NASA Says it Cannot Produce Heavy-Lift Rocket on Time, Budget

[jayfish]

Source: Universe Today

NASA has sent Congress a report stating that it cannot meet the requirements that it produce a heavy-lift rocket by the current 2016 deadline – or under the current allocated budget. In the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, NASA was directed to develop a heavy-lift rocket in preparation to flights to an asteroid and possibly Mars. NASA said it cannot produce this new rocket despite the fact that the agency would be using so-called “legacy” hardware – components that have been employed in the shuttle program for the past 30 years. NASA would also utilize modern versions of engines used on the massive Saturn V rocket.

Now, approximately three months after the act was signed into law, NASA is telling Congress that they can’t build the vehicles that will succeed the shuttle. At least, NASA said, not in the time allotted or for the amount allocated to them. The agency expressed these inadequacies in a 22-page report that was submitted to Congress

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/82535/nasa-says-it-cannot-produce-heavy-lift-rocket-on-time-budget/#more-82535

---

How pathetically sad.

[ixion]

1. Defund our 'wars' of aggression abroad, and the problem is solved...

think that will happen?

[social_critic]

13. Dude, those are real wars

They are stupid and we're losing them, but the are real wars with real bullets and real corpses. I wouldn't put too much money into NASA - it's better to let it die and start all over.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. By 'defund', he means 'end'.

As in come home.

[ixion]

16. No, they're not. They're turkey shoots, at the least, and state sponsored terror more

accurately. If they were real wars, you wouldn't be able to ignore them at your leisure.

[Posteritatis]

35. NASA's never had anything close to "too much money." (nt)

[HowHasItComeToThis]

24. GOTTA HAVE THOSE WARS

[Kievan Rus]

27. I say defund the war on drugs

For all the money we waste on trying to stop a f*****g plant, we could have put humans on Mars by now.

[ixion]

33. I'm all for it. Defund both the WoD and the WoT

and we'd be better off for it.

[Kolesar]

2. Gravy for Boeing Rocketdyne division

How about we buy eyeglasses for seniors instead?

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. NASA gets about 1% of the Federal budget

And frankly, I think they have earned back whatever has been spent on them with the information gotten from

weather satellites alone.


They are also the only means of observing climate change on a global basis that we have.

[Exultant Democracy]

19. +1. I don't understand progressives that don't believe in funding science.

Of course I understand the argument about how money could be spent now to deal with current problems, but to me it just sounds short sighted.

[Duppers]

20. this is pathetic - Uninformed Amer. opinion re: NASA

Average American Guess: NASA Gets One-Fourth of US Budget

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/average-america/

[Duppers]

21. + Which costs more: air-conditioned tents in Iraq/Afghanistan or NASA?

Which costs more: air-conditioned tents in Iraq/Afghanistan or NASA?

Annual budget for:
Air conditioned tents.... $20 billion.
NASA..................... $18 billion.


http://www.theworld.org/2010/07/28/military-base-close-to-the-front

http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html

[Nihil]

31. Ouch. Way to put things into perspective.

> Annual budget for:
> Air conditioned tents.... $20 billion.
> NASA..................... $18 billion.

Talk about a depressing realisation of the stupidity of Man ...

:-(

[Duppers]

22. + Neil deGrasse Tyson at UB: What NASA Means to America's Future

Listen up, naysayers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhNZENMG1o


"Half a penny on a dollar."

[Duppers]

23. + dealing with budget cuts at NASA

NASA decided (or it was decided for them), in dealing their budgets cuts, to use remaining funds to concentrate on other important projects, including:
unmanned flights, deep space probes to other planets, meteoroids, asteroids, & comets research, new advanced materials research, studies of magnetic fields, solar wind experiments, communication satellites, etc.

And not to be over-looked considerable advances in aeronautics!

And construction and maintenance of the Hubble Space telescope, the design and implementation of the new Webb Space telescope, and support of countless astronomical observatories around the world.

I must also include major research initiatives at varies universities throughout the U.S.

========================

NASA's Prophet Will Give You Nightmares

http://www.slate.com/id/2242201

<<snip>>

The global-warming deniers have claimed for years that the overwhelming scientific consensus on this issue exists only because climate scientists are rewarded for making "alarmist" or "hysterical" claims. Hansen's story shows this is the opposite of the truth. The pressure is, in reality, to make scientists play down their claims. Think of it as the real Climategate.
...

Paleoclimatologists study how the Earth's climate reacted in the past to natural warming forces, like a small change in the Earth's tilt, or an increase in the sun's heat. Hansen believes these studies provide stronger evidence than climate models, because they are looking at what happened the last times this experiment—of a rapidly warming world—was run. And the findings are seriously scary. Ice sheets can go fast, and when they do, sea levels rise remorselessly and do not settle for centuries. He reasons: "If ice sheets begin to disintegrate, there will not be a new stable sea level on any foreseeable time scale. We will have created a situation with continual change, with intermittent calamities at thousands of cities around the world. It will continue for as many generations as we care to think about. … Global chaos will be difficult to avoid."

=================


Sorry for being so hyper and random, friendly_iconoclast. I know you know these things, but I cannot reply to the person you replied to because I've that person on ignore. Must've done something that pissed me off some time ago. :evilgrin:

[Kolesar]

29. Unmanned space programs are a better use of resources and I am all for that .

We didn't learn much letting kids experiment with spiders building webs in zero gravity.

[Kolesar]

30. You scanned but did not comprehend the original post

the heavy lift rocket would have been for manned missions, like Bush's stupid trip to Mars.

[Roy Rolling]

3. manned flight

We send unmanned drones to kill halfway across the globe but have to put humans on a mission to Mars. We can only kill with unmanned technology? Pull the plug on the funding---sending humans to Mars is as useful as building a stairway to heaven.

[blackspade]

4. By all means, lets give up on getting off this rock.

Let's give up exploring the universe around us and let our little robot friends do everything for us.
We have become so risk adverse that we can't stand the chance of something going wrong.

So much for the dreams that I had as a youth, all folks care about nowadays is their new Iphones, TV infotainment, and computer games.
Carl Segan is sorely missed.

[Atypical Liberal]

6. I agree with you.

I cannot understand the negativity with space travel.

I cannot understand the logic that says, "nothing useful will come of it".

I guarantee you - someone will find something of value wherever we go.

[jmowreader]

26. I completely understand the negativity

"If we launch people into space, I will have to pay higher taxes."

I swear if I win the lottery I am going to start a travel agency that takes teabaggers to Somalia so they can see what happens when you don't pay taxes.

[hunter]

17. We all get off this rock eventually, every one of us.

And our atoms will be recycled back within the earth's crust.

Someday humans, or synthetic versions of such, are going to get off the planet and manage to stay alive and even reproduce away from earth, but I don't think they'll be riding chemical rockets.

The game changer will be Artificial Intelligence. Perhaps the Artificial Intelligences will think we humans are interesting enough to bring along as pets in their explorations of the universe. You won't need a rocket then. They'll just beam you up.

In any case, I'm already a space traveler. Space is big, the earth is small, and wherever you go, there you are.

I consider myself fortunate to be riding a bit of dust on which I won't be freeze dried or burnt to a crisp if I leave the door open, and the stars are not any closer if I'm here or on Mars.

[Atypical Liberal]

5. What a demotivating attitude!

First of all, how can you know how useful going to Mars might end up being?

Every exploration of man has resulted in something useful. Why would exploring other planets not be?

Secondly, even if it were completely useless, what about the human instinct to just explore?

The NASA budget is a pittance compared to what we spend on things like, oh, war.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. that confident, assured assumption that they know best

and that space flight is not worth it reminds me of the attitude we see in Tea Party folks.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. absolutely wrong.

An appropriate comparison to our space technology is the tiny Mediterranean fleets that hugged the shores out of fear of sea monsters, storms, and worst of all, getting lost.

Humanity's destiny is in the stars. Delay in taking that step is not only unthinkable, but dangerous. Sure, part of me cheers on discoverers and explorers much like people cheered the explorers of Africa, the South Pole and the North Pole. It is in our genes to explore, to go that extra step, to go where no one has gone before. But more importantly, we need to do it for our own future.

There are big fucking rocks out there. They will hit us. They will kill us. I'd prefer if humanity had other worlds populated so we can save the species.
The same argument applies to diseases that can wipe out entire continents and of course, war.

[Duppers]

25. As much as I defend NASA, I agree with you

At this time, sending human to Mars is pretty senseless.

At the rate we're going I don't know if we'll be able to afford it in the next ~75 yrs.

[Historic NY]

7. Spent 30+ yrs flying shuttles which were supposed to make money...

that didn't work out so well. Each flight eats up approx. 1.5 billion dollars adding in the 2 destroyed shuttles thats a big hunk of change. It was a good program that just got stuck.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Incremental launch cost is about 36 million.

You must be including development costs, which diminish over time on a per-launch basis, if you use the vehicle enough.

[Occulus]

8. Wow. We really need fusion power, don't we?

Looks like the DU Death Ray hit the site for a minute. It's down for me.

[smuglysmiling]

12. What is wrong with these people?

Someone needs to tell them can't never could....Billions were spent decades ago to develop heavy lift technology...I am gobsmacked these people can't get it together...

[Klimmer777]

18. On this MLK Jr. Day I would like to say regarding this news . . .

Why Pentagon Says MLK Would Love War Today
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x199788
http://warisalie.org/

MLK: Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x544778
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfGsVvnvA9w
This is the entire very powerful, very moving speech. A must watch and listen. Can't say more. My eyes get misty when I listen to it.






My own thoughts . . .

Martin Luther King is about world peace, civil rights, civil liberties, and job opportunity, not War. He would not condone the Trillions we spend on the Military-Industrial-Spy complex, blowing up and killing human beings, and endless War.

The US Government has the duty and the obligation to take care of our own. We are supposed to be a government for and by the people. Spend the Trillions putting people back to work. Bring back the YCC, the YACC, and the CCC. Put men and women back to work taking care of our Natural Heritage, our Wilderness, our State and National Parks. Fix all the decaying infrastructure throughout the nation, fix the roads, the highways. Make newer safer highways where needed. Push into clean renewable energy resources. Return to space. Go back to the Moon and push onto Mars with "Constellation." Mine the NEAs that threaten Earth and mine the Asteroid belt. There are a plethora of resources there for us to utilize to expand into space. Go get it.


“The asteroids that are potentially the most hazardous because they can closely approach the Earth are also the objects that could be most easily exploited for raw materials. These raw materials could be used in developing the space structures and in generating the rocket fuel that will be required to explore and colonize our solar system in the twenty-first century. By closely investigating the compositions of asteroids, intelligent choices can be made as to which ones offer the richest supplies of raw materials. It has been estimated that the mineral wealth resident in the belt of asteroids between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter would be equivalent to about 100 billion dollars for every person on Earth today. “ http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?why_asteroids



One Small Metallic NEA: Amun
• 3554 Amun: smallest known M-type NEA
• Amun is 2000 m in diameter
• Contains about 30x the total amount of
metals mined over human history
• Contains 3x1016 g of iron
• Contains over 1012 g of PGMs with Earthsurface
market value of about $40 T
http://ngec.arc.nasa.gov/files/ngec_proceedings/speakers/Lewis_Asteroids.pdf


This is what we should do. We can do a World of Good. So why aren't we?

[Duppers]

28. Nice paper you have there

"We CANNOT AFFORD a centrally-controlled, duplication-free, government-dominated effort"

"JS Lewis and CF Lewis, A Proposed
International Legal Regime for the Era of Private Commercial Utilization of Space. The George Washington International Law Review 37, 745-767 (2005).

http://ngec.arc.nasa.gov/files/ngec_proceedings/speakers/Lewis_Asteroids.pdf

=================


hmmmmm, so this is about making money for the private sector?

[paparush]

32. OFFS - We've been doing heavy lift, dumb rockets, since the 50's.

[Xithras]

34. Translation: "All the good engineers retired".

NASA announced it's intention to build the Saturn V in January 1962. The first Saturn V was launched without a hitch in November 1967, six years later. It was designed and built with a budget of $7 billion, which included both the planning, testing, and CONSTRUCTION of 15 rockets. Adjusted for inflation that's roughly $45 billion in todays dollars.

Congress offered NASA $11 billion to develop and build a SINGLE rocket, allowed them to re-use existing technology from the shuttle program to simplify things, and gave them nearly the same time window as NASA had in the early 60's to develop the original Saturn V from scratch.

And NASA says they can't do it?!?!