Slashdot Mirror
Shuttle Extension & Heavy Launcher Bill Proposed
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."
The government shouldn't make sure that Americans aren't killed or bankrupted by treatable illnesses.
Government is for invading foreign countries and building spaceships in a certain Republican senator's home state.
Thanks, Kay. You could have given us health care but instead your giving us spaceships.
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.
Government isn't supposed to be in control of my life from the womb to my tomb either. With drawl from the ISS, cancel the STS and get NASA out of the low earth manned space program all together and let industry do it's work.
Last night I was visiting with a friend who has worked at NASA for 11 years. He is concerned for his job, etc. Among the things we discussed was astronaut photography. Sometimes an astronaut comes through the program and demands an update to the cameras they're approved to bring into space. The administration is very resistant to these upgrades because of the testing that is involved to approve a new device to bring into space. Something as simple as a dslr camera requires millions of dollars in testing to ensure that the device won't cause problems in vacuum or in zero g, etc. It even goes so far that NASA produces its own battery charger for the camera instead of using the commercial charger that ships with the model.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Thanks to Nixon opening up relations with China in the 1970s, followed by NAFTA and other free trade agreements in the 1980s and 1990s, followed by the Republican craziness of the 2000s, we've seen several decades of American industry, R&D and education being severely damaged.
It's no wonder that America's space initiatives have stalled, and we're stuck using technology first developed in the early 1970s. The Shuttle is the last major innovation we've seen out of America.
Computer networking and the Internet arose in the 1960s. Computer hardware has only been incrementally improving since the 1970s (look at how early PCs are nearly identical to PCs of today in terms of the sort of hardware they use). When it comes to software, the best we have (UNIX-like technologies) date from the 1960s. OOP is a 1970s concept. Functional programming predates that by a decade.
Most of our mobile phone and smartphone technology was initially developed in Europe, by Nokia and Ericsson. The rest was developed in Japan.
Our American-made vehicles are nearly identical to what we had in the 1950s.
We haven't had any new power generation methods developed since the nuclear power pioneered in the 1950s.
Buildings and infrastructure from the 1920s boom have proven to be far more reliable and robust than anything we've built since then. Suburbia is reaching the age where the shitty 1950s homes are starting to fall apart, and homes from the 1990s are now falling apart even quicker.
Now we see Europe, Japan and China becoming the leaders in biotech, thanks to backwards Republican thinking that punished researchers who sought to investigate stem-cell-based techniques.
What's worse, the education system of America has become so pathetic that it can't be turned around. There aren't enough intelligent, qualified Americans between the ages of 20 and 60 who can teach our youth. Even if we could improve education immediately, there'd still be a 50-year gap consisting of people who were born and raised during the so-called "American Dark Ages" of the 1970s until now.
These Shuttle issues are just the tip of the massive iceberg.
No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
This will go nowhere unless additional cash is added to NASA's budget.
engineers are all basically high-functioning autistics who have no idea how normal people do stuff
In any case, the decision must be made in terms of safety and effective spending of tax money, not politics. Those people who are going to be fired, are, after all, in conservative terms, are overpaid federal bureaucrats. Now, the people most effected by this are the people of clear lake,TX. These fine people elected Pete Olson, a fine conservative. Pete Olson does not believe in socialism. Pete Olson does not believe in extending unemployment checks, as one conservative said if you feed a stray animal the just multiply. Olson voted against a bill to help keep people in thier homes, a decision which I do not disagree with. Given this, it is clear that the only right and proper thing we must do is look at the technical side, and disregard all this fear mongering about jobs. These are allegedly technical and educated people. They will be able to find or create jobs. Unemployment in Texas is 2 points below the national average, and for professionals much lower.
The thing to do is to look at what is best for the country, and what is best to reduce the tax burden of the American People,and limit the role of government. That is what the last election cycle clearly indicated was the will of the people. If a few people in Clear Lake have to find other jobs to achieve that goal, then maybe that is what needs to happen.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
So much for Republican core values of small government, free enterprise, and especially the government getting out of the way of free enterprise to do a job better, cheaper, and without the stifling bureaucracy.
At least that is what Republicans of all stripes say they stand for. In public. Officially.
Pork always wins out, tho.
(Note to Republicans who are incensed by this attack on their imploded view of reality: see the title of this post.)
Infuriate left and right
America is in the midst of an economic crisis and it is about time to cut our losses. What has NASA given in return for its massive funding? Just about as much as the military incursions into the middle east, almost nothing. Maybe in the future we should return to space, but not right now. Right now America needs to focus n getting debt under control while still being able to take care of its citizens. That is why we need to Retire the shuttles,not in 2015, but in 2012. This way everyone can be brought back from the International Space Station, deorbit the space station, defund NASA completely, and sell off all of its assets. By that time America should have enough money to get a better grasp on its soaring deficit and debt.
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/
Those hypocrites in the Republican Party! This is nothing more than a jobs bill for Houston and the Southern states who all own most of the various NASA installations [Texas, Alabama, Florida] and so they will stand to lose when the admirable-but-currently-unaffordable NASA Launch Business is set to retire.
I'm sure this Republican from Texas, who is basically proposing the opposite of what President Obama has proposed, is all against government waste--except when it comes to things that benefit his district.
I love the space program. I admire most of what NASA has done. I agree with President Obama that NASA should delegate the conventional launch business to the private sector. NASA should focus on developing the technologies of the future, not ones that were invented by Goddard back in the twenties.
Though it would be cool and exciting to see the huge Ares V rocket blast off, we cannot afford it right now. Why is that so hard for people to understand? We can afford to do research on the next generation but we should not be in the Space Truck business. Let's throw a few bones to the private sector. Let them build it cheaply and we will buy seats for our people and stuff.
Who makes the batteries? Can I buy some? I'm a bit worried about the crap lion sploders I currently use. Hate to think of that happening in space.
Stupid NASA.
Obviously NASA has not provided us with anything of value!
http://www.howstuffworks.com/ten-nasa-inventions.htm
By the way. I just Googled this. Took me all of 3 seconds to find something of value that NASA has provided.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
WHich also ignores that NASA actually helped build up the micro computer industry. If not for NASA, we would still be using Mainframes and Vax.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
She wants to slow DOWN new ones and keep the existing one going.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Isn't it funny - the government option for health care (that will benefit poorer citizens and keep the greedy corporations honest) is opposed by the Republicans, and yet the government option for orbital transportation is supported by them - higher costs, benefits only going to their friends at Boeing, Lockheed etc etc.
Brought to you by the letter 'H' for Hypocrisy.
Time to kill the space program once and for all. A juvenile, stupid waste of money and lives.
Go indulge your space adventure fantasies somewhere else, idiots.
First, it was Kay Bailey Hutchison (no "n" in Hutchison). Second, the bill can be found here, on THOMAS. Although the text of the bill isn't up yet, the introducing language is up. It's bill S. 3068, if anyone cares.
Third, this is not a good idea. If there was ever a time to grow our spaceflight industry it's now, at the inflection point. Saying that it will lose us space is just silly: who do they think we will contract with after Soyuz? Arianne? This is exactly how you win space, by spurring private sector investment in space transportation for its own purposes. Rocketry is mature enough for the start-ups, so get NASA to do things others cannot: major spaceflight research. Look at what Bigelow is doing with inflatable modules and is planning on doing going forward. If we can get such major tech in the hands of industry and provide a guaranteed market, I think we're well on our way to owning spaceflight.
What's this? Another weblog? On transit?
do, or indeed what AppLe too. No, of business and was contact to see if goals. It's when
How about in the last 10 years? Nothing? Oh then my original post stands, Nasa should be defunded. As I stated before, Nasa has not really been giving anything compared to the tax money it has spent. Most of the shit was from its beginning. Overall NASA has really given us nothing. With Nasa bleeding America dry like the useless war it's involved in, the overall picture of NASA is getting even more useless.
---
Space Craft Feed @ Feed Distiller
It should have never been built. The Apollo was PERFECT (the rocket, not the CM). It should have been allowed to continue. The ORIGINAL shuttle design would have been safer, but, they once again went the cheap route. What they need to do is build something that has a CM similar to the old Apollo, and make a heavy launch vehicle for hauling equipment & supplies. The only reason Senator Hutchison is proposing this is to keep the shuttle jobs alive. An astronaut, long ago was asked if anything about flying into space scared him. He replied, the only thing that bothers me is that I'm sitting on top of something that went to the lowest bidder! Truer words were ever spoken.
Hutchinson LOST the Texas Republican Primary a few days ago, in part because she does so much spending.
Half of the factories have been shut down already and people let go. Its a two year pipeline to prepare a shuttle. The pipeline only has seven months left in it.
It is good to see the congress contest the abysmal decision making coming from the Whitehouse. There is no logical reason to end NASA's manned space program. Obama's sycophants at NASA are in full retreat. I look forward to the return of Constellation and extension of the Shuttle project.
an ill wind that blows no good
This is stupid. Even with the extension, there won't be any flights for at least three years, because there aren't any external tanks left in the pipeline. NASA will be stuck in the past, and we will never leave Earth orbit because we will spending our moon money on make-work projects.
In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
This just in: The President has come up with a "better idea than trucks" which will be made available for use in 2020. In the meantime, all trucks will be taken out of service and the revenue saved will be used to develop the new technology. By next year, all large trucks will be melted down, resulting in large reductions in emissons of greenhouse gasses.
I like the crossbow example, because the crossbow was not arbitrarily cancelled until the functions it performed were gradually, and competitively, replaced by other technologies, as those technologies became available in the field and out performed the crossbow.
For developng construction in space, the shuttle rules, and there is no better alternative in existence. Trucks are in fact useful, and are not the same as economy cars. Launch from orbit, using in orbit construction techniques, is a more viable option for mars missions than ground based launches, which are slow and can only deliver small payloads.
Don't cancel the shuttle. Develop the age of the space station, learn in orbit construction, and do robotic exploration of the planets. The space program was doing fine until the PR idiot Carl Rove decided to make it into another image campaign.
What "private" space program?
Quote from above "At heart, I believe and hope that Boeing and/or SpaceX can create manned rated rockets with appropriate funding from NASA"
How exactly can it be "appropriate" for taxpayers to fund private development of space transporation (along with handing the associated patents to private companies)? Especially as those who constantly crow about the superiority of the private sector visciously criticize NASA (and the air force), which are paying for the vast majority of space development? NASA would be a source of national pride, except for those who constantly trash it while simultaneously trying to steal its technology, all the while being paid on contract by the US taxpayer.
Maybe your vaunted "private space transportation" companies should recieve all their funding from the private sector, and not get a dime from NASA, either to help them compete with NASA or to replace NASA with outsourcing contracts. Let the "private sector" hire Space X and the rest of them to exploit space. They can go to the private sector's space station, while they are at it.
Yes, NASA provided major funding for electronic miniturization, which was necessary for packing control circuits into rocket payloads. That was a fantastic industrial policy for the 1960's through around 1980. Today, the equivalent would be a major NASA push for the robotic exploration of the planets, since robotics research plays right into the flowering of a major new industry in our era. Robotic exploration of the planets has great spin off potential, and it's obvious and relevant to the near future, just as electronics was in the 1960's. Manned exploration of the moon and mars has far less relevance as industrial policy, and will produce nowhere near the applicable useful science and technology.
The manned program today should be focused on learning in orbit construction, life support in space, all the things that can be done relatively cheaply using the shuttle and space station, and that was the era we were actually in before Rove and Bush made use of a tragic accident to trash a very functional space program which had been going in an appropriate direction.
About the shuttle hyper safety program - cars crash, airplanes crash, people fall down, rockets blow up, accidents happen. It was Bush's cowardly reaction to a tragic accident that screwed up the space program.
It appears that the Right Honorable Mr. Bolden was chosen for the job becasue "Bolden" rhyms with "Golden", a.k.a. a former NASA Chief.
In light of Congressional resistance to the new plans for NASA (criticized as 'radical') proposed by NASA head Charles Bolden
Dixon: Guardians are here to mend and defend, okay? Not sit around trying to work out the way User thinks and why Viruses are introduced into systems. Sheesh. I'm just glad the Prime Guardian hasn't seen any of your works.
Bob: I had a meeting with Turbo just last second. He thought my ideas to reprogram Viruses for the good were radical!
Dixon: Radical. Ha, he used the word "radical" and you think--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?