I made some replies that will be contested. I am a NASAphile. NASA-TV is on my TV at most times. So to back up my statements...Mike Griffin squandered budgets that Congress gave him to develop a new Human Rated Flight System. e.g. I watched the new Lunar Excursion Vehicle being tested in the Northern AZ desert. Isn't that like putting the cart before the horse? Before you develop the LEV wouldn't it be wiser to develop a rocket to get the LEV to the Moon? That is just one, of many, examples.
@Kapitananime Yes. Lunar Excursion Vehicle (LEV). This was bad from the start.
In te Apollo days we did not have the Lunar Module ready until right after Apollo 8. Scheduling expenditures is something that NASA has forgotten to do. Yes, the hardware will be needed. But you spend money first on the equipment that is going to get you to where you want to go. Prioritize.
There are many other examples of Griffin's boondoggle.
His biggest blunder was precisely his excessive focusing on rocket development. We have rockets with the same capability (and greater) than Ares I, what we need is landers (specifically for Moon missions, Mars missions need a HLV or fuel depots to be feasible). Constellation's mistake is not that it focused too little on rocket development, it focused WAY too much on it. The lander was defunded in 2009 to cover Ares I cost overruns. The crew rocket is the primary problem.
"Mike Griffin squandered budgets that Congress gave him"
The most costly items are the capsule, the launcher and the lander. The ELV and other surface systems aren't all that expensive. Griffin pushed a impractical launcher design (Ares I) and the other major pieces of the architecture(Capsule and Lander) got crippled because of the rocket's cost and poor performance. Ares I can't even lift Orion to orbit! The CEV has to use the service module to complete the orbital injection.
@JustAnAdjunct No. I disagree. Yes we have other medium lift rockets...NOT HUMAN RATED. But ESAS failed in not adopting DIRECT. DIRECT was exactly what the Presidential Directive required...USING EXISTING SPACE SHUTTLE TECHNOLOGY to develop the new Moon rocket(s). Griffin did not adopt this course because his intent was to kill the Shuttle. The major infrastructure changes would not support STS operations. DIRECT would have allowed both Shuttle and DIRECT operations. NOT WHAT GRIFFIN intended.
You don't have to tell me that Griffin messed up. However the "EELVs are not human rated and are unsafe" BS, IS ALSO HIS FAULT. ESAS was used to shoot down Direct AND EELVs. In 2003 when OSP was started they were planing to use EELVs for the crew launchers and no one was going around saying they're unsafe. In 2004 they planned to use EELVs as the crew launchers for the VSE and again, no one was concerned about safety. But after ESAS in 2005, safety suddenly became a big issue.
"DIRECT was exactly what the Presidential Directive required...USING EXISTING SPACE SHUTTLE TECHNOLOGY to develop the new Moon rocket(s)"
No, the VSE NEVER said anything about shuttle derived hardware. Go read it online and tell me where in it you see a shuttle derived vehicle? Then read ESAS - it's on the first damn page! Why do you think ESAS came about anyway? Direct is what Constellation should have been, Direct is NOT what the VSE should have been.
I like the way Miles tells us how he finds Musk's comments about Neil Armstrong as (INTERESTING to say the least.) Nice way to distance yourself from him Mister O'Brian. As an objective reporter should.
People had high hopes for the Obama administration. Obama was supposed to be a break from politics-as-usual. Unfortunately, it was all just campaign propaganda. Chicago-style cronyism is the driving force behind the Obama plan for NASA. The President did not allow Bolden the opportunity to help devise his space policy. Bolden was appointed after Sen Bill Nelson & others raised objections over Obama's original front-runners for the job. Bolden is just a mouth piece for the plan.
This issue became polarized for one reason, OBAMA! His lack of vision is creating such a rift in the American public and Congress on what NASA means. To me and and many Americans it means to BOLDLY GO. To explore and do science on distant worlds is the only reason we have NASA. The advancement of commercial and Profit incentive space programs is a fantasy and should be ignored by any President for they are not about science!
People are buying too much into the SpaceX hype. It takes more than a couple of launches to be proven as space worthy. Armstrong is opposing how Constellation was cancelled without enough analysis and a definite replacement plan other than some vague general ideas. I agree with him in that.
Did Elon Musk at 8:35 really just say what he said? "Buzz is a PhD from MIT and Neil is just a pilot." Really? You're really gonna do that? You're really gonna go there? I'm pretty sure even Buzz would kick his butt for saying something completely stupid like that. I just... wow. I can't even... just... wow. And this is the guy who heads the company that Obama wants to use (I know that's not official, but we all know he's looking at SpaceX) to lead America's space effort? We're going farrrrrrr.
He's not looking at anything. His administration is and they're relying on ULA more than SpaceX, since ULA's rockets have a good track record, whereas Falcon 9 is still brand new. These companies won't lead America's space effort, NASA will. Their function will be to launch what NASA tells them to. The payloads will be spaceships designed and built by NASA and they will be the ones conducting human missions beyond Earth orbit, not SpaceX or any other company.
That's the projected total cost. Technically it hasn't been spent yet and Cxp has consumed ~9 billion so far. Not saying it's a good idea to throw more money in the pit that is the PoR, but Falcon 9 is still an incomplete design itself and the low price will mean nothing if the rocket can't reach orbit.
@moneyman10k No. Science is NOT stupid. Science is an objective study of physical phenomenoa. Some people, on the other hand, may either be ignorant or stupid. As a matter of fact you would not have been able to make your comment without the miracle of the sciences.
Very balanced and informative but I have three issues that I could discuss for days ! I'll reserve this text to something that was not discussed but is of major importance.
LEO ! Not because of the concern of easier cheaper access but because of the traffic !! I am US Army Signal Corp. Cold War Tactical Satellite Commo Spec. I spent a lot of time writing to NASA about my concerns before the ODPO ( Orbital Debris Program Office ) was established and I review their quarterly reports to this day
SpaceX proved this by creating a new company, infrastructure, rocket and two new engines from scratch, FOR ONE TENTH what P&W got for the J2x upgrade. That's right, NASA spent ten times as much on an engine upgrade than SpaceX spent to make it into space, from scratch.
Something had to give - canceling Constellation was the right thing to do.
@tu8ca they could just cancel the iraq war and use that money to build a colony on the moon, have a manned mission to mars and still have money left to treat everyone at nasa to some delicious cake.
Any small company will cost less, but that goes down the drain pretty fast when the company gets bigger. Also I doubt that an engine upgrade to a better version if SpaceX that has the same requirements of NASA will still be that cheap.
@tu8ca I disagree with the cancellation of Project Constellation. If Mike Griffin had followed the Bush Directive then the project would have been on budget. DIRECT was the optimal option because there were few development costs. The DIRECT approach did not require retooling for production of rocket parts and did not require major infrastructure changes. Also R/D costs were minimized. Mike Griffin squandered the allocation of funds. That killed US Human Spaceflight.
@tu8ca I disagree with the cancellation of Project Constellation. If Mike Griffin had followed the Bush Directive then the project would have been on budget. DIRECT was the optimal option because there were few development costs. The DIRECT approach did not require retooling for production of rocket parts and did not require major infrastructure changes. Also R/D costs were minimized. Mike Griffin squandered the allocation of funds. That killed US Human Spaceflight.
The elephant in the room that everybody is pretending not to notice is the aerospace contractors who have entrenched themselves into NASA's operations. They have their own little fiefdoms and no competition, since they are single source suppliers in many cases. Both the Shuttle and Constellation are build and mostly designed in the private sector, by boeing, locmart, atk, P&W... The result has been slovenly response and ballooning costs.
@evan13579b Yes, it seems to be the case. Anyway, even from across half of the globe (i.e. Europe) the actions of Obama's administration in this area of science are eyebrow-rising at least.
What? FY2011 increases Earth science funding by 29%, extends ISS to 2020, Planetary and Astrophysics remain unchanged, Aeronautics is actually funded properly again, there's funding for a bunch of new R&D programs. The only decrease is in Heliophysics (-5%). FY2011 impacts human spaceflight, not space science. Thomas Young, who's a PoR advocate acknowledged that it funds science quite well when he testified before congress for the first time. That troll, moneyman10k, was half right.
@evan13579b I seem to remember that George Bush Sr. also planned a Mars expedition. NASA presented a $800 Billion plan and a Democratic Congress, wisely, did not approve. I also seem to remember that Nixon, a Republican, trashed the NASA Moon budget because he hated the Kennedys, whom were Democrats. The knife cuts both ways and until this partisan bickering ends we will continue to be polarized and not acheiving anything. I am no fan of Bush or Obama. Stop the war and explore.
Claiming that armstrong is being manipulated is very pathetic. Oh ya he's just being manipulated but your opinion, Musk, is not influenced at all by your business. And saying he's just a pilot not a phd is also pathetic. Musk also never got a phd. Armstrong's degree is in aeronautical engineering, Musks was in basic physics. I guess we should reevaluate Musk's contract because he doesn't have a phd and is thus not qualified.
Why is NASA having to explain every penny they need to help mankind, while the Pentagon is given a virtual free-hand and carte blanche to develop further weapons to foment destruction of our fellow men, women and children with NASA's budget a fraction of the Pentagon's budget?!!
Thats a great--no thats a BRILLIANT question. Why is the space administration getting shafted while the government spends money on things that just promote destruction and fear?
Commercial space travel is a desirable thing and it will happen when there is a real market for it. This nonsense accusation about NASA using obsolete technology is indicative of gross ignorance. I suppose some people think that there are undiscovered elements missing from the Periodic table and that the laws of physics pertaining to mass and motion are incomplete.
Who mentioned new elements and refining the laws of physics? I agree that the market is unstable for truly commercializing space access atm, but that's not what the administration is proposing. This so called "commercial space travel" will just be privatizing mission ops, nothing more. Maybe down the line a market will materialize, but until then NASA will be the prime customer - exactly as it is now. The difference is this won't require a 3 billion$ budget increase per year for 5 yrs like Cxp.
As for obsolete I assume you mean shuttle. Both Cxp and FY2011 as they are will end the shuttle program in 2010-11. The issue isn't obsolete vs. new, it's sustainable vs. unsustainable. There are 2 alternatives to the PoR that won't bust the budget - Direct and EELV + HLV, which is what this administration seems to be going for. There are also people that promote a shuttle extension as a means of achieving a smoother transition between shuttle retirement and the next program (whatever it is).
There are basically 4 camps - Cxp, Direct (what Constellation should have been imo), EELV + HLV (what's loosely being called commercial) and the people promoting shuttle extension as an addon to one of these programs. It's a big mess and it's not ass simple as Commercial vs. Constellation, Musk vs. Armstrong or whatever.
Musk, a pretty smart businessman, got lucky with one venture and now he thinks that he is the master of multiple domains. However, Neil Armstrong knows more about aerospace than Musk can even dream about knowing. The commercial space plan just doesn't add up, numbers wise. Musk is depending on billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to keep his space venture afloat.
Buzz Aldrin has a personal financial interest in another commercial space venture, so his advocacy was purchased.
Musk is not as rich as you make him out to be and he won't get "billions and billions" of taxpayer dollars. FY2011 has 6 billion$ divided over 5 years among SpaceX, Orbital, ULA, SpaceDev, Space Development Corp, Lockheed and Boeing. In fact if I’m not mistaken it was Griffin that approved SpaceX getting a contract for ISS resupply.
And SpaceX is not the only company out there. There’s also ULA, Orbital (launch vehicle providers), Boeing, Lockheed (spacecraft design) all of which have been developing hardware for decades. Many of the engeniers at SpaceX have worked in ULA, Lockheed, Boeing etc. previously. SpaceX may be an upstart company, but they do have experienced people working there. You are the one arguing against a single man and pretending that you are discrediting the workers in an entire industry sir.
***When I typed "Space Development Corp" I meant "Paragon Space Development Corporation" - a company that develops life support systems and has contracts both with both Constellation and SpaceX. They're also developing the next generation space suits that NASA will use along with Oceaneering Space Systems.
What does "The Obama numbers do not add up" even mean? It's a meaningless phrase. Congress is contesting the plan, because it's their job. The budget us a proposal, the president proposes - congress disposes, that's how things work. They are supposed to be thorough and examine everything in minute detail. It will be months before congress has it's final word. This isn't a battle of ideologies so much as it is a battle of different launch architectures imo.
Elon Musk has a lot of money and that money buys a lot of influence. His appeal to authority -by citing Aldrin's MIT credentials- is a poor attempt to discredit the overwhelming arguments against the Obama NASA plan. An appeal to authority is a logically faulty approach because it lazily avoids the the rigor of honestly investigating the validity of Armstrong's words.
When people cite Armstrong's opinion is that not an appeal to authority itself? The so called Obama plan is pretty much like the VSE prior to ESAS and closely resembles option 5B of the Augustine committee's report. If you want to argue against this plan, argue against Norm Augustine and the other members on the panel who provided EELV heritage as an alternative option to Constellation or O'Keefe who also thought EELVs could be used as crew launchers.
@JustAnAdjunct Wrong! Armstrong did not dismiss Musk by comparing Musk's credentials to another persons. Armstrong did not make an appeal to authority. Armstrong is an engineer and he has real world experience. None of the the Augustine options were ever adopted by Obama, so that point is irrelevant. The Obama plan was conceived behind closed doors with no input from the broader community of experts. The administration tried to shove the plan down our throats but Congress is spitting it out.
I wasn't defending Musk's appeal to authority, I was pointing out your own. Since Armstrong has so much experience I guess we should let him run SpaceX. Clearly the ~1000 people that work there clearly don't qualify for their job, since they've never done something of significance like plant a flag on the Moon [sarcasm]
Then why did Norm Augustine say himself "the plan closely resembles option 5B" during one of the hearings?
Mr. Musk is in no position to call Neil out on his opinion.
Especially when SpaceX is delivering the kind of vintage rocket technology at premium prices that wont do anything to change the way business is done in space, just who we do business with.
Hopefully his divorce proceedings wont lead to the first government bailout of a commercial rocket operation.
The way things go now, it looks like when finally NASA gets to Mars, they'll find a welcome delegation there holding "Welcome to China" banners in their hands. Not that we Europans are in better shape, paying back loans by borrowing even greater ones. ...
This world needs a big change if humanity wants to achive anything big in the next few decades.
The nations that lead on the frontiers, dictate the course of human history.
We currently spend half a penny on the federal discretionary spending dollar on NASA. Other agencies just the increases for one year.. ONE YEAR, equal MORE then NASA's entire budget for FOUR years!
Something is seriously wrong in how we fund NASA.
We task them with so much, and then expect them to do it with chump change.
Hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out banks and auto makers. Yet NASA???
Armstrong and Cernan and all the others are right.
The Obama plan if congress passes it, Is a disaster.
America is at a human spaceflight crossroads and it is as serious as a heart attack.
Obama didn't develop the plan publically, he didn't socialize it before congress first, it was horribly introduced, it is horribly flawed and our nations space heroes are ovwerwhelmingly with only few exceptions strongly against it.
The FY2011 budget is based on one of the options 5B (Flexible path EELV heritage) proposed by the augustine committee - a review of US HSF that was announced in May 2009, that had multiple public hearings and delivered it's final report in October 2009. Obama is not the one who came up with the plan (he's not an aerospace engineer), neither was Musk a member of the panel so your accusations against these men are moot. In addition modifying EELVs was the initial approach of the VSE before ESAS.
Not only did a special panel review US HSF for months, but people in the industry have been voicing their concerns about Cxp for years (the Direct guys most notably). If congressmen had no idea that the administration might propose changing/canceling Constellation, then it seems they weren't paying attention. And propose is the key word here, since FY2011 is just that - a proposition.
All I have to say about the "space heroes" is this - by supporting ESAS so strongly they're loosing favor with the factions within the industry who have been striving to reform Constellation for years. They would have gotten a more positive reaction if they called for a compromise, instead they chose to champion the PoR. As for Buzz, *sighs*, just pretend he doesn't exist for a while :P
@JustAnAdjunct Very good and to the point comments. As for the Apollo heroes, I respect them for what they did back then, but they are old school. It's become plainly obvious that with realistic funding levels, the old school Apollo-on-steroids approach isn't getting us anywhere. Cernan in particular lost all credibility to when he pushed for Ares I. I also don't really fall for the whole astronaut-hero-authority appeal in these hearings. It's downright pathetic.
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call it pathetic, but some people are placing too much weight in the opinions of Armstrong, Buzz, Cernan and the others. The simple fact is that engineers who actually work in the trenches have been against Ares I practically since it's inception, even going so far as developing their own launch architecture. What's even sadder is that no one seems to be listening to them now, even after they've been warning us for ~4 years that Cxp as it is, is a dead end.
@JustAnAdjunct What I meant by pathetic is that in one of the hearings you had Armstrong, Cernan and Augustine, the man who actually looked under the hood of this mess himself and everybody was all gaga about Apollo guys' hate of the new plan, virtually no word on what Augustine actually had to say. IMHO, too much emphasis is given to heroes of times past (and those were *different* times), should THEY really determine what future generations will witness, a bunch of old guys?
@JustAnAdjunct For example, why did noone invite engineers who were actually trying to make Ares I work and ask for *their* opinion? Are they simply not allowed to speak up?
I agree, but the way you phrase it it makes it sound like you're not disagreeing with them because they're out of touch with the current situation. It just sounds like you disagree with them cause they're old. I know that's not your position, but it just comes of like it and someone might interpret it wrong. I'm not sure why engineers that are actually working on these projects aren't the ones testifying before congress and I also find it odd.
@JustAnAdjunct Obviously, I don't disagree with them on account of their age. Norm Augustine would also fall into that camp, yet he's chaired two of these reviews in the past decades and I give more weight to his opinions because he scratched deeper under the surface. I cannot say how deeply Armstrong, et. al. have been following the situation for the past 5 (or more) years, but my number 1 impression is they were just briefed on it, possibly by someone opposed to the FY2011 budget proposal.
So lets start comparing educational backgrounds then Mr Musk - I would be interested to see your qualifications upon which you are basing such judgments about Mr Armstrong being 'just a pilot'. Smacks of total and utter disrespect and fear. Mr Musk has a LOT to lose if Congress agree with Mr Armstrong, so the fearful lash out at the first thing available. Perhaps Mr Musk is under pressure right now, but that's no excuse for his comments.
I'd like to start the bid off at $1000.00
Snowman374th 4 weeks ago
this is my bday :)
RgREnaissance 2 months ago
The president that was supposed to bring us all together has divided former crew members. interesting.
mjsimons57 7 months ago
Thumbs up for the 2 skirts at 2:43 !
Sm0k4bl3 1 year ago
To bad we couldn't tap into the black hole energy instead of using oil.
amandasdesigns 1 year ago
I made some replies that will be contested. I am a NASAphile. NASA-TV is on my TV at most times. So to back up my statements...Mike Griffin squandered budgets that Congress gave him to develop a new Human Rated Flight System. e.g. I watched the new Lunar Excursion Vehicle being tested in the Northern AZ desert. Isn't that like putting the cart before the horse? Before you develop the LEV wouldn't it be wiser to develop a rocket to get the LEV to the Moon? That is just one, of many, examples.
24kGoldenRocket 1 year ago
@24kGoldenRocket
What LEV? Do you mean the manned rover?
Kapitananime 1 year ago
@Kapitananime Yes. Lunar Excursion Vehicle (LEV). This was bad from the start.
In te Apollo days we did not have the Lunar Module ready until right after Apollo 8. Scheduling expenditures is something that NASA has forgotten to do. Yes, the hardware will be needed. But you spend money first on the equipment that is going to get you to where you want to go. Prioritize.
There are many other examples of Griffin's boondoggle.
24kGoldenRocket 1 year ago
@24kGoldenRocket
The LEV for Constellation has NOT been built at all or even tested in the AZ desert.
Show me a vid if you are so sure.
Kapitananime 1 year ago
@24kGoldenRocket
His biggest blunder was precisely his excessive focusing on rocket development. We have rockets with the same capability (and greater) than Ares I, what we need is landers (specifically for Moon missions, Mars missions need a HLV or fuel depots to be feasible). Constellation's mistake is not that it focused too little on rocket development, it focused WAY too much on it. The lander was defunded in 2009 to cover Ares I cost overruns. The crew rocket is the primary problem.
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
"Mike Griffin squandered budgets that Congress gave him"
The most costly items are the capsule, the launcher and the lander. The ELV and other surface systems aren't all that expensive. Griffin pushed a impractical launcher design (Ares I) and the other major pieces of the architecture(Capsule and Lander) got crippled because of the rocket's cost and poor performance. Ares I can't even lift Orion to orbit! The CEV has to use the service module to complete the orbital injection.
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
@JustAnAdjunct
* Not ELV, what I meant was LEV (Lunar Excursion Vehicle)
NASA and their infernal acronyms :P
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
@JustAnAdjunct No. I disagree. Yes we have other medium lift rockets...NOT HUMAN RATED. But ESAS failed in not adopting DIRECT. DIRECT was exactly what the Presidential Directive required...USING EXISTING SPACE SHUTTLE TECHNOLOGY to develop the new Moon rocket(s). Griffin did not adopt this course because his intent was to kill the Shuttle. The major infrastructure changes would not support STS operations. DIRECT would have allowed both Shuttle and DIRECT operations. NOT WHAT GRIFFIN intended.
24kGoldenRocket 1 year ago
@24kGoldenRocket
You don't have to tell me that Griffin messed up. However the "EELVs are not human rated and are unsafe" BS, IS ALSO HIS FAULT. ESAS was used to shoot down Direct AND EELVs. In 2003 when OSP was started they were planing to use EELVs for the crew launchers and no one was going around saying they're unsafe. In 2004 they planned to use EELVs as the crew launchers for the VSE and again, no one was concerned about safety. But after ESAS in 2005, safety suddenly became a big issue.
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
"DIRECT was exactly what the Presidential Directive required...USING EXISTING SPACE SHUTTLE TECHNOLOGY to develop the new Moon rocket(s)"
No, the VSE NEVER said anything about shuttle derived hardware. Go read it online and tell me where in it you see a shuttle derived vehicle? Then read ESAS - it's on the first damn page! Why do you think ESAS came about anyway? Direct is what Constellation should have been, Direct is NOT what the VSE should have been.
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
I like the way Miles tells us how he finds Musk's comments about Neil Armstrong as (INTERESTING to say the least.) Nice way to distance yourself from him Mister O'Brian. As an objective reporter should.
Kapitananime 1 year ago
People had high hopes for the Obama administration. Obama was supposed to be a break from politics-as-usual. Unfortunately, it was all just campaign propaganda. Chicago-style cronyism is the driving force behind the Obama plan for NASA. The President did not allow Bolden the opportunity to help devise his space policy. Bolden was appointed after Sen Bill Nelson & others raised objections over Obama's original front-runners for the job. Bolden is just a mouth piece for the plan.
JimMcDadeTake 1 year ago
This issue became polarized for one reason, OBAMA! His lack of vision is creating such a rift in the American public and Congress on what NASA means. To me and and many Americans it means to BOLDLY GO. To explore and do science on distant worlds is the only reason we have NASA. The advancement of commercial and Profit incentive space programs is a fantasy and should be ignored by any President for they are not about science!
Kapitananime 1 year ago
People are buying too much into the SpaceX hype. It takes more than a couple of launches to be proven as space worthy. Armstrong is opposing how Constellation was cancelled without enough analysis and a definite replacement plan other than some vague general ideas. I agree with him in that.
flamingtroll 1 year ago 3
im suprised america hasnt nuked the moon yet
TheRoblet 1 year ago
@TheRoblet Believe it or not that actually was considered in the late 1950's as a technological stunt.
24kGoldenRocket 1 year ago
@24kGoldenRocket well at least obama wont kill us all
TheRoblet 1 year ago
Did Elon Musk at 8:35 really just say what he said? "Buzz is a PhD from MIT and Neil is just a pilot." Really? You're really gonna do that? You're really gonna go there? I'm pretty sure even Buzz would kick his butt for saying something completely stupid like that. I just... wow. I can't even... just... wow. And this is the guy who heads the company that Obama wants to use (I know that's not official, but we all know he's looking at SpaceX) to lead America's space effort? We're going farrrrrrr.
noslashnognr 1 year ago
@noslashnognr
He's not looking at anything. His administration is and they're relying on ULA more than SpaceX, since ULA's rockets have a good track record, whereas Falcon 9 is still brand new. These companies won't lead America's space effort, NASA will. Their function will be to launch what NASA tells them to. The payloads will be spaceships designed and built by NASA and they will be the ones conducting human missions beyond Earth orbit, not SpaceX or any other company.
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
its been a big week in space. great show guys. keep pumping these out.
Gamble2185 1 year ago
Dear friends,life & world is very beautiful.long live peace & learn.love
selimshelly 1 year ago
This is why Project Constellation was criminally stupid;
Cost to develop the Ares I - $40 Billion, despite the fact that it's mostly existing or modified existing hardware.
Cost to develop the SpaceX Falcon 9 from scratch - less than one hundredth of that amount.
There needs to be congressional hearings to find out how tens of billions of dollars got squandered.
tu8ca 1 year ago
@tu8ca
That's the projected total cost. Technically it hasn't been spent yet and Cxp has consumed ~9 billion so far. Not saying it's a good idea to throw more money in the pit that is the PoR, but Falcon 9 is still an incomplete design itself and the low price will mean nothing if the rocket can't reach orbit.
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the new obama budget is trash, it spends more money on science and science is stupid
moneyman10k 1 year ago
@moneyman10k Go away, troll.
ugowar 1 year ago
@moneyman10k No. Science is NOT stupid. Science is an objective study of physical phenomenoa. Some people, on the other hand, may either be ignorant or stupid. As a matter of fact you would not have been able to make your comment without the miracle of the sciences.
24kGoldenRocket 1 year ago
Very balanced and informative but I have three issues that I could discuss for days ! I'll reserve this text to something that was not discussed but is of major importance.
LEO ! Not because of the concern of easier cheaper access but because of the traffic !! I am US Army Signal Corp. Cold War Tactical Satellite Commo Spec. I spent a lot of time writing to NASA about my concerns before the ODPO ( Orbital Debris Program Office ) was established and I review their quarterly reports to this day
majormixer 1 year ago
Nice show! I think that one was the best since 3 months at least.
sirbibo 1 year ago
(continued)
SpaceX proved this by creating a new company, infrastructure, rocket and two new engines from scratch, FOR ONE TENTH what P&W got for the J2x upgrade. That's right, NASA spent ten times as much on an engine upgrade than SpaceX spent to make it into space, from scratch.
Something had to give - canceling Constellation was the right thing to do.
tu8ca 1 year ago 2
@tu8ca they could just cancel the iraq war and use that money to build a colony on the moon, have a manned mission to mars and still have money left to treat everyone at nasa to some delicious cake.
hornetpalooza 1 year ago 13
@hornetpalooza
RmanDC 1 year ago
@tu8ca
Any small company will cost less, but that goes down the drain pretty fast when the company gets bigger. Also I doubt that an engine upgrade to a better version if SpaceX that has the same requirements of NASA will still be that cheap.
obaeyens 1 year ago
@tu8ca I disagree with the cancellation of Project Constellation. If Mike Griffin had followed the Bush Directive then the project would have been on budget. DIRECT was the optimal option because there were few development costs. The DIRECT approach did not require retooling for production of rocket parts and did not require major infrastructure changes. Also R/D costs were minimized. Mike Griffin squandered the allocation of funds. That killed US Human Spaceflight.
24kGoldenRocket 1 year ago
@tu8ca I disagree with the cancellation of Project Constellation. If Mike Griffin had followed the Bush Directive then the project would have been on budget. DIRECT was the optimal option because there were few development costs. The DIRECT approach did not require retooling for production of rocket parts and did not require major infrastructure changes. Also R/D costs were minimized. Mike Griffin squandered the allocation of funds. That killed US Human Spaceflight.
24kGoldenRocket 1 year ago
The elephant in the room that everybody is pretending not to notice is the aerospace contractors who have entrenched themselves into NASA's operations. They have their own little fiefdoms and no competition, since they are single source suppliers in many cases. Both the Shuttle and Constellation are build and mostly designed in the private sector, by boeing, locmart, atk, P&W... The result has been slovenly response and ballooning costs.
tu8ca 1 year ago
@tu8ca Man! I was gonna come back and say that! Good one! the rules NASA is confined by also influences their slooow evolution of things.
JobXplorersCom 1 year ago
Obama's space plan is the whatever-bush-didn't-plan-on-doing space plan.
Its the lets-not-give-people-fond-memories-of-a-republican-inspiring-great-things plan.
Its the ignore-the-moon-because-bush-wanted-to-go-there-even-though-its-the-most-cost-effective-place-to-go plan.
evan13579b 1 year ago
@evan13579b Yes, it seems to be the case. Anyway, even from across half of the globe (i.e. Europe) the actions of Obama's administration in this area of science are eyebrow-rising at least.
vaitripleseven 1 year ago
What? FY2011 increases Earth science funding by 29%, extends ISS to 2020, Planetary and Astrophysics remain unchanged, Aeronautics is actually funded properly again, there's funding for a bunch of new R&D programs. The only decrease is in Heliophysics (-5%). FY2011 impacts human spaceflight, not space science. Thomas Young, who's a PoR advocate acknowledged that it funds science quite well when he testified before congress for the first time. That troll, moneyman10k, was half right.
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
@evan13579b I seem to remember that George Bush Sr. also planned a Mars expedition. NASA presented a $800 Billion plan and a Democratic Congress, wisely, did not approve. I also seem to remember that Nixon, a Republican, trashed the NASA Moon budget because he hated the Kennedys, whom were Democrats. The knife cuts both ways and until this partisan bickering ends we will continue to be polarized and not acheiving anything. I am no fan of Bush or Obama. Stop the war and explore.
24kGoldenRocket 1 year ago
@24kGoldenRocket
I didn't say other presidents haven't tried things that republicans shot down.
That doesn't make this right. The cots thing is fine but limiting our goals to an asteroid is silly.
evan13579b 1 year ago
@evan13579b
"The cots thing is fine but limiting our goals to an asteroid is silly."
There's more to Flexible path than that - watch?v=wMrfAtqTikg
FP is a good strategy, if it can be implemented correctly. 'If' is the keyword though.
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
Claiming that armstrong is being manipulated is very pathetic. Oh ya he's just being manipulated but your opinion, Musk, is not influenced at all by your business. And saying he's just a pilot not a phd is also pathetic. Musk also never got a phd. Armstrong's degree is in aeronautical engineering, Musks was in basic physics. I guess we should reevaluate Musk's contract because he doesn't have a phd and is thus not qualified.
evan13579b 1 year ago
boycott arizona! lolz!
sexydorkmo 1 year ago
congratulation Mile's and all the tem form GIOVANNI MENINI
gmenini2 1 year ago
Why is NASA having to explain every penny they need to help mankind, while the Pentagon is given a virtual free-hand and carte blanche to develop further weapons to foment destruction of our fellow men, women and children with NASA's budget a fraction of the Pentagon's budget?!!
JobXplorersCom 1 year ago 2
@JobXplorersCom
Thats a great--no thats a BRILLIANT question. Why is the space administration getting shafted while the government spends money on things that just promote destruction and fear?
JAXEVANS 1 year ago
@JAXEVANS Mind-boggling isn't it?...
JobXplorersCom 1 year ago
Commercial space travel is a desirable thing and it will happen when there is a real market for it. This nonsense accusation about NASA using obsolete technology is indicative of gross ignorance. I suppose some people think that there are undiscovered elements missing from the Periodic table and that the laws of physics pertaining to mass and motion are incomplete.
JimMcDadeTake 1 year ago
Who mentioned new elements and refining the laws of physics? I agree that the market is unstable for truly commercializing space access atm, but that's not what the administration is proposing. This so called "commercial space travel" will just be privatizing mission ops, nothing more. Maybe down the line a market will materialize, but until then NASA will be the prime customer - exactly as it is now. The difference is this won't require a 3 billion$ budget increase per year for 5 yrs like Cxp.
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
As for obsolete I assume you mean shuttle. Both Cxp and FY2011 as they are will end the shuttle program in 2010-11. The issue isn't obsolete vs. new, it's sustainable vs. unsustainable. There are 2 alternatives to the PoR that won't bust the budget - Direct and EELV + HLV, which is what this administration seems to be going for. There are also people that promote a shuttle extension as a means of achieving a smoother transition between shuttle retirement and the next program (whatever it is).
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
There are basically 4 camps - Cxp, Direct (what Constellation should have been imo), EELV + HLV (what's loosely being called commercial) and the people promoting shuttle extension as an addon to one of these programs. It's a big mess and it's not ass simple as Commercial vs. Constellation, Musk vs. Armstrong or whatever.
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
Musk, a pretty smart businessman, got lucky with one venture and now he thinks that he is the master of multiple domains. However, Neil Armstrong knows more about aerospace than Musk can even dream about knowing. The commercial space plan just doesn't add up, numbers wise. Musk is depending on billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to keep his space venture afloat.
Buzz Aldrin has a personal financial interest in another commercial space venture, so his advocacy was purchased.
JimMcDadeTake 1 year ago
@JimMcDadeTake
Musk is not as rich as you make him out to be and he won't get "billions and billions" of taxpayer dollars. FY2011 has 6 billion$ divided over 5 years among SpaceX, Orbital, ULA, SpaceDev, Space Development Corp, Lockheed and Boeing. In fact if I’m not mistaken it was Griffin that approved SpaceX getting a contract for ISS resupply.
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
And SpaceX is not the only company out there. There’s also ULA, Orbital (launch vehicle providers), Boeing, Lockheed (spacecraft design) all of which have been developing hardware for decades. Many of the engeniers at SpaceX have worked in ULA, Lockheed, Boeing etc. previously. SpaceX may be an upstart company, but they do have experienced people working there. You are the one arguing against a single man and pretending that you are discrediting the workers in an entire industry sir.
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
***When I typed "Space Development Corp" I meant "Paragon Space Development Corporation" - a company that develops life support systems and has contracts both with both Constellation and SpaceX. They're also developing the next generation space suits that NASA will use along with Oceaneering Space Systems.
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
@JustAnAdjunct The Obama numbers do not add up. That is one reason why Congress is rejecting the plan.
JimMcDadeTake 1 year ago
What does "The Obama numbers do not add up" even mean? It's a meaningless phrase. Congress is contesting the plan, because it's their job. The budget us a proposal, the president proposes - congress disposes, that's how things work. They are supposed to be thorough and examine everything in minute detail. It will be months before congress has it's final word. This isn't a battle of ideologies so much as it is a battle of different launch architectures imo.
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
Elon Musk has a lot of money and that money buys a lot of influence. His appeal to authority -by citing Aldrin's MIT credentials- is a poor attempt to discredit the overwhelming arguments against the Obama NASA plan. An appeal to authority is a logically faulty approach because it lazily avoids the the rigor of honestly investigating the validity of Armstrong's words.
JimMcDadeTake 1 year ago
@JimMcDadeTake
When people cite Armstrong's opinion is that not an appeal to authority itself? The so called Obama plan is pretty much like the VSE prior to ESAS and closely resembles option 5B of the Augustine committee's report. If you want to argue against this plan, argue against Norm Augustine and the other members on the panel who provided EELV heritage as an alternative option to Constellation or O'Keefe who also thought EELVs could be used as crew launchers.
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
@JustAnAdjunct Wrong! Armstrong did not dismiss Musk by comparing Musk's credentials to another persons. Armstrong did not make an appeal to authority. Armstrong is an engineer and he has real world experience. None of the the Augustine options were ever adopted by Obama, so that point is irrelevant. The Obama plan was conceived behind closed doors with no input from the broader community of experts. The administration tried to shove the plan down our throats but Congress is spitting it out.
JimMcDadeTake 1 year ago
I wasn't defending Musk's appeal to authority, I was pointing out your own. Since Armstrong has so much experience I guess we should let him run SpaceX. Clearly the ~1000 people that work there clearly don't qualify for their job, since they've never done something of significance like plant a flag on the Moon [sarcasm]
Then why did Norm Augustine say himself "the plan closely resembles option 5B" during one of the hearings?
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
@JimMcDadeTake
If I could vote LIKE a thousand times on this post I would.
This is just what Obama thinks of how government should work.
HIS WAY or NO WAY.
Kapitananime 1 year ago
Well, I guess NASA will run into a "shuttle gap".
MrSpaceartist 1 year ago
Mr. Musk is in no position to call Neil out on his opinion.
Especially when SpaceX is delivering the kind of vintage rocket technology at premium prices that wont do anything to change the way business is done in space, just who we do business with.
Hopefully his divorce proceedings wont lead to the first government bailout of a commercial rocket operation.
evil13rt 1 year ago
The way things go now, it looks like when finally NASA gets to Mars, they'll find a welcome delegation there holding "Welcome to China" banners in their hands. Not that we Europans are in better shape, paying back loans by borrowing even greater ones. ...
This world needs a big change if humanity wants to achive anything big in the next few decades.
csfelfoldi 1 year ago
Yet they can find 6 Billion a year for Israel and nothing for U.S. employment in the space program.
ThisBoyTV 1 year ago
Thanks.
Zerg82 1 year ago
The nations that lead on the frontiers, dictate the course of human history.
We currently spend half a penny on the federal discretionary spending dollar on NASA. Other agencies just the increases for one year.. ONE YEAR, equal MORE then NASA's entire budget for FOUR years!
Something is seriously wrong in how we fund NASA.
We task them with so much, and then expect them to do it with chump change.
Hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out banks and auto makers. Yet NASA???
CessnaDriver2 1 year ago
Armstrong is also an engineer Mr. Musk!
Armstrong and Cernan and all the others are right.
The Obama plan if congress passes it, Is a disaster.
America is at a human spaceflight crossroads and it is as serious as a heart attack.
Obama didn't develop the plan publically, he didn't socialize it before congress first, it was horribly introduced, it is horribly flawed and our nations space heroes are ovwerwhelmingly with only few exceptions strongly against it.
CessnaDriver2 1 year ago
The FY2011 budget is based on one of the options 5B (Flexible path EELV heritage) proposed by the augustine committee - a review of US HSF that was announced in May 2009, that had multiple public hearings and delivered it's final report in October 2009. Obama is not the one who came up with the plan (he's not an aerospace engineer), neither was Musk a member of the panel so your accusations against these men are moot. In addition modifying EELVs was the initial approach of the VSE before ESAS.
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
Not only did a special panel review US HSF for months, but people in the industry have been voicing their concerns about Cxp for years (the Direct guys most notably). If congressmen had no idea that the administration might propose changing/canceling Constellation, then it seems they weren't paying attention. And propose is the key word here, since FY2011 is just that - a proposition.
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
All I have to say about the "space heroes" is this - by supporting ESAS so strongly they're loosing favor with the factions within the industry who have been striving to reform Constellation for years. They would have gotten a more positive reaction if they called for a compromise, instead they chose to champion the PoR. As for Buzz, *sighs*, just pretend he doesn't exist for a while :P
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
@JustAnAdjunct Very good and to the point comments. As for the Apollo heroes, I respect them for what they did back then, but they are old school. It's become plainly obvious that with realistic funding levels, the old school Apollo-on-steroids approach isn't getting us anywhere. Cernan in particular lost all credibility to when he pushed for Ares I. I also don't really fall for the whole astronaut-hero-authority appeal in these hearings. It's downright pathetic.
ugowar 1 year ago
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call it pathetic, but some people are placing too much weight in the opinions of Armstrong, Buzz, Cernan and the others. The simple fact is that engineers who actually work in the trenches have been against Ares I practically since it's inception, even going so far as developing their own launch architecture. What's even sadder is that no one seems to be listening to them now, even after they've been warning us for ~4 years that Cxp as it is, is a dead end.
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
@JustAnAdjunct What I meant by pathetic is that in one of the hearings you had Armstrong, Cernan and Augustine, the man who actually looked under the hood of this mess himself and everybody was all gaga about Apollo guys' hate of the new plan, virtually no word on what Augustine actually had to say. IMHO, too much emphasis is given to heroes of times past (and those were *different* times), should THEY really determine what future generations will witness, a bunch of old guys?
ugowar 1 year ago
@ugowar
OLD GUYS? Go to Hell!
Kapitananime 1 year ago
@Kapitananime I'm sorry, was that not *factual enough* for you?
ugowar 1 year ago
@JustAnAdjunct For example, why did noone invite engineers who were actually trying to make Ares I work and ask for *their* opinion? Are they simply not allowed to speak up?
ugowar 1 year ago
@ugowar
I agree, but the way you phrase it it makes it sound like you're not disagreeing with them because they're out of touch with the current situation. It just sounds like you disagree with them cause they're old. I know that's not your position, but it just comes of like it and someone might interpret it wrong. I'm not sure why engineers that are actually working on these projects aren't the ones testifying before congress and I also find it odd.
JustAnAdjunct 1 year ago
@JustAnAdjunct Obviously, I don't disagree with them on account of their age. Norm Augustine would also fall into that camp, yet he's chaired two of these reviews in the past decades and I give more weight to his opinions because he scratched deeper under the surface. I cannot say how deeply Armstrong, et. al. have been following the situation for the past 5 (or more) years, but my number 1 impression is they were just briefed on it, possibly by someone opposed to the FY2011 budget proposal.
ugowar 1 year ago
So lets start comparing educational backgrounds then Mr Musk - I would be interested to see your qualifications upon which you are basing such judgments about Mr Armstrong being 'just a pilot'. Smacks of total and utter disrespect and fear. Mr Musk has a LOT to lose if Congress agree with Mr Armstrong, so the fearful lash out at the first thing available. Perhaps Mr Musk is under pressure right now, but that's no excuse for his comments.
geekyg1rl 1 year ago
And for all his money, you would think Elon Musk would have a higher quality webcam....
mparish 1 year ago
Great show as always, thanks Miles and David!
mparish 1 year ago
YAY!!!!!
Chrisjr2007 1 year ago