed a large amount of people, and ultimately failed in its goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To those who saw the zubrin video.

He mention many thing that I am tired to mention.

There are people who call themself as "realist" (just because they dont have much clue, so if NASA do it in a particular way it must be for a reason), so if NASA said that SLS needs to cost 20 billions and take 13 years to make which is a similar rocket than saturn V from 1965, then people think: "well.. space is expensive, so that is the reason"

This reminds me a method used in India to keep an elephant in place without build a super wall (as they should), from the moment they are little, they are tied with a rope to a pole nailed in the ground, at that age they dont have the strenght needed to remove the pole, they grow up knowing that and when they are adult do not even try. And this is what the new NASA policy (vs the old one) seed in the new generation "dont try because it can not be done".

Nasa today makes things just to spend money instead set a goal and find the most cost efficient way to achieve it.

That is why Elon Musk can do things at 1/10 of the cost in less time than Nasa (as zubrin said).

As zubrin said: "1 billion is a lot of money in the real word", due this, people already lost the yardstick about what can be the real space cost.

THe ones who vote "Things will go as planned" ask themself why so many vote for "Nasa is dead"

If after Orion capsule (who was build it without a goal, it has nothing new and they already spent several billions), James Webb Telescope, SLS (with its 4.5 billions by launch) and many other programs which was cancelled, the real question is why they think "all go as planned".

Edited by AngelLestat
english corrections
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and lets not forget the civil rights movement. There were more and FAR greater issues back then that could’ve bogged down Apollo. So the issues were having today in society are no excuse to write off space flight. NASA is dying? Get out of here. Ten people for Nasa is dead. Thats ten too many.

@AngelLestat - Nasa isnt dead. But no things arent going to go "as planned". Again for better or worse only time will tell. The only way I can see at this point for public interest to rise to what it was back in the 60s is more competition. Other then that... I dont know. I dont think there is a way. The only thing one can hope for is these more realistic space movies coming out now and games like KSP here inspire the next generation to want to be engineers and scientists instead of the next Bieber or all star athlete. Thats the main issue imo. Nasa lacks direction because society itself lacks direction.

Edited by Motokid600
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nasa lacks direction because society itself lacks direction.

I dont think that is true. People support helps a lot, manned missions to other planets is the kind of goal that almost everybody supports.

The problem that Nasa never even bother to have a plan of how to do it.

If nasa goes to the Congress and said.. this is our plan to go to mars, we need "a reasonable amount of money to do it", the congress will said yes.

I know that there are still many obstacles for a manned mission to mars, things that Zubrin forgot to mention.

But there are all solveable if you are prepared to take some risks. The mission needs to use ISRU and all the tools it can to reduce the overall cost.

That is being realistic. No to say: "mmm... but isru may add some risk, also artificial gravity and things that dont have at least 30 years of testing". This kind of mentality is the responsable to do nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NASA is a beauracracy. It's organization is outdated, and everybody needs to be "convinced" to do things in one way or another. Not only that, but NASA is controlled by Congress to a very large degree.

A rocket should take a few months to fully design. Another few months for design review, and then they should go about building the rocket. Do you think that's too fast?

In the late 50s, the Thor missile was developed so quickly that it took a mere 13 months for it's first flight. 13 months, in the 50s. Today we have advanced CAD programs, more experience, and a larger industry. Granted, SLS is so huge that it can't really be compared to the Thor. But since SLS began in 2011, the first test flight should have been in late 2013 or early 2014.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NASA is a beauracracy. It's organization is outdated, and everybody needs to be "convinced" to do things in one way or another. Not only that, but NASA is controlled by Congress to a very large degree.

A rocket should take a few months to fully design. Another few months for design review, and then they should go about building the rocket. Do you think that's too fast?

It's nothing to do with bureaucracy. How long does the private sector take to design and build a fighter jet, an airliner, a bridge, a power plant, or just a stupid highway? Just about any large engineering project takes at least a decade these days.

In the late 50s, the Thor missile was developed so quickly that it took a mere 13 months for it's first flight. 13 months, in the 50s. Today we have advanced CAD programs, more experience, and a larger industry. Granted, SLS is so huge that it can't really be compared to the Thor. But since SLS began in 2011, the first test flight should have been in late 2013 or early 2014.

It took only a small team to design the V-2 or the nuclear bomb. Nowadays, it takes 2000 people to design a new car.

This is because the systems are much more complex. The interfaces between those systems are more complicated. The requirements are more strict. The interactions between contractors and much larger teams take time. Quality and environmental standards generate more paperwork.

Folks like Von Braun (or Tesla, or Bell, or Da Vinci) were multidisciplinary experts. However, as the state-of-the-art advances, it is no longer possible for a single person to be an expert in chemical propulsion, aerodynamics, guidance software, electronics, acoustics, documentation, and project management all at the same time. Much more people are involved in large projects because they are all specialized in a specific area. Each area has its own constraints and each team has to coordinate with the other teams who have their own set of constraints.

In the 60's an engineer could pull out the slide rule and correct drawings on a piece of paper to fix something and send the drawing down to the machine shop. Nowadays you would set up a review board meeting to discuss the change with all the parties that are impacted, get the change to a CAD designer, conduct meetings, rewrite software, redesign interfaces, rewrite documentation, conduct more meetings, setup tests and simulations, negociate with suppliers and qualify manufactured parts. Large organizations are divided into smaller divisions that need specific communication channels. A lot more people are involved, IT support, logistics people, software developers, purchasers, quality people, and of course multiple levels of managers to coordinate the whole project.

This has nothing to do with government bureaucracy. It has to do with the size of modern organizations, whether public or private, and the complexity

- - - Updated - - -

I dont think that is true. People support helps a lot, manned missions to other planets is the kind of goal that almost everybody supports.

The problem that Nasa never even bother to have a plan of how to do it.

It's pretty much the opposite. Go out on the street and ask people to set a list of priorities. I can assure you that space exploration won't even be on the list.

NASA has published multiple Mars DRMs over the years, but nobody cares.

If nasa goes to the Congress and said.. this is our plan to go to mars, we need "a reasonable amount of money to do it", the congress will said yes.

I'm pretty certain they won't.

Actually, NASA administrators have been doing that for years without much effect. Do you have any idea how many organizations, agencies, and administrations go to Congress every year with very solid agendas asking for a "a reasonable amount of money"?

Edited by Nibb31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If nasa goes to the Congress and said.. this is our plan to go to mars, we need "a reasonable amount of money to do it", the congress will said yes.

Here's what actually happens:

The study estimated SEI’s long-term cost at approximately 500 billion dollars, a truly staggering figure, even spread over 20 to 30 years. The Vice President asked the National Academy of Sciences to assess the scope and content of the NASA study, as well as alternative approaches and technology issues. Although the Academy largely concurred with the NASA study, White House and Congressional reaction to the NASA plan was hostile, primarily due to the cost estimate. NASA was repeatedly rebuffed in its efforts to gain Congressional support for the plan. President Bush sought international partners, but the program was too expensive even for an international endeavor.

http://history.nasa.gov/seisummary.htm

And that's that. People simply aren't willing to spend what it would realistically take.

Edited by cryogen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nothing to do with bureaucracy. How long does the private sector take to design and build a fighter jet, an airliner, a bridge, a power plant, or just a stupid highway? Just about any large engineering project takes at least a decade these days.

With the amount of people working in the SLS? 1 year tops.

China wants to Build the World's Tallest Building in 90 Days, similar high than burj khalifa but bigger.

Lets take the jetfighter case, you know that many of those projects are an excuse than senates or politicians has to collect bribes from the companies selected, and these companies put few people to work and takes longer time to complete the project as an excuse to the amount of money they charge. This happen in everywhere, here in Argentina is very common with all the public works where always the same 3 companies (who owners are figurehead from the same politicians) compete.

It's pretty much the opposite. Go out on the street and ask people to set a list of priorities. I can assure you that space exploration won't even be on the list.

NASA has published multiple Mars DRMs over the years, but nobody cares.

If you ask someone if they want a robot in mars or their streets fix, of course they will choose their streets.

But if you said.. Our country needs to be the first again to show everybody else what are we capable, we need to be the first to put a foot in mars. Everybody will be agree.

Is not about exploration, is about pride and inspiration.

I'm pretty certain they won't.

Actually, NASA administrators have been doing that for years without much effect. Do you have any idea how many organizations, agencies, and administrations go to Congress every year with very solid agendas asking for a "a reasonable amount of money"?

Nasa never had a plan, they go to senate and said.. this is tricky, here we have a lot of risk, we still do not know how to do this.. etc.

That is not a plan. I hear one time in a documentary that if NASA goes with a good plan to the congress about how to send people (not robots) to mars, they will get the full support.

The study estimated SEI’s long-term cost at approximately 500 billion dollars, a truly staggering figure, even spread over 20 to 30 years. The Vice President asked the National Academy of Sciences to assess the scope and content of the NASA study, as well as alternative approaches and technology issues. Although the Academy largely concurred with the NASA study, White House and Congressional reaction to the NASA plan was hostile, primarily due to the cost estimate. NASA was repeatedly rebuffed in its efforts to gain Congressional support for the plan. President Bush sought international partners, but the program was too expensive even for an international endeavor.

As a said.. a reasonable cost.. That is not reasonable, that is an insult. again.. somebody here does not have any clue the amount of money that 1 billion represent and how much you can do with that (or somebody else can do with that).

Zubrin said that the amount of money that nasa had to go the moon with the apollo program, was similar (if we compare it with the GDP) to the today budget that NASA has.

Today ask NASA to do something, is drop the 80% of the money to the trash.

Edited by AngelLestat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the amount of people working in the SLS? 1 year tops.

More people worked on the Airbus A350 project or the Boeing 787 than on SLS. Certainly many more people worked on the F-35 than on SLS. The larger the organization, the more complex the project gets. Throwing more workers at a problem doesn't get it done faster. It usually just adds complexity and management overhead.

If you ask someone if they want a robot in mars or their streets fix, of course they will choose their streets.

But if you said.. Our country needs to be the first again to show everybody else what are we capable, we need to be the first to put a foot in mars. Everybody will be agree.

Is not about exploration, is about pride and inspiration.

If you ask people if they would like a cure for cancer, peace in the Middle-East, improve education, and to reduce pollution, they will always answer yes to those questions too. So now ask them which one needs to be fixed first, and that is where it gets complicated...

China doesn't have the same safety, quality and environmental standards. They also have a pretty authoritarian government. In most countries, you couldn't even get the building permit for a super-skyscraper in 90 days.

Nasa never had a plan, they go to senate and said.. this is tricky, here we have a lot of risk, we still do not know how to do this.. etc.

That is not a plan. I hear one time in a documentary that if NASA goes with a good plan to the congress about how to send people (not robots) to mars, they will get the full support.

See cryogen's post above. NASA has plans. It's their job to produce studies and reference mission architectures. They do it all the time. They simply don't have the support from Congress, because everyone has their own priorities (like finding a cure for cancer, peace in the Middle-East, improve education, and to reduce pollution... and lots of other stuff).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NASA will exist for a long time, but I doubt it will achieve much ever again.

With the current cycle of develop vehicle, cancel vehicle, start over, money is always being thrown to the contractors and if development slowed due to a vehicle being completed and used then they would get less money. I highly doubt SLS will ever do more than just its test launches. After that they will start over again to keep the money flowing.

The only way spaceflight will start to advance again is if someone can figure out how to make a good profit from it, in which case it will develop rapidly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More people worked on the Airbus A350 project or the Boeing 787 than on SLS. Certainly many more people worked on the F-35 than on SLS. The larger the organization, the more complex the project gets. Throwing more workers at a problem doesn't get it done faster. It usually just adds complexity and management overhead.

If you ask people if they would like a cure for cancer, peace in the Middle-East, improve education, and to reduce pollution, they will always answer yes to those questions too. So now ask them which one needs to be fixed first, and that is where it gets complicated...

China doesn't have the same safety, quality and environmental standards. They also have a pretty authoritarian government. In most countries, you couldn't even get the building permit for a super-skyscraper in 90 days.

See cryogen's post above. NASA has plans. It's their job to produce studies and reference mission architectures. They do it all the time. They simply don't have the support from Congress, because everyone has their own priorities (like finding a cure for cancer, peace in the Middle-East, improve education, and to reduce pollution... and lots of other stuff).

Edited by Nibb31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the amount of people working in the SLS? 1 year tops.

As in the other thread, you throw a number out for how long it would take to develop X or Y, with no rationale behind that guess (it's not even at the level of "guestimate"). Show your work for this figure.

If you ask someone if they want a robot in mars or their streets fix, of course they will choose their streets.

But if you said.. Our country needs to be the first again to show everybody else what are we capable, we need to be the first to put a foot in mars. Everybody will be agree.

Is not about exploration, is about pride and inspiration.

Nationalism can certainly motivate such a project, but such nationalism doesn't exist at that level right now. Apollo was 100% a result of the Cold War. No Cold War, no space race. There is currently no such rivalry. As such, regular politics will dominate any attempt to secure larger budgets for NASA---that's simply not going to happen, and to think otherwise is delusional. I don't think any grown-up from the US in this forum would disagree.

Nasa never had a plan, they go to senate and said.. this is tricky, here we have a lot of risk, we still do not know how to do this.. etc.

That is not a plan. I hear one time in a documentary that if NASA goes with a good plan to the congress about how to send people (not robots) to mars, they will get the full support.

LOL. Congress is filled with lawyers, and 20 year old staffers who majored in political "science," or other nonsense. They can't possibly understand the difference between a good plan, and a bad plan, for the most part they aren't even good lawyers. Aside from that, everything Congress does is about politics. Always has been, always will be. It has nothing at all to do with "doing the right thing," or actually fixing a problem that is perceived. It is about keeping their own jobs, and increasing their personal standing/power/chances of reelection. Period. This usually means programs get funded by horse-trading for stuff in their district. My wife has lobbied for her professional association in Congress (she's a surgeon). You don;t even walk in the door without a check, and for her trouble she talked to a 20-something year old with 2 fewer postgraduate degrees than she has, and 3 fewer science degrees than she has. She might as well be talking to a middle school student.

As a said.. a reasonable cost.. That is not reasonable, that is an insult. again.. somebody here does not have any clue the amount of money that 1 billion represent and how much you can do with that (or somebody else can do with that).

Zubrin said that the amount of money that nasa had to go the moon with the apollo program, was similar (if we compare it with the GDP) to the today budget that NASA has.

16-25 billion a year (500 B$ divided by 20-30 years) is NASA's current budget (30 years) or more if 20 years. The NY City public school system has a budget of 28 B$ as a reality check. That's not "an insult," it's what things cost in the real world. My own tiny city (500k people) spends 1.3 billion a year on the public schools.

Today ask NASA to do something, is drop the 80% of the money to the trash.

As with most spending the primary cost is LABOR.

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...