Comments on: NASA News Too Depressing for a Headline

By: Philip

Philip — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 20:02:40 +0000

I’ve been a space enthusiast since the earliest day’s of the space program (yes I’m that old), and have always been in NASA’s corner. However, in the last few years since the “Vision for Space Exploration” was initiated I’ve become more and more discouraged by NASA’s response to and implementation of the “Vision”. After almost five years (since January, 2004) all we’ve got to show for this effort are some plywood mock-ups, tests of rocket motors and pretty power-point slides. Seems like we’ve spent more time and money on "presenting" the Vision rather than actually designing and building it.

I’m not sure how much of our tax money has been spent on this effort yet, but it’s got to be in the hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. And after all this time and money we’re now finding out the Ares 1 rocket isn’t even powerful enough to launch the current configuration of the Orion spacecraft! In addition there’s an underground community of engineers that have worked on an alternate launch system (Jupiter 2) that may actually get the job done, but NASA will never really consider it (wasn’t invented here mentality).

In 1961 we had one sub-orbital space flight under our belt, not much launch infrastructure and NO existing heavy lift launch capability when President Kennedy committed us to “landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth” within a decade. In only eight years we designed, built, tested, and fielded not one, not two, but three completely different man-rated spacecraft and launch vehicles! We literally started from scratch to landing men on the Moon in eight years! Today we have this huge existing launch infrastructure, existing medium lift and heavy lift launch vehicles, not to mention that we’ve done this before in the form of the Apollo Program (yes, yes I know it’s more than Apollo), but after five years we can’t seem to get off the ground!

Oh the bureaucracy! It’s not your father’s, or grandfather’s NASA anymore!

By: Greg

Greg — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 02:26:00 +0000

I would be very wary of relying on the Russians for any apsect of our space program. It is not that Russian technology and engineering is not reliable and durable since quite the opposite has been proven since the 1950s. The problem is that Russian politics is not reliable and a future Russian regime could decide to pull the rug out from under our space program in retaliation for a perceived or real offense that we commit in the future. If we have to depend on them in the short run then I propose an act of goodwill in scrapping our Euro-missile defense shield program. This should be a no brainer, but inexplicably the Bush admin. has stuck to this policy which has repeatedly poked the Russians in the eye and soured our relations with them. Despite the fact that a MIT study commissioned by the President concluded that the shield would not work, Bush turned it into a power play. The real motive I am sure that the program was not killed is that certain defense contractors stand to make a killing on it, even if it doesn't work. Killing the program would be a win-win for the U.S. reputation of excellence which would be tarnished when the shield fails if it gets tested, for the Europeans who would die believeing it will save them, and for easing diplomatic relations with Russia.

By: Karl

Karl — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:40:14 +0000

That's one small step for NASA, one giant disappointment for mankind.

By: David Portree

David Portree — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:48:05 +0000

This would be depressing if it was unexpected. However, the Congressional Budget Office pointed out soon after Bush made his January 2004 election-year speech that the Vision as described would cost a good deal more than either Bush or NASA was prepared to admit. It's another case of Bush Administration duplicity and incompetence. I suspect that the Obama Administration will do as the Clinton Administration did for the Space Station; kill the incompetently administered GOP program and revive it on a sounder footing.

By: Dark Gnat

Dark Gnat — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:37:23 +0000

I think the Saturn 5 idea is a pretty good one, and it could be a stop-gap until the additional technology arrives. It would be a nice way to show China/the world that we still know how to do it, even with old technology!

I also think it might be a good idea to have a space lottery. People could enter the lottory for a chance to get a free rocket ride into space. It would be expensive, but by having poeple purchase the lottory tickets, it would pay for itself, and may even make a profit. It most certainly would generate interest in the space program, and science in general.

By: Chuck Lam

Chuck Lam — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:43:06 +0000

I have this gnawing sense that it is slowly 'sinking in' to the money managers that space exploration is proving to be way too expensive for the little return on investment.

By: jerry

jerry — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:39:42 +0000

The Planetary Society, and perhaps others, have suggested a targeting of a Near-earth asteriod rather than the moon for the next manned space adventure. It gets us further sooner.

By: Neil

Neil — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:07:11 +0000

"NASA is screwed" <– there

By: genesis continuous

genesis continuous — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:15:23 +0000

And if President Elect, Barak Obama, wants to be Mr Nice Guy in the eyes of the whole world, that's got to be number 1 on his list.

David
– again

By: genesis continuous

genesis continuous — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:10:21 +0000

Headline -

When is rocket science not rocket science?
When Barak says, "OK, you guys in Iraq, come home"
and $6 billion a month suddenly becomes available. – [for something].

Your old mate David in NZ

By: quantum_flux

quantum_flux — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 05:02:25 +0000

OBAMA!!!!!

By: Kevin M.

Kevin M. — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 04:19:49 +0000

We should immediately halt manned flight fantasies beyond or including the ISS and join other nations in doing pure science missions, which do not put US lives at risk. Moon landings are mostly about prestige, not science, let other nations waste their money and lives on prestige. We have made our great mark on history, and will rarely be able to afford such "showoff" accomplishments again. The "return to the moon" was a cute PR gimmick for the Bush Administration, never expected to be taken literally. There is no need to scrap the shuttles on a matter of principle, many airlines fly craft that are older. America still thinks money grows on trees…maybe they will eventually grasp their real global impoverishment.

Title? "Nasa Still Living in Idyllic Bubble of 20th Century, Unable to Grasp Its Own Obsolescence".

By: DarkSapiens

DarkSapiens — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:47:00 +0000

What about DIRECT?

Any news on that front?

By: Sirclickalot

Sirclickalot — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:09:06 +0000

as a old man once said "oh bugger" !

By: Rick Tumlinson

Rick Tumlinson — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 23:10:06 +0000

Here's your headline:
"NASA Once Again Proves it is Predictable – Ares Underdelivers, Costs More Than Stated and Will Arrive Late"
or
"Perhaps It's Time to Look for Another Solution for the Gap?"
or
"Socialism as Practiced in Space Transportation Once Again Proves to be a Failure"
or
"USG Ignores Potential of Private Sector Solutions to Close the Gap and instead intends to Pour $2 Billion Into the Hole"
or
"Isn't it Time We Try Something New? NASA Can't Fill the Gap But American Companies Say They Can!'\
or
'NASA Powerpoints Once Again Fail to Line Up With Real World Realities – Congress Once Again Dumbfounded They Believed Them Again in the First Place"
or
"Ares Feeding Trough Ploy Successful in Bid to Steal $2 Billion More From US Taxpayers"
or
"Truck and Bus Drivers or Explorers?
NASA Still Confused as to its Role in the NewSpace World – Taxpayers to Foot Bill as Answers Sought"
or
"NASA approaches 50th Apollo Anniversary Year – If We Can Put Man on the Moon, Why Can't We Put Man (Woman) on the Moon?"

Just a couple of ideas…lol…

Rick N. Tumlinson

By: mike

mike — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:23:34 +0000

How about the headline:
"DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN!"
What does that mean? Well, in 1966 I was a newly-minted Ph D, on the ground, with NASA at JSC in Houston. The roller coaster ride over the 1965-1968 period for Gemini/Apollo was much greater than that described in this article, over-runs were rampant, the pogo effect for Saturn was a potential killer, etc … oh yes, and there was a little war going on then, too. Then as now, the media was overblowing the negatives while the engineers were quietly writing the history books with actions. Today's similarities to that period are much larger than the differences.

Of course, there is no immunity to being stabbed in the back by the politicians.

By: Mars Man

Mars Man — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:42:05 +0000

I have hope that as Americans we will not let the perception stand that we are letting the Chinese or Indians overtake us in the space race. It might require a Sputnik moment first, but I have confidence that we will get our priorities back in order. As Hawkins said, Man has no future if he stays Earth-bound!

And unless you are one of those nut jobs who things the end of the world is coming to the end and therefore why bother, I think most of will heed the call to continue exploring and improve ourselves, something that has been a calling in our blood from the beginning.

So have some hope Nancy!

By: brent

brent — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:12:10 +0000

Maybe NASA should hold a bake sale or something.

I'd give them 50$ if they asked.

By: Amir

Amir — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:57:01 +0000

Why doesn't wall street bail out NASA!?

By: neil

neil — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:24:45 +0000

NASA – No Ambition for Space Adventures

By: J.S. Brooks

J.S. Brooks — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:58:52 +0000

Two suggestions for a title:

Up, Up, and … No Way.

Bean Counters Ground Future

By: john mendenhall

john mendenhall — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:45:42 +0000

Well, ATM folks, here's a great opportunity. How can we get off the planet without bankrupting NASA?

By: George Duke

George Duke — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:36:55 +0000

NASA leadership has not done much to instill confidence in itself.
Normally we say "don't fix it unless it is broke"
NASA says "don't fix it even if it IS broke, wait for it to fail and blow up a shuttle and kill the crew, THEN fix it!"

By: Bosco

Bosco — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:02:00 +0000

Launchpad Fizzle

Nasa : Lost In the Space of Congress Ears

Democrats Call for Stimulus! Create Jobs! Save the Environment! Build ANOTHER Road! Declare To Many Problems On Earth, Cuts Nasa Budget.

Seriously Nasa MIGHT poke along as it has for decades. Don't look for an increase in budget, unless it's a Clinton increase. Cut the budget for 2 or 3 years in row, then restore a fraction of it and call it an increase. Since Kennedy space has never been a priority of Republicans much, much, less Democrats.

America has long ago lost it's vision and courage (despite the obvious exceptions of our military people.) Game over folks, they just haven't turned out the lights yet.

By: Gerald, Walnut Creek, CA

Gerald, Walnut Creek, CA — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:54:06 +0000

How's this for a title: "Another Typcial Day at NASA"

Does any of this really surprise you? It's just more of the same:
* A 30-billion dollar promise with a 20-billion dollar budget;
* Desparately trying to hold to a schedule that was too optimistic from the start;
* Unexpected engineering problems on a system that, on the surface, seemed like it was just a simple extension of mature technology;
* A "recovery" proposal that involves scaling back the specifications to what can be easily done within the limited budget and time frame.
It's the same old story, just different characters.
There's a dollar bill taped to my wall. It's to cover my bet with a NASA friend of mine that in 2022, 50 years after the last human left the moon, we will be still waiting for NASA to get us back.