Reality check: Two shuttles out of a fleet of five spaceworthy ones were destroyed. That's not exactly success.
If the space race hadn't ended
- Thread starter Infern0
- Start date
Reality check: Two shuttles out of a fleet of five spaceworthy ones were destroyed. That's not exactly success.
Actually, it is. When it came time for the 2011 U.S. budget--drafted in early 2010--the cost of the program was a major factor in getting the axe. It was considered too costly. The fact that it was "behind schedule" and "lacking innovation" made it all the more vulnerable in a recession. It might have been a different story if the results had been more to the government's liking or if the need for it had been greater politically.
It simply couldn't "get 'er done" with the funds it was given, so it was scrapped.
^Your not going back far enough. Constellation never got the funds it needed to succeed. It was scrapped to stop wasting what funds it did get for better uses. "All the more vulnerable in a recession" is not entirely accurate as you'll notice NASA's overall budget was not reduced and has actually been on a slow climb.
Which still pretty much says it was an expensive program.
Which you could file under "being too costly."
It's simply getting to the point. You can talk about specifics, but in a year in which the economy was in the toilet, the Constellation program wasn't seen as financially viable and subsequently cancelled. Not that hard to understand why it got the axe.
In order to boost commercial development and more private sector involvement as well as for the research and development of new technologies.
Which is not anything like "given a lot of funding from out of nowhere".
um, yes?
agreed.
That goes back to my comment on spending the money on other more viable things.
Huh? Given the state of the economy and other government projects being slashed, the sudden allocation of nine billion dollars to NASA was indeed from out of nowhere. Particularly curious given the timing with news of China wanting to go to the Moon, don't you think?
Confirming that it was a budgetary issue as I said earlier.
Another confirmation of what I said earlier.
In other words, the costly project was a prime target for being cut when the new budget was devised.
^What "sudden allocation of $9 billion"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget
^^^
Actually, it was way more than nine billion dollars. Where did all that money come from during a time of government budget cuts?
Actually, it was way more than nine billion dollars. Where did all that money come from during a time of government budget cuts?
^What frikkin' money are you talking about? Those numbers show a low point in the year 2000 with a very modest rise through 2008 (based on 2007 dollars) which still manages to be a downward trend of the percentage of federal budget!
Edit: I doubt they kept ahead of inflating costs of existing programs over that time period.
Edit: I doubt they kept ahead of inflating costs of existing programs over that time period.
Emphasis Mine.
Which says...what? Constellation was going to be a very expensive program, and one that wasn't going to give the government the most for its bucks? Seems like all the more reason why it was cut during a recession...
If the space race hadn't ended you might even see two space stations, with ISS, actaully being an old one. A higher orbit or even in the orbit of the moon, which should protect it from radiation or any kind of solar storm, as long as they contantly adjust. They probably would have cancelled the shuttle program a while ago and stuck with what they are going with now.
^The moon would only protect from a solar storm IF it just so happened to be blocking the line of sight at the time. In most cases a station in a high orbit such as one of the lagrange's or lunar orbit would be more susceptible to radiation.
"what they are going with now" is nothing. NASA is currently trying to decide on the architecture for a heavy lift launch vehicle. When it takes you over a year to make a decision it's not a good sign for actually getting anything done.
"what they are going with now" is nothing. NASA is currently trying to decide on the architecture for a heavy lift launch vehicle. When it takes you over a year to make a decision it's not a good sign for actually getting anything done.
That heavy lift is what I am talking about actually. I know about NASA looking back at the Apollo days for new desgins. That is what they should have done a while back. Not to say that the shuttle sucks, I happen to like the shuttle. However, when it comes down to it, efficency is better.
I wonder how deep underground on the moon would be enough for constant protection.
Thats why I said as long as it constantly changed position, by lining itself up where the moon did block the solar storm.
^And just how do you plan to do this and still remain in orbit? Orbital mechanics would make your idea difficult to accomplish and very fuel intensive. And fuel is the biggest cost item once you get off the planet. Better to build a "storm cellar" on your station using water as shielding. The crew would retreat there for the few hours of a solar storm.
You only need about 1 foot of regolith on top of your habitat to protect it. You wouldn't be underground so much as shallowly buried.
Similar threads
