It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   

SimonPeter
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 ?


But this won't kill the economy, it will be a huge boost! We still benefit from technology(ies) developed from the Apollo era. The technologies developed from this round of Space exploration will be immense. 3-D printed food comes to mind; even though it already in existence it will advance by leaps and bounds with respect to deep space exploration. Stronger spacesuits-maybe even exoskeletons for Astronaughts, robots/ cyborgs will have huge leaps in advancement to assist space travelers, space cargo and transport lines will have to be put in place for infrastructure. I could go on and on...This has the potential to be a major step for humanity. I'm talking HUGE!




posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
great. now we can launch twice as many useless rovers to a useless planet called mars. wow. guess we'll have a manned spaceflight capability again. super. using 1960's technology. anyway, when nasa ever gets around to doing something constructive like maybe assembling a REAL spaceship in orbit, let me know. maybe they can use that piece of dung, the ISS for spare parts. it's the only thing that it's good for! thank goodness for the B-37B space bomber the only space technology we posses right now that MEANS anything. hopefully we'll get away from this whole 'international' way of looking at space and go back to the way it should be, u.s., and everybody else. glad we built our spacebomber first. playing catch-up in space is always a b*ll buster !

edit on 1182014 by tencap77 because: spelling and the sure knowledge nasa will blow this cash on stupid science stuff again. space is about winning, not science.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   

tencap77
great. now we can launch twice as many useless rovers to a useless planet called mars. wow. guess we'll have a manned spaceflight capability again. super. using 1960's technology. anyway, when nasa ever gets around to doing something constructive like maybe assembling a REAL spaceship in orbit, let me know. maybe they can use that piece of dung, the ISS for spare parts. it's the only thing that it's good for! thank goodness for the B-37B space bomber the only space technology we posses right now that MEANS anything. hopefully we'll get away from this whole 'international' way of looking at space and go back to the way it should be, u.s., and everybody else. glad we built our spacebomber first. playing catch-up in space is always a b*ll buster !

edit on 1182014 by tencap77 because: spelling and the sure knowledge nasa will blow this cash on stupid science stuff again. space is about winning, not science.


My excitement comes from the technology(ies) that will come from this new Space endeavour. Anyway, there will already be Mars One colonists on Mars by the time NASA goes back. Yes Constellation is way expensive, and if I'm correct, is based off the Saturn Rocket's Heavy lift tech. However, when I think about the technology and advancements along with the Space infrastructure that will come from this, it makes my head spin.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by lostbook
 


There is a whole lot of hurt coming down the road and you want to 3D food . Have you kept up with the National News at all ? Have you not seen that China our biggest loan holder has started to divest it's self of our debt . The Fed has looted our treasury . I guess you think the Fed is not a completely privately owned Banking system owned by the same ones who have their hands into the IMF and World Bank . Have you even read about how the Gold reserves of the big banks are not there . Germanys 600 tons of Gold stored at the NY Fed can not be returned to them . Venezuela's 99 tons of gold is missing from JP Morgan in the Bank of England . This is the same all over .What has happened to the Gold ,and why should be your mission .
There are more important missions here on earth .



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   

SimonPeter
reply to post by lostbook
 


There is a whole lot of hurt coming down the road and you want to 3D food . Have you kept up with the National News at all ? Have you not seen that China our biggest loan holder has started to divest it's self of our debt . The Fed has looted our treasury . I guess you think the Fed is not a completely privately owned Banking system owned by the same ones who have their hands into the IMF and World Bank . Have you even read about how the Gold reserves of the big banks are not there . Germanys 600 tons of Gold stored at the NY Fed can not be returned to them . Venezuela's 99 tons of gold is missing from JP Morgan in the Bank of England . This is the same all over .What has happened to the Gold ,and why should be your mission .
There are more important missions here on earth .


Well, if what you're saying leads to what I think it will lead to, we'll definitely need 3-D printed food.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   

shaneslaughta
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.


You've just made my point.

Ares primary mission is not nor should it EVER be to ferry crews to and from the ISS. That's what Space-X should be doing under the Commercial Crew program.

So then, what is the mission for Ares again?

I'm all for progress in space. I am a space advocate on these boards. I just don't think an expensive NASA vehicle (Ares) should be reactivated without a concrete mission whose needs only an Ares can fill.


Just for comparison sake....


NASA vehicles....


Space-X vehicles....(compared to a NASA Saturn V which took people to the moon in the 1960s)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by lostbook
 


I would hope you have some saved now for that same thing and a way of protecting it .



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   

tencap77
great. now we can launch twice as many useless rovers to a useless planet called mars. wow. guess we'll have a manned spaceflight capability again. super. using 1960's technology. anyway, when nasa ever gets around to doing something constructive like maybe assembling a REAL spaceship in orbit, let me know. maybe they can use that piece of dung, the ISS for spare parts. it's the only thing that it's good for! thank goodness for the B-37B space bomber the only space technology we posses right now that MEANS anything. hopefully we'll get away from this whole 'international' way of looking at space and go back to the way it should be, u.s., and everybody else. glad we built our spacebomber first. playing catch-up in space is always a b*ll buster !

edit on 1182014 by tencap77 because: spelling and the sure knowledge nasa will blow this cash on stupid science stuff again. space is about winning, not science.


Tell us more about the "B-37B" space bomber again.... There is no such thing. You were thinking of the X-37B UNMANNED mini shuttle.

I guess you're still as misinformed as you were before my response to you in this other thread.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


The Ares is part of the Constellation Missions

The link above shows the schedule of missions for it. The list of missions included trips to the ISS and to the moon.

So it wasn't "a rocket without a mission" as you put it. Missions had been planned for it.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


I greatly appreciate your knowledge and expertise to my space threads. I think we'll need Ares to haul materials for space infrastructure; an Earth/ Moon/ Mars/ Deep Space transport chain. Falcon heavy will be for ISS supply and crew transport missions, correct? This is where I think things are headed.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 11:10 PM
link   

eriktheawful
reply to post by JadeStar
 


The Ares is part of the Constellation Missions

The link above shows the schedule of missions for it. The list of missions included trips to the ISS and to the moon.

So it wasn't "a rocket without a mission" as you put it. Missions had been planned for it.


Ok, and have those missions been approved and funded?

I'm all for the program by the way, but only if Congress is prepared to pay for the missions. Otherwise we end up with a ship without a mission.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 11:10 PM
link   

lostbook
reply to post by JadeStar
 


I greatly appreciate your knowledge and expertise to my space threads. I think we'll need Ares to haul materials for space infrastructure; an Earth/ Moon/ Mars/ Deep Space transport chain. Falcon heavy will be for ISS supply and crew transport missions, correct? This is where I think things are headed.


Falcon 9 is for the ISS.

Falcon Heavy would be for earth-to-moon and near earth asteroids. Falcon Heavy X would be for Mars.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


It must be late for you. Go back and do some research, this is something that as a student I know you can do:

Constellation Program

The goals of the program were developed starting back in 2005 to set goals for a new system for manned missions to the ISS, then Moon, then Mars. The findings showed that funding would need to be increased. Then in 2010, Obama cancelled the program, shelving it, and signed the NASA Authorization Act of 2010

In 2011, NASA detailed it's Space Launch System, it replaces the Ares system from the cancelled Constellation program, and uses the Orion Spacecraft that was designed and built for the Constellation program.

If you go back and take a look at the OP's original news link, you would have read:


NASA fared well in the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill that was cleared by Congress on Thursday. The legislation includes funding for the agency’s major space and science initiatives, including a crewed mission to Mars by the 2030s. That mission would be sent out on the Space Launch System.


Now.......does this mean NASA has a program funded until we get to Mars by 2030, etc?

Uh no. And that should not be a surprise to you. Congress or the President can cut funding or cancel a program at any time. Look what Nixon did to the Apollo program, which still had 3 more missions to fly, but were stopped at Apollo 17.

As with ANYTHING government funded, it can be cancelled.

However, at this time, I'm happy to see a bit more money being given to NASA......and less of the almost 1 trillion that we spend per year on the military.

While you have a point that private companies might have the way, wouldn't you rather see more spend by our government of exploration, and less on killer drones?

I know I would.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 03:07 AM
link   

eriktheawful
reply to post by JadeStar
 

If you go back and take a look at the OP's original news link, you would have read:


NASA fared well in the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill that was cleared by Congress on Thursday. The legislation includes funding for the agency’s major space and science initiatives, including a crewed mission to Mars by the 2030s. That mission would be sent out on the Space Launch System.


Now.......does this mean NASA has a program funded until we get to Mars by 2030, etc?

Uh no. And that should not be a surprise to you. Congress or the President can cut funding or cancel a program at any time. Look what Nixon did to the Apollo program, which still had 3 more missions to fly, but were stopped at Apollo 17.

As with ANYTHING government funded, it can be cancelled.


Right, however with Apollo there was an approved goal before there was a spacecraft.

With Constellation there was never that consensus on a goal.

I want that consensus. Because without it, you're right, its likely to be cancelled by the next administration or Congress.




However, at this time, I'm happy to see a bit more money being given to NASA......and less of the almost 1 trillion that we spend per year on the military.


So am I. I'm nor criticizing it. I'm just concerned that if the President doesn't come out and commit to say a Moon base, or a Mars mission that the funding for Ares will dry up.

I can hear it now: "We'll we've looked at the asteroid retrieval mission and decided it would be more cost effective to use a Falcon from Space-X for it."

And the program gets mothballed again with more hardware built but sitting around.



While you have a point that private companies might have the way, wouldn't you rather see more spend by our government of exploration, and less on killer drones?

I know I would.


Absolutely. I'm often screaming that here on these forums. I just think a clear goal which only this spacecraft can fill is the thing to ensure funding continuity between 4 year and 2 year cycles.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Okay, hang on. I think I must not be making myself clear here when posting, so I apologize for that. Let me try again.

Back in 2004, George W. Bush announced the Vision For Space Exploration Plan. It purpose was to replace the space shuttle, and was also in response the the Columbia Shuttle Disaster, and to help garner public enthusiasm for space exploration.

The goals of this plan were:

To complete the International Space Station by 2010
Retire the Space Shuttle by 2010
Develop a new Crew Exploration Vehicle (later renamed Orion) by 2008
Conduct its first human spaceflight mission by 2014
Explore the Moon with robotic spacecraft missions by 2008 and crewed missions by 2020
Use lunar exploration to develop and test new approaches and technologies useful for supporting sustained exploration of Mars and beyond.
Explore Mars and other destinations with robotic and crewed missions
Pursue commercial transportation to support the International Space Station and missions beyond low Earth orbit.

NASA's response to this was the development of the Constellation Program

In 2005, President Bush signed the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 into law. This act required NASA to:


The act requires NASA to carry out a balanced set of programs in human spaceflight, in aeronautics research and development and in scientific research. The act directs NASA to send robotic spacecraft to study the Moon and planets, and to study astronomy and astrophysics. The act directs NASA to use research satellites to conduct earth science research and research on the Sun-Earth connection. The act also directs NASA to support university research in a variety of fields.


It had the following goals:

Return Americans to the Moon no later than 2020.
Launch the Crew Exploration Vehicle as close to 2010 as possible.
Use the International Space Station to study the impacts of long duration stays in space on the human body.
Enable humans to land on and return from Mars and other destinations on a timetable that is technically and fiscally possible.

NASA came up with the Constellation Program, which included a new spacecraft, the Exploration Module named Orion, and the development of two different lift vehicles, Aries I and Ares V.

Orion Spacecraft:



Ares Lift Vehicles:


Along with this was a list of missions, which you can look at here in this link:

List Of Constellation Missions

Then, in 2010, President Obama signed into law NASA Authorization Act of 2010 which cancelled the Constellation Program and was replaced with the Space policy of the Obama Administration.

This shelved the Ares part of the Constellation program, but allowed the continual development of the Orion spacecraft.

Still tasked with coming up with a lift vehicle, NASA came up with the Space Launch System. This replaces the Ares system.



The SLS would use the Orion spacecraft as a crew module.

The budget for developing the SLS was $58 billion spread out over 2011 to 2013. The actual first date of launch for an actual mission is not until 2017.

The news article in the OP is showing how NASA received funding to continue development of the SLS.

Not Ares. Not Constellation Program.

Perhaps there was confusion. But it basically boils down to this:

Bush came up with a new plan for NASA.
NASA comes up with the Constellation program as the fastest way to do it all.
Obama cancels the plan, citing costs. Gives new goals that are more long term.
NASA shelves Ares, continues to work on Orion, comes up with the SLS program.
Then for 3 years NASA is left twisting in the wind on it: IE not enough funding.

Now, this past Thrusday, NASA is finally given funding to continue with the SLS program.

Yes, the SLS has mission goals: SLS Mission Goals and Schedule

No one is bringing back Ares.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I think it's good news for at least hoping the programs remain on life support and sustain tooling as well human experience core to make it all work when or if they ever get decent funding allotted to them. They don't have anything remotely like it now ..and really, haven't in a generation or more ..but there is hope. As long as it's not idle and shut down to lose the assembly facilities and options...there is hope. As long as people are still in NASA and not laid off or off to find work elsewhere...there is hope.

Hope is about all I have..but I do have that much.

The fact of the matter is, NASA has run an average 17 Billion for their *WHOLE*...*ENTIRE*...budget allowance for a few years at least. That's everything from payroll to facilities around the world to missions ranging from Voyager I and II (Still kicking) to the Mars Rovers...to their far more recent missions of public relations outreach and science education in other nations. (rolls eyes)

When they have more budget than the U.S. Federal Government spends to maintain unused and empty buildings it owns? (25bn by Heritage Foundation numbers) I'll be excited. Until then, I'll just be glad we haven't entirely killed our side while many other nations are radically ramping up theirs.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


That sounds good. Keeping the SLS part which has defined missions. Maybe that's the best we can hope for.



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


JadeStar, you are so good that I don't know how ATS got along without you before you came. You have educated me on so much space material in the last couple of months that I feel like giving you a public YAY! and thank you.

As for the thread topic, I'm always encouraged by more NASA funding, and say on threads like this that they and the other space agencies should have 50 rovers on Mars, dozens on the outer moons, several James Webb type space telescopes in operation, and manned missions up and ready to go to Mars and some of the moons.
edit on 19-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


I don't suppose most of you people are ex NASA or support workers ? We haven't explored earth yet and still have not overcome the financial distress that we are in here in the US . Space exploration now is like buying an expensive wedding ring for a failed marriage .



posted on Jan, 19 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


I have to agree with you that really whats the point? Space X is leaps and bound ahead.

Rocket design to be honnest hasnt changed much. Leave the simple task to private companys. It will be cheaper.

I dont know about putting the saved money in space science at least not all of it, a lot more should be done into alternative earth to orbit launch systems.
We wont get far playing with toy rockets, we need to find something better. My moneys on fusion pulse though SKYLON looks great (uk i know).



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join