Constellation program now officially dead
Pat Flannery
Jonathan
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:TI-dndjqFbHGdWrQ...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
> http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110614-memo-marks-end-constellation.html
Thanks for the link, but your silence on this issue speaks volumes.
This whole 'moon' debacle is a great object lesson in political
corruption. And a great way to utterly waste over ten years
of very precious time and money of our premier scientific
research institution.
While global warming marched on, while oil prices doubled
and tripled...WHILE THE WORLD BURNED!
NASA spent it's heart and soul putting money in the pockets
of a handful of Lockheed et all large investors.
Remember the well funded lobbying effort thinly disguised
as a 'citizens' committee? It takes some digging, but it turns
out it was (well) funded by guess who...Lockheed.
http://www.citizensforspaceexploration.org/dctrip.htm
Funny how Lockheed stock rose (quadrupled) and fell along
with it's biggest political 'partner' in corruption, George W Bush.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=lmt&insttype=&freq=2&show=&time=13
And about the only thing left are the bills.
It's enough to make me sick. Those involved
which stayed silent all this time should be ashamed.
The 'Vision' was written by one of America's greatest
scientific visionary... Dick Cheney. And I'm sure having
his wife on the board of Lockheed had nothing to do
with it.
The decisions on scientific goals need to be removed from the
scientists, as they are weak pawns of the politicians and industry.
The people need to make the decisions on scientific research
based on their needs and desires.
If for no other reason then to have the /public behind/ a long term
expensive program which needs to survive several administrations.
But as long as NASA continues to be the play-pen of the rich
and powerful, we'll keep on wasting our precious time building
more gold plated bridges, and spacecraft, to ...nowhere.
So can we PLEASE return to the justifiable and badly needed goal
NASA had ... before George W Bush?
NASA Space Solar Power Program
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
~singin'
"And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear
You shout and no one seems to hear.
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wxHEBT7aaU
Jonathan
s
>
> Pat
Jonathan
"Jonathan" <Jo...@yahou.net> wrote in message
news:5f2dncapY6jwuGXQ...@giganews.com...
>
> Remember the well funded lobbying effort thinly disguised
> as a 'citizens' committee? It takes some digging, but it turns
> out it was (well) funded by guess who...Lockheed et al.
> http://www.citizensforspaceexploration.org/dctrip.htm
>
http://spacecoalition.com/
http://spacecoalition.com/about-the-coalition
bob haller
well pittsburgh got it tunnel to no where, waste is thruout the
government.
buy the congress, get what you want
bob haller
KING: All right, let's continue the conversation, but we'll come back
to this if we have to. Let's go to Jean Mackin in Hancock. She has a
question.
MACKIN: Thanks, John. This question goes out to Speaker Gingrich. Next
month, the space shuttle program is scheduled to retire after 30
years, and last year, President Obama effectively killed government-
run space flight to the International Space Station and wants to turn
it over to private companies. In the meantime, U.S. astronauts would
ride Russian spacecraft at a cost of $50 million to $63 million a
seat. What role should the government play in future space
exploration?
GINGRICH: Well, sadly -- and I say this, sadly, because I'm a big fan
of going into space and I actually worked to get the shuttle program
to survive at one point -- NASA has become an absolute case study in
why bureaucracy can't innovate.
If you take all the money we've spent at NASA since we landed on the
moon and you had applied that money for incentives to the private
sector, we would today probably have a permanent station on the moon,
three or four permanent stations in space, a new generation of lift
vehicles. And instead, what we've had is bureaucracy after bureaucracy
after bureaucracy and failure after failure."
Alan Erskine
>
> "Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
> news:TI-dndjqFbHGdWrQ...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
>> http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110614-memo-marks-end-constellation.html
>
> Thanks for the link, but your silence on this issue speaks volumes.
>
>
> This whole 'moon' debacle is a great object lesson in political
> corruption. And a great way to utterly waste over ten years
> of very precious time and money of our premier scientific
> research institution.
>
Ten years? Really? Constellation was only announced in 2003 - that's
only just over eight years ago. And what corruption are you suggesting?
Alan Erskine
> http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110614-memo-marks-end-constellation.html
>
> Pat
Let the bells ring out! It's a great day for...
... common sense.
Allen Thomson
> http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110614-memo-marks-end-constellation.html
"Ares 5’s design is based closely on the smaller Ares 1 crew launching
rocket, which was well under development when the White House proposed
canceling Constellation and taking NASA’s human spaceflight program in
a new direction. "
You have to wonder what planet the reporter who wrote that lives on.
Brad Guth
How about from the planet of common sense.
How about our going retroactive and getting our money back form the
greedy extortionists?
Unless you have the spare loot to carry the financing, what else can
we get ourselves out of paying for?
http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
JF Mezei
> GINGRICH: Well, sadly -- and I say this, sadly, because I'm a big fan
> of going into space and I actually worked to get the shuttle program
> to survive at one point -- NASA has become an absolute case study in
> why bureaucracy can't innovate.
Why is NASA a bureaucracy ? Because congress/senate micromanage it and
won't let it complete projects.
It is the type of relationship with government which results in failed
projects because funding is cut from under its feet.
When you look at crews working in the white room before a launch, do you
see civil servants ? When you see workers embedded into the bowells of
the shuttle to fix some broken sensor, do you see civil servants ?
NASA should be told to build a rocket. Period. It shouldn't be told
"that rocket better re-use SRBs made by ATK and keep workers at Michoud
employed".
It is that type of interference that prevents NASA from working properly
and politicians have only themselves to blame because they are the ones
interfering.
Alan Erskine
> On Jun 14, 9:02 pm, Pat Flannery<flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
>
>> http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110614-memo-marks-end-constellation.html
>
> rocket, which was well under development when the White House proposed
> a new direction. "
>
> You have to wonder what planet the reporter who wrote that lives on.
The only components common to both launchers were the SRBs and the J2x
stage. And I'm not sure about the SRBs either - I think the one's on
the Ares V were full-segment and on the Ares I it was a 5.5.
bob haller
> On 16/06/2011 1:12 AM, Allen Thomson wrote:
>
> > On Jun 14, 9:02 pm, Pat Flannery<flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110614-memo-marks-end-constellation.html
>
> > rocket, which was well under development when the White House proposed
> > a new direction. "
>
> > You have to wonder what planet the reporter who wrote that lives on.
>
> The only components common to both launchers were the SRBs and the J2x
> stage. And I'm not sure about the SRBs either - I think the one's on
> the Ares V were full-segment and on the Ares I it was a 5.5.
neither SRB was a duplicate of the shuttle, Congress pushed for solids
to save time and money but soon found out that by specing a too large
capsule existing solids wouldnt work.......
Jonathan
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote in message
news:4df8e0ae$0$10827$c3e8da3$f017...@news.astraweb.com...
> bob haller wrote:
>
>> GINGRICH: Well, sadly -- and I say this, sadly, because I'm a big fan
>> of going into space and I actually worked to get the shuttle program
>> to survive at one point -- NASA has become an absolute case study in
>> why bureaucracy can't innovate.
>
>
> Why is NASA a bureaucracy ? Because congress/senate micromanage it and
> won't let it complete projects.
You're right, NASA has to do what Congress tells it to do. And they've
treated the manned space program more as a jobs program and a
subsidy to the military for far too long. Bush/Cheney let Big Aero
write their own ticket with the Vision, just as with energy and banking
and so on, whatever big-business wanted. And this is the result.
Same for the economy in general.
But for once, and only once, I agree with Gingrich. The apparently
fast pace of commercial booster development lately seems to
confirm his opinion. And subsidies and loan guarantees are
far cheaper for the taxpayer.
You want to know why Griffin of all people got the job? It's the
oldest corruption trick in the book. He got the job for the very
same reason Nixon hired John Dean to be his personal attorney.
Because he was a nobody that wanted the job so badly they'd do
anything to keep it.
Someone with a reputation would refuse the job under
the circumstances.
John Dean flunked his first bar exam and only went to DC
because he heard it was easier there to pass it. And he
barely passed it. He first job out of college was a run of the mill
firm, and was fired after only a year or so. At that point he
said he wondered if he'd even get another job on law at all.
He certainty didn't think to put in an application at the
..White House. Yet out of the blue he got a phone call
asking him if he wanted to be the private lawyer for the
President. Without even having an interview he was told
to show up at the White House...the next day!!!
Like Griffin, he probably just though his 'stars' had aligned.
But on day-one Nixon ordered Dean to sick the IRS on
a magazine that had been critical of Nixon, causing it to
go out of business. Any other reputable lawyer would have
refused.
> NASA should be told to build a rocket.
NASA should be telling Congress what it thinks
should be the goal. That's what agencies are for.
Providing the expertise to advise Congress.
s
Jonathan
"Alan Erskine" <alan.e...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:eg3Kp.6636$aH5....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
Ya I should have said almost ten years. But the program Bush canceled
ended in 2001, if SERT was left in place we'd probably have giga-watt class
solar satellites flying five years ago.
>
> And what corruption are you suggesting?
It's not every day I get to meet someone that was
born yesterday!
Where should I begin? Just a few examples for now, I'll
go into more detail if you like.
First, Bush had a long history with Lockheed dating
back to his days in Texas. He even tried to turn over the
entire state welfare system to Lockheed to manage.
But it didn't pass the laugh test. And Cheney's wife was
put on the board of Lockheed.
And when did NASA announce it wanted just one
company to run the Shuttle program, 2003?
Guess who got it? Lockheed!
And NASA wasn't even consulted..AT ALL...about
the idea of going back to the Moon. Not even allowed
in the room when the policy was discussed. The Vision
was written by two jr White House staffers at the direction
of Cheney. Now where do you think Cheney got the
Vision from? Who wrote the policy?
Well, it's about as fuzzy as the famous Energy Policy
Cheney wrote just after coming into office. Chances
are the Vision had a very similar source.
" The Energy Task Force...was a task force created by then
U.S. President George W. Bush in 2001 during his second week
in office. Vice President Dick Cheney was named chairman."
"According to the GAO, these members held ten meetings over
the course of three and a half months with petroleum, coal, nuclear,
natural gas, and electricity industry representatives and lobbyists.
None of the meetings were open to the public..."
"Most of the activities of the Energy Task Force have not been disclosed
to the public, even though Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests
(since 19 April 2001) have sought to gain access to its materials. The
organisations Judicial Watch and Sierra Club launched a law suit ..."
"In the week prior to this article revealing oil executive involvement, the
Chief Executives of Exxon-Mobil and ConocoPhillips told members
of the US Senate that they [ HAD NOT ] participated as part
of the Energy Task Force, while the CEO of British Petroleum stated
that he did not know. Regardless of whether the executives were under
oath, if these statements were knowingly and materially false and
deceptive then they were illegal per.."
"On July 18, 2007, the Washington Post reported the names of those
involved in the Task Force.." "Among those in the meetings were
James J. Rouse, then vice president of Exxon Mobil and a major
donor to the Bush inauguration; Kenneth L. Lay, then head of
Enron Corp.; Jack N. Gerard, then with the National Mining
Association; Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum
Institute; and Eli Bebout, an old friend of Cheney's from Wyoming.."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Task_Force
Just like that great scene from the movie Police Squad!
When they met alone, I bet the energy moguls laughed
at John Q Public just as heartily as they did in the movie.
"Chief of Staff John Sununu:"
"Thank you. Mr. President, tonight I am extremely proud to welcome
our distinguished guests from the nation's energy suppliers. From the
coal industry, chairman of the Society for More Coal Energy, or
"SMOCE" Mr. Terence Baggett."
"Representing the oil industry, head of the Society of Petroleum
Industry Leaders, better known as "SPIL", Mr. Donald Fenswick"
"And from the nuclear industry, president of the Key Atomic Benefits
Office of Mankind - "KABOOM", Mr. Arthur Dunwell."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102510/quotes
Oh and btw, Lockheed stock almost quadrupled under Bush
and tanked THE MONTH he left office. Funny about that.
Lockheed ten year chart
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=lmt&insttype=&freq=2&show=&time=20
s
Jorge R. Frank
Other way around. Ares V was 5.5, Ares I was 5.
Pat Flannery
.html
>
> "Ares 5�s design is based closely on the smaller Ares 1 crew launching
> rocket, which was well under development when the White House proposed
> a new direction. "
>
> You have to wonder what planet the reporter who wrote that lives on.
I found this statement by Jim Albaugh of Boeing pretty bizarre also:
"China is on Albaugh�s minds in other ways too. The Chinese will walk
on the moon before U.S. astronauts orbit in an American spacecraft, he
notes.":
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a92afaf12-b4fc-4810-9374-4601f484faab&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
Well, maybe orbit in a _Boeing_ built American spacecraft, but I'm
pretty sure SpaceX could have a manned Dragon ready to go inside of 5
years if someone told them to. At the rate the Chinese are moving they
would be lucky to put astronauts on the Moon before 2025.
Pat
Pat Flannery
> Thanks for the link, but your silence on this issue speaks volumes.
You've got a new address!
Plonk again!
Pat
Alan Erskine
> "Alan Erskine"<alan.e...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:eg3Kp.6636$aH5....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
>> On 15/06/2011 1:22 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>>>
>>> "Pat Flannery"<fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
>>> news:TI-dndjqFbHGdWrQ...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
>>>> http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110614-memo-marks-end-constellation.html
>>>
>>> Thanks for the link, but your silence on this issue speaks volumes.
>>>
>>>
>>> This whole 'moon' debacle is a great object lesson in political
>>> corruption. And a great way to utterly waste over ten years
>>> of very precious time and money of our premier scientific
>>> research institution.
>>>
>>
>> Ten years? Really? Constellation was only announced in 2003 - that's
>> only just over eight years ago.
>
>
> Ya I should have said almost ten years. But the program Bush canceled
> ended in 2001, if SERT was left in place we'd probably have giga-watt class
> solar satellites flying five years ago.
>
>>
>> And what corruption are you suggesting?
>
>
> It's not every day I get to meet someone that was
> born yesterday!
>
> Where should I begin? Just a few examples for now, I'll
> go into more detail if you like.
Yeah, I'd like that; it's something called "proof" (as in "Prove it").
Pat Flannery
> When you look at crews working in the white room before a launch, do you
> see civil servants ? When you see workers embedded into the bowells of
> the shuttle to fix some broken sensor, do you see civil servants ?
No, I see people who work for ULA that are going to get their pensions
paid of by NASA to the tune of a half billion dollars:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/business/15nasa.html
Pat
Alan Erskine
Ahh! Got ya; thanks.
Jeff Findley
alan.e...@bigpond.com says...
Not really. If you read the whole article, it's not clear how many
Constellation contracts will continue in the guise of whatever they're
calling Orion and shuttle derived HLV this week.
The insanity coninues, just under new names.
Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011
Jeff Findley
<ieOdnaOjNqkVH2TQ...@posted.northdakotatelephone>,
fla...@daktel.com says...
Welfare for aerospace workers. They were supposed to save money by
privatizing shuttle operations, but with this sort of thing in the
contract, they couldn't lose, even when the shuttle program ended, which
is now.
If SpaceX, or any one of the start-ups, went belly-up tomorrow, you can
bet NASA wouldn't be paying their employees like this. The game is
still rigged to benefit the large contractors that the government thinks
they "can't live without".
Jonathan
> On 6/14/2011 7:22 PM, Jonathan wrote:
>> Thanks for the link, but your silence on this issue speaks volumes.
>
> You've got a new address!
No I don't! I have three computers in the house.
But considering the moon issue has dominated
space policy for several years, posting a link like that
without any comment seemed underwhelming.
And when you call someone a nutjob, don't
you expect a retort?
> Plonk again!
>
If I had a dollar for every time you said that
I could retire!
> Pat
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>I found this statement by Jim Albaugh of Boeing pretty bizarre also:
>
>"China is on Albaugh�s minds in other ways too. The Chinese will walk
>on the moon before U.S. astronauts orbit in an American spacecraft, he
>notes.":
>Well, maybe orbit in a _Boeing_ built American spacecraft,
Boeing says CST-100 could launch crews by 2015. There is absolutely no
indication China will have men on the moon by 2015. We're still
waiting for their fourth Earth orbital flight, which should be
sometime later this year.
Brian
Allen Thomson
> There is absolutely no indication China will have men on the moon by 2015. We're still
> waiting for their fourth Earth orbital flight, which should be sometime later this year.
And, in fact, there was recently this:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-06/09/c_13920425.htm
"Besides the current operations, China's ambitious three-stage moon
mission will include a moon landing and launch of a moon rover around
2012 in the second phase. In the third phase, another rover will land
on the moon and return to earth with lunar soil and stone samples for
scientific research around 2017.
"The country has no plan or timetable for a manned moon landing for
now."
I expect they'll eventually put boots down there, but "eventually"
looks like the late 2020s at the earliest.