NASA Moving Ahead With Orion

[Saquist]

Having about 16 times the budget would do that.

NASA has had a budget of 471 Billion dollars 1958 to 2008. Or 790 Billion dollars adjusted for inflation. NASA has had the money it's need to do the job.

The problem is the administration.

There's a handy Wikipedia entry specifically concerning the NASA budget. While the notion that the budget was 16 times what it is now was way off, it was higher during the moon landing years. Note the column that shows budgets in 2007 dollars and how much higher it was during those years. Or just look at the percent of the federal budget!

While you can sum the total amount of money spent on NASA since 1958, that doesn't give you a very good idea of the year-to-year finances available to support this country's space program. And when budgets fall, programs have to be cut. The budget crunch during the seventies was particularly hard on the space program -- largely due to the activities of Senator William Proxmire, who made great political strides deriding the space program and awarding "Golden Fleece awards" to any science spending he didn't understand.

Gods, I hated that man.

On the other hand, these days I think increased emphasis on private space enterprise is the best future for humanity in space. NASA seems to have become too moribund and wrapped up in its own managerial red tape to crack the final frontier these days.

I got my info from the same site. I've seen it.
But I can't come away with any other conclusion that NASA effective squander it's budgets of the last 50 years on space probes, rovers, failed projects and space shuttles when it long should have been replacing the shuttle. Frankly I haven't heard anything significant to counter that. I was a huge NASA fan because I thought they were getting it done...but the ISS isn't enough to justify NASA.

Can anyone explain why NASA is developing whole new rockets (face plant) when there are rockets already designed that can do the LEO lift and LUNAR lifts that we need?

I was involved in a R&D project last year and when I suggested that Orion and Constellation needed to be cancelled all the people on the project justified keeping them simply because they created jobs...

WHAT WASTE.
Is that what NASA has been doing for the last 40 years...increasing the employment rates in TEXAS and FLORIDA? Because I have to say that is NOT there mission.

 

[Squiggy]

While the notion that the budget was 16 times what it is now was way off, it was higher during the moon landing years. Note the column that shows budgets in 2007 dollars and how much higher it was during those years. Or just look at the percent of the federal budget!

That's what I meant and I should have specified. NASA's budget as a percentage of the total budget is only a fraction of what it was during Apollo.

Because I have to say that is NOT there mission.

Their mission is whatever Congress says their mission is. They build whatever Congress tells them to build. They've been developing a replacement for the shuttle...and then funding gets cut...and then Congress tells them to do another thing.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

 

[MANT!]

Their mission is whatever Congress says their mission is. They build whatever Congress tells them to build. They've been developing a replacement for the shuttle...and then funding gets cut...and then Congress tells them to do another thing.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Exactly, We've had at least 3 proposed replacements for the shuttle under development since the 1990s..
The X-33 based Venturestar, a short lived aerospace plane, then Orion/Constellation..

All have had funding withheld by Congress..while the shuttle kept eating any spare money NASA had..

By eliminating the shuttle, NASA frees up much more money for spacecraft development..(just like they did in the 1970s for Shuttle development).

 

[Saquist]

Their mission is whatever Congress says their mission is. They build whatever Congress tells them to build. They've been developing a replacement for the shuttle...and then funding gets cut...and then Congress tells them to do another thing.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Exactly, We've had at least 3 proposed replacements for the shuttle under development since the 1990s..
The X-33 based Venturestar, a short lived aerospace plane, then Orion/Constellation..

All have had funding withheld by Congress..while the shuttle kept eating any spare money NASA had..

By eliminating the shuttle, NASA frees up much more money for spacecraft development..(just like they did in the 1970s for Shuttle development).

Don't blame the shuttle. It was the only necessary component...blame Nasa for ordering that extra shuttle. They really only needed 2 not 5.

The problem here isn't what Congress tells NASA to do.
Congress attempts to make the best decision with the choices that NASA gives them. Like I illustrated above...they weren't coming up with economic choices. They didn't push a shuttle replacement. I have to believe Congress would go for a cheaper shuttle design if NASA had lobbied for it. They lobbied for the ISS. This is about politics and the public view makes a difference on what propsal gets approved in Congress.

 

[arch101]

Let's also not forget that NASA really hasn't felt anything but a political need to develop a Shuttle successor. The Shuttle airframes are designed for 100 flights. No Shuttle ever flew to half it's design life. Many engineers say the vehicles are in excellent shape and could fly for many more years. Now, if the vehicle were nearing the end of it's design life, I could understand a SERIOUS replacement undertaking. But that need simply wasn't there. The Columbia accident changed all that.
However, what WAS there was a need to transport crew to the Space Station cheaper and easier than with the Shuttle. If only we could have developed Orion to run concurrent with Shuttle. Orion as a "crew taxi", and shuttle for cargo and servicing missions.

 

[Saquist]

Let's also not forget that NASA really hasn't felt anything but a political need to develop a Shuttle successor. The Shuttle airframes are designed for 100 flights. No Shuttle ever flew to half it's design life. Many engineers say the vehicles are in excellent shape and could fly for many more years. Now, if the vehicle were nearing the end of it's design life, I could understand a SERIOUS replacement undertaking. But that need simply wasn't there. The Columbia accident changed all that.
However, what WAS there was a need to transport crew to the Space Station cheaper and easier than with the Shuttle. If only we could have developed Orion to run concurrent with Shuttle. Orion as a "crew taxi", and shuttle for cargo and servicing missions.

That's a bit confusing because alot of people have been saying that the shuttle needed replacing that they were too old. I found this ODD to say the least. I know what the shuttle was rated for. They can go through alot flight wise (like you said) because they were expecting to be launching a lot more that they were Endeavor and Atlantis aren't even that old.

 

[RAMA]

Their mission is whatever Congress says their mission is. They build whatever Congress tells them to build. They've been developing a replacement for the shuttle...and then funding gets cut...and then Congress tells them to do another thing.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Exactly, We've had at least 3 proposed replacements for the shuttle under development since the 1990s..
The X-33 based Venturestar, a short lived aerospace plane, then Orion/Constellation..

All have had funding withheld by Congress..while the shuttle kept eating any spare money NASA had..

By eliminating the shuttle, NASA frees up much more money for spacecraft development..(just like they did in the 1970s for Shuttle development).

This is good, however, not having a replacement in a timely fashion is bad. Constellation could have been mdified, but NO it was cancelled. Now it will be 2015 before there is a NASA replacement.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

For comparison, The Saturn five's development was announced in 1962 and only 5 years later it had it's maiden voyage.

Having about 16 times the budget would do that.

NASA has had a budget of 471 Billion dollars 1958 to 2008. Or 790 Billion dollars adjusted for inflation. NASA has had the money it's need to do the job.

The problem is the administration.

NASA generally has 1 tenth of 1% of the total GDP..this is really miniscule for such a potentially game changing endeavor. If you want to quibble with the cost, you have to remember this is space travel...you need to develop technology that doesnt exist from scratch. You know what you pay for custom made goods? Same principle.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

The ONLY reason we landed on the moon is because we thought the Soviets were going to do it first and we were terrified by that possibility. Had we actually known they weren't as close as we were to a successful manned lunar-return mission then we wouldn't have gone.

Don't look now, while commercial spaceflight is flourishing,and NASA reorganizes, China and other countries are expanding. Don't be surprised if there isn't another--somewhat friendlier--space race in the coming 2 decades. Does anyone else on Earth really want one nation to monopolize space? China and Japan plan on going to the moon. India may also. Certainly China or another country may have their own space station by 2020. I don't see the US standing idly by.

 

[Saquist]

Having about 16 times the budget would do that.

NASA has had a budget of 471 Billion dollars 1958 to 2008. Or 790 Billion dollars adjusted for inflation. NASA has had the money it's need to do the job.

The problem is the administration.

NASA generally has 1 tenth of 1% of the total GDP..this is really miniscule for such a potentially game changing endeavor. If you want to quibble with the cost, you have to remember this is space travel...you need to develop technology that doesnt exist from scratch. You know what you pay for custom made goods? Same principle.

RAMA

This is more about planning that the finances.

 

[Squiggy]

You can't make long term plans to develop anything if Congress tells you to do something different before you're done.

That's. How. It. Is.

NASA doesn't get a blank check for 18 billion dollars a year to get to do whatever they wish. It's all planned out for them.

 

[RAMA]

You can't make long term plans to develop anything if Congress tells you to do something different before you're done.

That's. How. It. Is.

NASA doesn't get a blank check for 18 billion dollars a year to get to do whatever they wish. It's all planned out for them.

Yes, I think everyone thinks NASA plans everything but they don't, they're at the mercy of the bureaucrats.

Everyone thinks they have the right plans for NASA...if they explore deep space for curiosity and science, they are wasting money....if they develop disposable rockets again they are going backwards....if they only work IN LEO they are not exploring anymore...ugh, they simply can't win.

RAMA

 

[Saquist]

You can't make long term plans to develop anything if Congress tells you to do something different before you're done.

That's. How. It. Is.

NASA doesn't get a blank check for 18 billion dollars a year to get to do whatever they wish. It's all planned out for them.

Congress can't make those call with out NASA recommendations and the facts seem to be that the administration of NASA didn't push those needs. How can Congress tell a space agency how to proceed with anything with out being given some outline of their capabilities, problems and needs?

If NASA never said and pushed for a shuttle replacement then that's why they didn't get it. If they didn't push the long term plan that's why it wasn't there. It's not like there was another moon landing and space race...

In fact I know Congress ASKED NASA for ways to bolster NASA's own public opinion and their answer was..."Build a Space Station."

 

[MANT!]

The X-33 WAS pushed to replace the Shuttle..The Bush administration and Congress BOTH killed it in favor of more shuttle flights...(The Venturestar needed more money to finance a redesign of it's internal tank-age and it required much less personnel to launch than a shuttle and was unpopular amongst KSC technicians as many would had lost jobs so a POLITICAL decision was made to kill it).

NASA didn't have much of a say on the subject..

 

[jefferiestubes8]

China/Japan & the Moon

Don't be surprised if there isn't another--somewhat friendlier--space race in the coming 2 decades. Does anyone else on Earth really want one nation to monopolize space? China and Japan plan on going to the moon. India may also. Certainly China or another country may have their own space station by 2020. I don't see the US standing idly by.

RAMA is correct. We were discussing it in these other threads:
Japan taking humanoid robots to moon by 2015

US retreat leaves China leading way in race to return to Moon

as well as today in TG Daily an article on it:

Although the Chinese are behind the U.S. in terms of technology and experience, they have a clear plan and the financial resources to back it up.

China want to explore the Moon, Venus and Mars


Eventually the USA will pick up the pace around 2016 & 2020 when another election year is upon us and make it a plank for the election.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

What race to return to the Moon? Talk about exaggerating headlines. US couldn't care less if the China would... uh... beat them to the Moon. Now, Venus and Mars, that is something.

USA can still be beaten in a race to landing a man on Mars. That's what I call a space race. And so far nobody has landed a rover on Venus, and the only Venusian landers have been Russian, so that's a minor one.

There's so much that I'd just love to see:
1. Sending many probes to unusual places, such as floating probes on Venus, or floating probes on the gas giants
2. Sending probes and rovers to extreme places, like actively cooled Venusian rovers, ice drills and underwater probes to Europa, gas giant probes designed to endure extreme pressure to look beneath Jupiter's clouds
3. Sending men to another planet and/or establishing bases for future landings by sending supplies and building blocks
4. Interstellar probes to Alpha Centauri and the other neighbouring star systems that could reach them in under a century
5. Permanent human presence in deep space, on other planets, or space stations around other planetary bodies, or free-floating space stations

Go race about those things, not about returning to the Moon.

 

[Squiggy]

You can't loose a race you already won.

 

[Saquist]

The X-33 WAS pushed to replace the Shuttle..The Bush administration and Congress BOTH killed it in favor of more shuttle flights...(The Venturestar needed more money to finance a redesign of it's internal tank-age and it required much less personnel to launch than a shuttle and was unpopular amongst KSC technicians as many would had lost jobs so a POLITICAL decision was made to kill it).

NASA didn't have much of a say on the subject..

I did a little research.
It seems that is was cancelled because of some sort of redesign problem with a tank. There is speculation that it's cancellation was political as a relic of the Clinton administration Bush wanted it removed. There is also some that suspect that Bush wanted to keep the contracts and jobs for the shuttle program which cancellation for the X33 would abbreviated or cancelled.


NOTE:
THE X33 WAS APPARENTLY EQUIPPED WITH TPS SHOCK SENSORS FOR REAL TIME DAMAGE ASSESSMENT. CANCELLED 2001. COLUMBIA DISASTER WAS IN 2003. JUST A YEAR LATER NORTHROP WAS SUCCESSFUL IN CONSTRUCTING THE TANK NECESSARY FOR X33. THE PROJECT CONTINUED UNDER A NEW NAME AND DESIGN AND WAS SUCCESSFULLY LAUNCHED IN 2009.

NASA has not returned to the project.
The problem isn't that NASA doesn't have a say. We know that but the question is do they push these necessary endeavors. Nasa cancelled this project believing we didn't have the technology to create this conformal tank and just 3 years later some else does it.

 

[Mysterion]

How 'bout this: makeover NASA as a regulatory/research agency (along the lines of the FAA) and open spaceflight more to the private sector. Some tax breaks, maybe. Start leasing NASA-owned facilites (launch pads, etc.) to lease for use by privately owned spaceflight providers.

 

[Saquist]

How 'bout this: makeover NASA as a regulatory/research agency (along the lines of the FAA) and open spaceflight more to the private sector. Some tax breaks, maybe. Start leasing NASA-owned facilites (launch pads, etc.) to lease for use by privately owned spaceflight providers.

That sounds like a great idea. Go from project administration to regulation administration.