Cancellation of the Space Shuttle Program - Shameful !!

[GoForPDI]

Obama did not cancel the Space Shuttle programme. Jesus..

 

[Krikkit]

Obama did not cancel the Space Shuttle programme. Jesus..

No, but he is sure setting NASA up for the death blow.

He increased the budget but didn't give it any objectives or deadlines. He policy states in the most ambiguous way "Look into heavy lift and we will see were we end up."

They are continuing to fund Orion but not Aries, as Robert Zubrin said "A capsule which can go down but not up." Sure it COULD fly or a Falcon, Liberty, Atlas, or whatever, but those rockets already have their own capsules in development.


I am just waiting, and I know it could happen any time after re-election. For a congressman to stand up and say "Look at this agency! Look how much money they are spending, and on such aimless and misconceived projects. We have private industry and Air Force Space Command to handle all of our space needs. It is time for NASA to go."

Its all a set up, I tell ya.

 

[Mantis]

No but he did cancel it's replacement leaving the US with no manned space program and none in development.

 

[Kyle]

One could argue Constellation needed cancellation but thats another story.

Bush decided to end the shuttle because of Columbia. Obama won't extend or give funds for a replacement.

Everyones at fault here both parties.

 

[Interceptor]

Hey,were too busy fighting three wars,and giving the rich more tax breaks than paying for programs of worth such as the shuttle program,besides the shuttles are getting old,and more,and more repairs have to be made,but I am going to miss them,I live an hour away from the cape,and have seen many launches,hopefully NASA will come up with something cheaper,and more efficiant in time.

 

[neutronium76]

And I am sorry since when did planting a american flag on a distant world become not worth it? Where is your pride man? Geeez :facepalm:

The moon does not belong to America. Nor it belongs to Russia, China, Japan, Europe or any other country of this insignificant planet called earth. The moon belongs to the moonians. See http://apollo18movie.net/ :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

No, but he is sure setting NASA up for the death blow.

He increased the budget but didn't give it any objectives or deadlines. He policy states in the most ambiguous way "Look into heavy lift and we will see were we end up.".

wrong - his own initial plan was much bolder that that, that one is already the compromise that the congress had as minimum possible. Obama wanted 6 billion for commercial flights, Congress wanted to give him only 250 million. Also he had constellation reduced to only those parts that actually made progress.

Also, Bush plans with constellation had been much worse: The project was badly managed and underfunded. It could never have lifted up in the planned time line with the planned budget.

I have nothing about big dreams, but when your money is involved, you also want a big plan that works.

 

[Ark]

wrong - his own initial plan was much bolder that that, that one is already the compromise that the congress had as minimum possible. Obama wanted 6 billion for commercial flights, Congress wanted to give him only 250 million. Also he had constellation reduced to only those parts that actually made progress.

Also, Bush plans with constellation had been much worse: The project was badly managed and underfunded. It could never have lifted up in the planned time line with the planned budget.

I have nothing about big dreams, but when your money is involved, you also want a big plan that works.

This is my thinking. Constellation was doomed and underfunded from the beginning, and Obama's original plan was very ambitious and would have helped save NASA from being stuck bumming rides from the Russians. Congress has decided to fight all of that in favor of keeping the Shuttle empire running in their home districts, plus the general attitude of opposing Obama just for the sake of doing so.

 

[Keatah]

And for what it's worth, I'm still not convinced manned spaceflight is useful anymore.

With the exception of the hubble servicing missions, dollar-for-dollar, unmanned probes and satellites give a far greater return in all aspects..including how long it takes to do things, the quality of science, the longevity of the 'craft. etc.. man is not ready for space just yet.

 

[Unstung]

There's an American on every Soyuz flight until TMA-12M, which is the furthest the list goes:
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/reports/iss_reports/2011/04032011_prt.htm
That mission launches in late 2013.

 

[T.Neo]

A two stage space plane could be likely overhauled faster than a SSTO.

But a TSTO is two vehicles, with different airframes, some different parts... then there is mating the stack together, the complexity of the separation system, etc...

Granted, if your SSTO has an airframe made of fractally folded aluminium foil and engines that defy mechanical engineering... a TSTO would probably be cheaper. But in terms of a understood technology, if it can be done well enough, it's probably a better option than a more complex system.

 

[RisingFury]

Obama did not cancel the Space Shuttle programme. Jesus..

Barack Obama is your new Space Shuttle!

Barack Obama ignites your booster.

 

[Urwumpe]

But a TSTO is two vehicles, with different airframes, some different parts... then there is mating the stack together, the complexity of the separation system, etc...

Exactly, but then, every part could be simpler and less optimized, since it needs to deliver less performance. If you need to calibrate a turbine shaft to the point of nano-g vibrations for preventing engine damage at 260,000 rpm, it is sure simple to understand that the same task would be easier if your engine operates at more modest speeds, power densities and performances.

Just like your cars engine never reaches the performance of a formula one car engine, but then, doesn't reach the end of its design life after 600 km (But rather 120,000 km).

 

[T.Neo]

I really don't understand why people keep on going on about Obama ruining the manned space program. Constellation was a problematic program and in the end, it was pretty much going to get axed any way you look at it.

Maybe commercial platforms are better; maybe they are worse. But I mean, really, don't you think it's worth it to give them a shot and see?

With the exception of the hubble servicing missions, dollar-for-dollar, unmanned probes and satellites give a far greater return in all aspects..including how long it takes to do things, the quality of science, the longevity of the 'craft. etc.. man is not ready for space just yet.

But umanned probes don't give nearly the amount of science you could get from a manned program, even if a manned program is a good deal more expensive. Just because a manned program incurs a lot of mass, means you can almost 'piggyback' more and more scientific instrumentation onto the mission. In addition, you have a return capability to Earth based labs, that can do far more than any in-situ analysis. Of course an unmanned probe can do a sample return but again, because a manned program is so much more massive in general, far more samples can be returned- the comparison between the mass returned by the Apollo missions and the mass returned by automated Soviet sample return probes is a good example.

Manned surface operations can work faster, have faster decision making, afford better tools and mobility... and of course, manned missions are inexorably better for PR than unmanned ones.

Sorry, but unmanned spaceflight is the 'budget option'... the only place a machine is truely better than a manned spacecraft, is for communications relays, and surface observation and imaging... but even those tasks can be 'piggybacked' on a manned mission, if possible.

Barack Obama is your new Space Shuttle!

Barack Obama ignites your booster.

I don't even know what that means. Maybe I don't want to know.

Exactly, but then, every part could be simpler and less optimized, since it needs to deliver less performance. If you need to calibrate a turbine shaft to the point of nano-g vibrations for preventing engine damage at 260,000 rpm, it is sure simple to understand that the same task would be easier if your engine operates at more modest speeds, power densities and performances.

Just like your cars engine never reaches the performance of a formula one car engine, but then, doesn't reach the end of its design life after 600 km (But rather 120,000 km).

Hence my humorous example of a airframe constructed out of aluminium foil.

My point is that if the higher performance machinery can be operated cheaply enough, it would be a better option than the more complex vehicle... even if the SSTO hardware is more optimised than that of a TSTO, it might be worth it, but there is a point where things just become too much...

 

[Urwumpe]

Robots are better for repeated tasks - If you for example only want to do the same measurements on different rocks.

if you don't even yet know, what to measure and which rocks could be interesting, humans become very favorable. You can easily see that at the speed at which Mars Rovers operate: Very slowly, because every decision by a human operator has radio delay.

 

[Donamy]

Yea, and if you get stuck in the mud, it's nice to have someone get out and push.:yes:

 

[Urwumpe]

Yea, and if you get stuck in the mud, it's nice to have someone get out and push.:yes:

At least somebody who can improvise with a pencil, a geological hammer and a checklist cover. :lol:

Humans are much better than any robot could ever dream of...if robots dream of electronic sheep at all. We have our tiny flaws and being alive is one of them, but finally, even the most stupid human exceeds the skills of the best unmanned probe by far.