Augustine commission/Ares alternatives

[ijuin]

We choose not to go to the Moon. We choose not to go to the Moon, and not to do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

 

[Brad]

We choose not to go to the Moon. We choose not to go to the Moon, and not to do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

:rofl: And they said Obama was just like Kennedy....

 

[Moonwalker]

:rofl: And they said Obama was just like Kennedy....

He certainly is like or comes close to him in a few aspects. But not related to manned space flight. It was known that he is going to spend a lot of money for different things.

But there is still nothing else than a lot of speculation and guessing by individuals and news articles. The Augustine Commission has not yet published its final report and the White House did not decide anything yet.

But, in my humble point of view, it indeed might be possible that Obama becomes a president for real sissies, in case he finally brings down the last vestiges of manned space flight enthusiasm...

 

[Brad]

But there is still nothing else than a lot of speculation and guessing by individuals and news articles. The Augustine Commission has not yet published its final report and the White House did not decide anything yet.

But, in my humble point of view, it indeed might be possible that Obama becomes a president for real sissies, in case he finally brings down the last vestiges of manned space flight enthusiasm...

Yea.. I agree.. another famous quote comes to mind that would also go along with this:

"ask what your country can do for you - ask what you can not do for your country. "

 

[yagni01]

:rofl: And they said Obama was just like Kennedy....

No, he wants to be compared to Lincoln.

But I agree with Moonwalker. We're just speculating, so no point in getting excited. Yet.

 

[agentgonzo]

Preliminary report from the Augistine Commission. Nasa needs another $3bn annually to make human spaceflight sustainable.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/08/us_human_space_flight_plans_committee_report_summary/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8245409.stm

 

[tblaxland]

Nasa needs another $3bn annually to make human spaceflight sustainable.

Not quite true. There are constrained options that fit in the target budget profile. See options 1 & 2 of the Sumary Report here: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=32327. It is worth a read if you have time.

 

[Brad]

I've been reading a summary of this report... Seems they are recommending an Ares V (Lite)? What in the heck is that?!?! Jupiter (Direct?!)

 

[Dambuster]

After reading the options, I think I'm in favour of the option 4B (Shuttle extension).

 

[Ghostrider]

Can we send the Augustine Commission to Venus? Has anyone done a feasibility study on it?

 

[Brad]

After reading the options, I think I'm in favour of the option 4B (Shuttle extension).

IMHO anything to do with the Shuttle or an extension thereof won't work, hasn't worked and shown not to work. (Challenger, Columbia)

As I have stated before, STS should of been canned 20 + years ago.

 

[agentgonzo]

IMHO anything to do with the Shuttle or an extension thereof won't work, hasn't worked and shown not to work. (Challenger, Columbia)

As I have stated before, STS should of been canned 20 + years ago.

Yes, damn them for trying to make something work. They should have realised it was a failure 20 years ago and stayed on the ground ever since, vowed never to do anything risky and just launched weather balloons to a maximum altitude of 5,000ft. They've shown that the shuttle doesn't work by launching over 130 sucessful missions with it. Damn their ignorant hides!

 

[Brad]

Yes, damn them for trying to make something work. They should have realised it was a failure 20 years ago and stayed on the ground ever since, vowed never to do anything risky and just launched weather balloons to a maximum altitude of 5,000ft. They've shown that the shuttle doesn't work by launching over 130 sucessful missions with it. Damn their ignorant hides!

Love the sarcasm! But really, even NASA engineers acknowledge that putting something in a shuttle configuration that can impact it during the accent wasn't the best idea or safest. Anything can fly, mankind has proven that, but how safely? That is the question! There is a better way --- that was used in the 60's. You know, like putting the crew at the top of the contraption where nothing of significant will hit it. Look at Apollo 12, took a lightening hit in flight, and still flew a perfect mission.

 

[ijuin]

The side-mount configuration pretty much came from the decision to have a disposable fuel tank and reusable engines. Given the high expense of launching a Shuttle mission, it may be argued that perhaps using cheap expendable engines (thus making the ET into a full rocket stage) and mounting the Orbiter on its nose might have been a better idea. One proposal that I recall having seen was to use a variant of the Saturn V's first stage as the booster, and the Shuttle would use internal tanks to achieve orbit afterward (Said internal tanks would have been approximately as large as those on the Saturn IV-B stage).