NASA

Science and Technology News, Advanced Military Projects and Space Exploration

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: NASA

Postby Access Denied » Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:26 am

Smersh wrote:I'm sure this is the same spammer who keeps coming back over at my own site where I'm a co-admin. Just posts to ask a question, then comes back in a few days time to edit in some spam. I think we've had him about 10 times now, each time with a different screen name and IP address etc. I don't know if you guys know about this btw, but we discovered a useful resource the other week which we've signed up to so we can make entries. A spammers database. And lo and behold I just entered the name of yer man and he's there!

Well that was timely, reemerged as "bureax" after what should have been a permanent ban rather than a timed suspension...

[see above]

Anyway, thanks for the tip, not in the database unfortunately.

Smersh wrote:Anyway to get back on topic, sadly I find it hard to see how NASA can generate more public interest without a massive increase in their budget, which in the current financial climate seems unlikely in the near future.

I think a manned mission to anywhere but the Moon (been there done that) would do it, no budget increase required… NASA’s budget has remained relatively constant, they just need to start spending it more effectively by investing a lot more in commercial space efforts rather than wasting untold billions more (practically the entire HSF budget) trying to build a new launch vehicle in-house.

Unfortunately it appears the problem lies primarily with certain members of Congress trying to protect existing funding for their districts… certainly understandable but not all that helpful for moving the nation forward as a whole. Certainly any major change in the way NASA does business will require many to relocate and/or retrain which would obviously be a very unpleasant proposition for a lot of people… :(

Smersh wrote:Perhaps if the US and her allies can somehow extricate themselves from Afghanistan etc that would make some more money available, not just for the US but for Europe as well so we can all reach out into space more effectively and with more public interest. Also of course, growth and the financial markets need to get back on track following the recent awful slump.

Agreed but any money saved should probably go towards reducing the massive debt first… :)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]


Re: NASA

Postby RICH-ENGLAND » Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:29 am

@ Tom.

agreed, a manned mission would do the trick, and maybe they could put that fantastic new moon buggy to some use that was created for the now cancelled return.

oh well, at least it got a bit of use when it was featured on englands awesome tv show, the one and only Top Gear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3po2gdQNgqk

thanks

rich
ATS HAS TURNED INTO A "BALLOONATIC" ASYLUM
User avatar
RICH-ENGLAND
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:06 am

Re: NASA

Postby Smersh » Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:56 pm

Access Denied wrote:
Smersh wrote:I'm sure this is the same spammer who keeps coming back over at my own site where I'm a co-admin. Just posts to ask a question, then comes back in a few days time to edit in some spam. I think we've had him about 10 times now, each time with a different screen name and IP address etc. I don't know if you guys know about this btw, but we discovered a useful resource the other week which we've signed up to so we can make entries. A spammers database. And lo and behold I just entered the name of yer man and he's there!

Well that was timely, reemerged as "bureax" after what should have been a permanent ban rather than a timed suspension...

[see above]

Anyway, thanks for the tip, not in the database unfortunately.


You're very welcome AD. Another spammer turned up at my site this morning, without actually posting any spam at that point (was prolly going to edit it in later) and username and e-mail didn't show at Stop Forum Spam but this one was listed under ip address so I booted him into Dimension 42. :lol:

Access Denied wrote:I think a manned mission to anywhere but the Moon (been there done that) would do it, no budget increase required… NASA’s budget has remained relatively constant, they just need to start spending it more effectively by investing a lot more in commercial space efforts rather than wasting untold billions more (practically the entire HSF budget) trying to build a new launch vehicle in-house ....


But didn't the Obama admin or Congress cancel the shuttle replacement? (I've been trying to find it but can't remember what it was called now, but I think it had an "X" in it and was a very large rocket as I recall.)

Amongst quite a few other links I did find this about NASA budget cuts:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... udget.html

From that link it looks like the James Webb Space Telescope is in danger from budget cuts but I sure hope that doesn't happen. :?
Pobody's nerfect
User avatar
Smersh
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:58 pm
Location: London, England

Re: NASA

Postby Access Denied » Sat Jul 16, 2011 7:17 am

Smersh wrote:But didn't the Obama admin or Congress cancel the shuttle replacement? (I've been trying to find it but can't remember what it was called now, but I think it had an "X" in it and was a very large rocket as I recall.)

Yeah, the Constellation Program (CxP) but the joke is because it was so massively over budget and behind schedule, there was wasn’t enough money in NASA’s budget to finish it and keep the Shuttle flying so there would have been a “gap” anyway.

Here’s a fairly good summary of what all went down that just came out in Aviation Week

What Next For U.S. Human Spaceflight?

After Obama took office in 2009, his space-policy team surprised Congress with a budget request that terminated the Constellation program outright, including both the Ares I crew launcher and the planned Ares V heavy-lifter. The new plan handed to the private sector the job of transporting cargo and crew to the ISS. The budget request, delivered without preamble or detail to lawmakers accustomed to a more collaborative approach to working with the executive branch, triggered a strong negative reaction from senators and representatives.

Among them were influential members such as Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Texas) with serious constituent interests in maintaining the publicly backed jobs Constellation provided, and other members from both parties who had given their good-faith endorsement to the old program.

The 2011 NASA budget request, and the administration’s ham-handed approach to dealing with the negative congressional reaction, added to the “gap” in U.S. human spaceflight capabilities that already was an issue on Capitol Hill. The dispute culminated in the compromise NASA Authorization Act of 2010, a three-year measure enacted and signed by Obama in December 2010. Under the legislative process, funding would be covered in a separate appropriation.

The reauthorization legislation essentially called for a shift of funds from the open-ended technology-development program NASA wants to fast-track development of a heavy-lift rocket able to launch 130 metric tons. The technology program, part of Obama’s original request, is designed to advance readiness levels for a wide range of technologies that will be needed to send humans on exploration missions beyond LEO. The heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS) and a Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) derived from Constellation’s Orion capsule are intended to place enough hardware into LEO to move beyond it.

Some of us “affectionately” refer to the SLS as the Senate Launch System:x

It will use, surprise, surprise… “Shuttle-derived” solid rocket boosters just like the canceled Ares I (aka “The Stick”) and Ares V would have so now we’re right back where we started with a proven massively expensive in-house development program that no doubt won’t be any cheaper to fly than the Shuttle either. The end result of course being manned space exploration keeps getting pushed further and further into the future…

Hell, at this rate who knows, Elon (Space-X) could very well be having on drink on Mars before NASA gets anyone out of Earth orbit again. :roll:

That said, it remains to be seen if funding for things like Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) and Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) will suffer as a result…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCDev
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial ... n_Services

To understand where I’m coming from, I recommend starting with this…

Space Access Society Policy Summary
http://www.space-access.org/updates/saspolcy.html

In the best of all possible worlds, we'd have long ago dismantled the NASA "human spaceflight" empire for being a massive inflexible bureaucracy neither able nor willing to make any real changes in what they do: Flying a half-dozen people on a handful of missions a year at billions of dollars a mission. We'd have put money into low-cost access demonstration projects and investment incentives, and once the results started flying we'd have rebuilt NASA as a far smaller leading-edge research and exploration agency flying dozens of times a year on other people's rockets at less cost than it now (in a good year) flies a handful of times on its own.

From the SAS home page…

“Reach low orbit and you’re halfway to anywhere in the Solar System”
- Robert A. Heinlein

I also recommend making Clark Lindsey’s RLV and Space Transport News part of your daily diet…

http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/

Ad Astra!

Tom
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Previous

Google

Return to Science & Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron