Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government NASA Space Politics

Shuttle Extension & Heavy Launcher Bill Proposed 134

FleaPlus writes "In light of Congressional resistance to the new plans for NASA (criticized as 'radical') proposed by NASA head Charles Bolden, Sen. Hutchinson (R-TX and ranking member of the Senate committee dealing with NASA) has proposed a compromise bill. Hutchinson's bill calls for postponing the Space Shuttle's retirement until 2015, and instead of wholly canceling Constellation/Ares, it would adapt the more effective portions to a 'government-operated space transportation system,' largely inspired by the DIRECT proposal. NASA would also pursue commercial crew and cargo launches to orbit, although the bill leaves out Charles Bolden's proposal for R&D of 'game-changing' technologies for sustainable and cost-effective space exploration."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Shuttle Extension & Heavy Launcher Bill Proposed

Comments Filter:
  • No! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 06, 2010 @11:36AM (#31380956)

    I work for a lab which is deeply involved in both the Constellation and COTS programs. Yes, Constellation might have been cool, but Obama has the right idea. He understands that building rockets is economically feasible and therefore should be done by commercial entities. NASA is slow and bureaucratic with this because they have done it before. NASA is MOST effective when they are doing something without precedent. Then NASA is developing something new which no one else might have done, and which may not have economically rational given the risk of failure. This is a much better role for NASA than just replicating rocket technology over and over again.

    I have watched this first hand.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 06, 2010 @12:10PM (#31381142)

    The problem with using the aging shuttle technology indefinitely is one of safety. Not just for the crews of these craft, although that is very important, but for the safety of the entire program. Americans will not stand for too many other disasters. Anybody remotely acquainted with the space program knows that it cannot be made perfectly safe. But the American public will blow things far out of proportion if another shuttle goes down. Every big disaster that happens people start thinking that NASA is wasting money and lives on frivolous activities. We need to be very careful here!

    Blessed Atheist Bible Study @ http://blessedatheist.com/

  • Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Saturday March 06, 2010 @12:27PM (#31381226) Journal
    The same set of neo-cons that carp about Stimulus bill are busy pushing another jobs bill via this. And where are they from? Texas, Fl, Al, and Ca. Surprised that they would put their election ahead of the nation? Not me. With that said, this bill is a prime example of neo-con spend and borrow. It wants to extend the shuttle for another 2-3 years, but only gives up 3 billion to fund it. Well, if you fly ONE SHUTTLE, then you have to fund the entire crew. That means 3-4 BILLION for that year. So, you are better off flying as many as possible since each flight is only about 200 million in variable costs. The problem that we have with our space system is that we have depended on exactly ONE arch to get us to the moon and then exactly one to get us into LEO. That needs to change if we want to support a moon base, or even a mars base. As such we NEED multiple architectures. in
    1. Human lift to LEO,
    2. Small and Medium Cargo Lift to LEO
    3. SUPER-Heavy cargo lift to leo.
    4. Pluggable way to add a tug to a craft.

    The above will prevent Congress from doing what it is doing AND will prevent an accident in a rocket from shutting down the entire space program. Nixon killed skylab because he did not fund NASA properly for building the shuttle after shutting down Apollo in 1970. Likewise, W and the 2004 Congress SEVERELY underfunded NASA after pushing a mistake like Constellation. In addition, Challenger and Columbia shut down NASA's Manned missions for several years. For us to move off this planet, we need to prevent such nightmares from happening again. The heavy lifter that NASA is pushing is not on the drawing board yet. They want to do more RD to bring up to speed on engines. THEN they want to have Private Space build 2 or more heavy lift mostly on their dollar, and have NASA focus on doing cutting edge RD as well as focused on how to build out a system that moves us out of LEO. The new plan will build up private space and help get them to the moon along with a national consortium (almost certainly all of the ISS crew and possible adding India and Brazil). The issue will be the idiots in congress that did not fund these vehicles over the last 6 years, but are now wanting to throw good money after bad ideas.

  • Re:speaking of NASA (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 06, 2010 @12:31PM (#31381254)

    So what DO you do when the battery charger bursts into flames on orbit? Can't call the fire dept, can't run out the door, your options are limited. And fire extinguishers make a mess, more so in zero than on the ground. Also consider that many AC adapters, even for high-end consumer cameras, come with NO documentation. In many cases, the housing (made of an unspecified black plastic-like material) is sealed or glued shut and can't be opened to allow inspection of the circuitry. Given the effort required to gather to the necessary information to assess the safety of the unit, and the likelihood that even with all the information it might still be impossible to assure the safety of the unit, it really might make more sense to design and build your own.

  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Saturday March 06, 2010 @12:38PM (#31381300) Journal
    The reason is that NASA funds things like that, and then Russia, ESA, JAXA, CSA, and even Chinese use that as the approved list. The fact is, that the testing HAS to happen since it was not designed from the gitgo with space missions in mind. If an America company was smart (kodak comes to mind, but then, they are not very smart), they would follow the Fischer Pen approach and design a camera to survive in space, water, etc. and then advertise it as being rugged for space as well as water, camping, etc. That little bit of marketing helped make Fischer Space pen sell a million more than what it would have otherwise.
  • Re:No! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by nutshell42 ( 557890 ) on Saturday March 06, 2010 @01:12PM (#31381538) Journal
    Especially as there was no point to Ares I. It wasn't revolutionary like the VentureStar, it wasn't cheap and according to many not even especially safe.

    Perhaps I'm naive but I always thought NASA should look into building a Orion+Escape System combination that can abort safely in just about any circumstances. That way you could just take any launcher with the necessary payload and a proven track record and put Orion on top of it without all the man-rating bruahaha.

  • by rubycodez ( 864176 ) on Saturday March 06, 2010 @03:43PM (#31382702)

    most of the 300 year old houses in europe of lower and middle class collapsed long ago, your sample data set is very flawed.

    my usb flash drive is incremental improvement on something available in 1960s? Your pocket 1962 1311 IBM disk pack with 2MB, perhaps? My 8mbit ADSL modem is incremental improvement to 300 baud 103A dataset modem of 1962? you are just running off at the mouth on a keyboard in ignorance.

  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Saturday March 06, 2010 @05:52PM (#31383804) Journal
    To be really fair, it did not. We KNEW in the 70's that the USSR was already bankrupted. There was little that reagan did that affected the USSR outcome with ONE exception. Carter had put a grain embargo on USSR for their invasion of Afghanistan. reagan lifted it shortly after coming into office (as a present for the farmers). Now, the issue is that typically when a large nation or even an empire collapses, they will do one of 3 things:
    1. Massively expand outward via wars. Typically they engage in one or more wars to keep the economy going falsely and ppl pre-occupied (sound familiar)?
    2. Collapse inward, typically with a revolution (Romania comes to mind).
    3. A new change of gov brought in peacefully.

    The last is what happened with most nations of the USSR esp. Poland and Russia. It really was amazing to witness. Had we kept the grain embargo on USSR, then the gov COULD have pointed to the west and said that WE were responsible for denying them food. Basically, that embargo could have forced USSR's collapse to go very violent outwards. In this one regard, reagan did the right thing. In nearly all else, the man was a total idiot being ran by the likes of Cheney and Rove. It was reagan's and W's massive debt during good times that has caused America's and possible the west's economic collapse. Of course, the fact that W and so far Obama have not held China to their treaties and WTO obligation has a LOT to do with this.

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Working...