Budget deal puts NASA's space exploration plans back on track

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Check it out, ATS

Obama signed a spending bill yesterday that puts the cancelled Constellation program back on track.

"Constellation would have given NASA two sets of rockets suitable for a wide range of missions, with emergency abort systems and safety measures that the space shuttles never had. These rockets, known as Ares 1 and Ares 5, could have taken astronauts anywhere in our solar system. Constellation offered the quickest route to keep NASA's astronauts flying, and would send them beyond Earth orbit for the first time since 1972."

While I'm excited at this news, I'm also cautious since the Constellation program was cancelled in the first place because it was way to expensive to build and maintain as I remember. While I really do think we need to put a new heavy lift rocket in place, I wonder if Constellation is right for the job. Apparently, Obama thinks it is.

What say you, ATS?

www.nbcnews.com...




posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
WOOO HOOOOOO

There are a lot of big plans for space in the next decade.
I am just glad i get to be here during this awesome point in human evolution.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by shaneslaughta
 


Yeah, this is great news. I'm a little apprehensive at Constellation being re-vamped but I'm very happy and excited nonetheless.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Well its either that or we keep paying the Russians to be our chauffeur


I know what you mean though. Keep in mind space flight has always been costly.

I keep looking forward to the day anti-gravity propulsion comes into its own.

Then we will truly be able to unlock the secrets that are out there.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   

lostbook
Check it out, ATS

Obama signed a spending bill yesterday that puts the cancelled Constellation program back on track.

"Constellation would have given NASA two sets of rockets suitable for a wide range of missions, with emergency abort systems and safety measures that the space shuttles never had. These rockets, known as Ares 1 and Ares 5, could have taken astronauts anywhere in our solar system. Constellation offered the quickest route to keep NASA's astronauts flying, and would send them beyond Earth orbit for the first time since 1972."

While I'm excited at this news, I'm also cautious since the Constellation program was cancelled in the first place because it was way to expensive to build and maintain as I remember. While I really do think we need to put a new heavy lift rocket in place, I wonder if Constellation is right for the job. Apparently, Obama thinks it is.

What say you, ATS?

www.nbcnews.com...


I'd be more interested and excited in them saying this put the cancelled Terrestrial Planet Finder back on track after this happened...





Given the widespread interest in exoplanets and the potential for alien life....



That would be a better use of this money than revamping an expensive vehicle many in the space industry were rightly critical of.

What can an Ares do that a Space-X Falcon Heavy can not?

Practically nothing, and Space-X is further along on development of Falcon Heavy than NASA was on Ares when it was cancelled.

Bad move Mr. President. When you came to NASA Ames in November I thought sure the Astrobiology program would get a boost...



Please don't disappoint me...again.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Ares V is a big launch vehicle.

A big "heavy launch" vehicle such as Ares V was required by the Constellation Program to do some of the lofty things Constellation proposed. part of Constellations long-term goals (albeit unfunded goals, even prior to Constellation's cancellation) was for extended exploration of the moon using big heavy hardware (Moon habitats, pressurized Moon Rovers, etc) as a stepping stone to manned exploration of Mars (again, using big heavy hardware, such a a cruise vehicle to Mars would be).

To get these heavy pieces of equipment into space required a large heavy-lift vehicle -- i.e., the Ares V. I suppose smaller heavy lift launch vehicles may work, but that may require more launches, and more construction of the pieces once launched. For example, a cruise vehicle for Mars may require several launched pieces to be assembled in orbit, but a smaller vehicle would require those pieces to be smaller, thus requiring more launches. For example, a bigger dump track can haul more dirt than a small one, so fewer truckloads (fewer truck trips) would be needed to fill a hole.

edit on 1/18/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   

shaneslaughta
Well its either that or we keep paying the Russians to be our chauffeur


Ares is not to send crews to the Space Station. The Commercial Crew program which will have several private space vehicles like Space-X's Falcon do that.



I keep looking forward to the day anti-gravity propulsion comes into its own.

Then we will truly be able to unlock the secrets that are out there.


I look forward to the day when it is even proven possible.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Soylent Green Is People
Ares V is a big launch vehicle.

A big "heavy launch" vehicle such as Ares V was required by the Constellation Program to do some of the lofty things Constellation proposed. part of Constellations long-term goals (albeit unfunded goals, even prior to Constellation's cancellation) was for extended exploration of the moon using big heavy hardware (Moon habitats, pressurized Moon Rovers, etc) as a stepping stone to manned exploration of Mars (again, using big heavy hardware, such a a cruise vehicle to Mars would be).

To get these heavy pieces of equipment into space required a large heavy-lift vehicle -- i.e., the Ares V. I suppose smaller heavy lift launch vehicles may work, but that may require more launches, and more construction of the pieces once launched. For example, a cruise vehicle for Mars may require several launched pieces to be assembled in orbit, but a smaller vehicle would require those pieces to be smaller, thus requiring more launches. For example, a bigger dump track can haul more dirt than a small one, so fewer truckloads (fewer truck trips) would be needed to fill a hole.



But couldn't a Falcon Heavy pretty much fulfill the same role? Mars One is planning to use those. Why not NASA?



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Jade-Star -- I wrote my post before I saw yours (we must have been composing simultaneously). I know the Ares V had some design issues, but I don't think any of those were insurmountable. For example, the Saturn V had its share of engineering problems during its design and constriction phase, but those problems were overcome.

I agree that the Falcon heavy lift may be a great alternative, but I'm not sure who (spaceX or NASA) has the upper hand in designing a heavy lift launch vehicle.
edit on 1/18/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Jade-Star -- I wrote my post before I saw yours (we must have been composing simultaneously). I know the Ares V had some design issues, but I don't think any of those were insurmountable. For example, the Saturn V had its share of engineering problems during its design and constriction phase, but those problems were overcome.

I agree that the Falcon heavy lift may be a great alternative, but I'm not sure who (spaceX or NASA) has the upper hand in designing a heavy lift launch vehicle.
edit on 1/18/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


The way I see it....(And I am by no means a Space-X cheerleader, i cringed when people "oversold" them as a solution to everything in Space.)

Ares was in its early development when cancelled.

Several versions of the Space-X Falcon have already flown commercial missions. One of them is now regularly delivering a Dragon capsule full of supplies to the Space Station.

To me, since NASA already has a close relationship and other contracts with Space-X it makes more sense to use the Ares money elsewhere (like Space Science) while giving Space-X a slight boost in terms of a contract to fully develop the Falcon Heavy lift vehicle.

So everyone wins. Space science wins. Manned spaceflight wins (with a cheaper vehicle than Aries, NASA will be able to carry out more missions at lower cost).

Win win
edit on 18-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   

JadeStar

But couldn't a Falcon Heavy pretty much fulfill the same role? Mars One is planning to use those. Why not NASA?


Top add to my post above, The proposed Ares V can launch a much heavier payload, both to low earth orbit (LEO) and to trans Lunar injection (TLI).

Falcon Heavy:
Payload to LEO -- 53,000 kg (120,000 lb)
Payload to TLI -- 13,200 kg (29,040 lb)
Payload to GTO -- 21,200 kg (47,000 lb)

Ares V:
Payload to LEO -- 188,000 kg (410,000 lb)
Payload to TLI -- 71,100 kg (157,000 lb)

edit on 1/18/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Your telling me that Russia hasn't been taking out people to and from the space station?
Keeping the station supplied?

Space x was born out of the need for new tech.
As most of the space shuttle design dates back a few decades at least.

Space x won a contest years ago for their innovative design of a reusable manned space craft.

They are also a private company built for profit. As where NASA and its vehicles are not.


Either way progress is progress. Better to move forward than stand still.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
everytime i see new things started by nasa they gov cancels it in a few years . they should take most of NSA and all the other Intelligence agencies super high budgets and use it for this rather , as the others said any progress is better than nothing .



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
IMO, it dont matter who has a better design.

Just the fact that we have competition now is enough.

I'm happy to see momentum.

I cant wait till the self erecting habitats of the Mars One colony are shipped.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

JadeStar


I look forward to the day when it is even proven possible.


There was a Canadian inventor who had recorded proof of him levitating things.
Not shortly after he tried to show the world. Some super secret origination came in and cleaned out his lab.

Wish i could remember his name.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Soylent Green Is People

JadeStar

But couldn't a Falcon Heavy pretty much fulfill the same role? Mars One is planning to use those. Why not NASA?


Top add to my post above, The proposed Ares V can launch a much heavier payload, both to low earth orbit (LEO) and to trans Lunar injection (TLI).

Falcon Heavy:
Payload to LEO -- 53,000 kg (120,000 lb)
Payload to TLI -- 13,200 kg (29,040 lb)
Payload to GTO -- 21,200 kg (47,000 lb)

Ares V:
Payload to LEO -- 188,000 kg (410,000 lb)
Payload to TLI -- 71,100 kg (157,000 lb)

edit on 1/18/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


Ok, that is substantially different.

However..... Are we going down the road of building "a vehicle without a mission" again?

Remember, Ares V was intended for lifting people and equipment for a Mars Mission among other things. Yet there is no approved NASA Mars Mission.

This is sort of like in the 1970s when the Space Shuttle was being built. It was intended to be used to immediately begin building Space Station Alpha (what became known as the ISS).

It would be almost 20 years before the first component to the ISS was sent up on a Shuttle. Which lead to criticism that the vehicle was an expensive ride into space to essentially do the same job unmanned launchers were doing (lofting satellites). Until he Hubble repair mission most of the public failed to see any usefulness of the Shuttle.

If we're building the Aries V to do an asteroid capture mission that's something that could be done cheaper with a Falcon Heavy.

So if we are getting set to build this, there better be a more ambitious mission which takes full use of its capability and capacity.
edit on 18-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   

shaneslaughta

JadeStar


I look forward to the day when it is even proven possible.


There was a Canadian inventor who had recorded proof of him levitating things.

Wish i could remember his name.


Hutchinson.

Yes, one can levitate anything with a sufficiently large magnetic field. That's not anti-gravity. What he did was something like this:





Not shortly after he tried to show the world. Some super secret origination came in and cleaned out his lab.


His "lab" was an apartment near Vancouver. That super secret organization was called the Health Department. He was messing with high energies and microwaves in an apartment complex. Highly irresponsible in my opinion and they had every right to put a stop to it.

Of course this gets misreported in conspiracy circles all the time.

Look, NASA and others have been pursuing real anti-gravity for some time. They even flew Russian physicist Eugene Podkletnov (who claimed he had developed gravity shielding by spinning a superconducting disk in a magnetic and RF field) back in the 1990s.. They tried to duplicate his work with his help but came up short.

This was all public knowledge and wasn't hidden, nor was Podkletnov's lab seized, etc.

But that makes for a more boring story than "mad scientist inventor has his lab seized by shadowy government agency"
edit on 18-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Good point. Obama is a very smart man. If he makes the right decision(s) concerning Space exploration, the entire country will come out on top and he'll be remembered in a good way. I see your point and you are right: "Falcon can do the same thing as Constellation..." and probably for less cost. I don't know what the logic behind re-vamping Constellation could be at this point. I guess we'll see.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Soylent Green Is People

JadeStar

But couldn't a Falcon Heavy pretty much fulfill the same role? Mars One is planning to use those. Why not NASA?


Top add to my post above, The proposed Ares V can launch a much heavier payload, both to low earth orbit (LEO) and to trans Lunar injection (TLI).

Falcon Heavy:
Payload to LEO -- 53,000 kg (120,000 lb)
Payload to TLI -- 13,200 kg (29,040 lb)
Payload to GTO -- 21,200 kg (47,000 lb)

Ares V:
Payload to LEO -- 188,000 kg (410,000 lb)
Payload to TLI -- 71,100 kg (157,000 lb)

edit on 1/18/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


Ok, these are the actual figures. With the expected boost in cargo transport to and from Space( ISS, Mars, Moon, Etc..), I can see where where the larger capacity of the Ares will come in handy vs the capacity of the Falcon.

Oh, well. Let's use both!



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by lostbook
 


Where is the money coming from for this debacle ? Is this the final tactic to kill our economy ? Where is it we need to go ?





top topics
 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join