Space Shuttle Columbia

[KevinYee]

Yesterday I was at the American Adventure and saw the NASA-themed oil painting in the lobby, and noticed for the first time that the orbiter shown heating up upon re-entry was labeled as the Columbia... an unfortunate coincidence that foreshadowed its destiny.

I had just filed that away in my brain but saw that today (Feb 1) is the anniversary of the Columbia accident, and it made me doubly sad.

 

[DisneyMusician2]

I was living in Houston during the Colombia disaster...brought the whole city to a complete stop.

In memorial...

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Ah, just saw this on your FB page, Kevin.

Yes, it's a sad coincidence, but it's all part of the flight process...Re entry is re entry and this particular picture commemorates the first Shuttle. I'm perfectly fine with it remaining and being displayed there, it's all part of History.


But, yes, memoriam for those 7 heroes we lost today. Such a shame. They will not be forgotten.

 

[E P C O T]

Void.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Space shuttles are for sale at $28m now. Don't know what they're going to do now as the Constellation program has been cancelled today.

Woah! What!?


I had heard rumors, but really? Why the hell would they do that?

 

[rsoxguy]

The President's budget plan does not include money for NASA.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

The President's budget plan does not include money for NASA.

:zipit:


Well, then. I've agreed with him in the past, but not on this... /can'tsaymorewithoutbeingtoopolitical

 

[CDavid]

Space shuttles are for sale at $28m now. Don't know what they're going to do now as the Constellation program has been cancelled today.

Hopefully Congress shows greater wisdom than the administration and restores money for the program .

From the CNN aticle:

In place of the Moon mission, Mr. Obama’s vision offers, at least initially, nothing in terms of human exploration of the solar system. What the administration calls a “bold new initiative”

Now, why does this remind me so much of Disney's Bold New Vision for Downtown Disney???

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Hopefully Congress shows greater wisdom than the administration and restores money for the program .

From the CNN aticle:



Now, why does this remind me so much of Disney's Bold New Vision for Downtown Disney???

UGH. Exactly. Nothing with nothing, and buzz words. Only this is far worse.


And, yes, I hope congress can at least do that, collectively.

 

[fyn]

The President's budget plan does not include money for NASA.

That's not even remotely accurate. NASA is seeing an overall budget increase of $6 billion over the next five years, with $3.2 billion of that increase going to research. This budget does axe the constellation program, but this was done at the recommendation of the Augustine Commission, a " blue-ribbon panel of experts appointed by Obama to look into NASA’s future plans and make recommendations."

NASA’s Constellation program – based largely on existing technologies – was based on a vision of returning astronauts back to the Moon by 2020. However, the program was over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies. Using a broad range of criteria an independent review panel determined that even if fully funded, NASA’s program to repeat many of the achievements of the Apollo era, 50 years later, was the least attractive approach to space exploration as compared to potential alternatives. Furthermore, NASA’s attempts to pursue its moon goals, while inadequate to that task, had drawn funding away from other NASA programs, including robotic space exploration, science, and Earth observations. The President’s Budget cancels Constellation and replaces it with a bold new approach that invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration…

Phil Plait, an astronomer, science writer, and all around awesome guy, largely thinks that Obama's move is the right one for NASA. It seems as though this new budget acknowledges reality, specifically that Constellation just wasn't going to be successful in its current form. This is really putting NASA's focus on innovation, where it should be, and encouraging private companies to make earth-orbit spaceflight efficient.

There aren't any politics here. This really does look like the right thing to do, not only for NASA's long term (sure, we're resetting a bit on getting back to the moon, but it didn't look like Constellation was going to succeed anytime soon), but for space exploration as a whole.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

That's not even remotely accurate. NASA is seeing an overall budget increase of $6 billion over the next five years, with $3.2 billion of that increase going to research. This budget does axe the constellation program, but this was done at the recommendation of the Augustine Commission, a " blue-ribbon panel of experts appointed by Obama to look into NASA’s future plans and make recommendations."

NASA’s Constellation program – based largely on existing technologies – was based on a vision of returning astronauts back to the Moon by 2020. However, the program was over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies. Using a broad range of criteria an independent review panel determined that even if fully funded, NASA’s program to repeat many of the achievements of the Apollo era, 50 years later, was the least attractive approach to space exploration as compared to potential alternatives. Furthermore, NASA’s attempts to pursue its moon goals, while inadequate to that task, had drawn funding away from other NASA programs, including robotic space exploration, science, and Earth observations. The President’s Budget cancels Constellation and replaces it with a bold new approach that invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration…

Phil Plait, an astronomer, science writer, and all around awesome guy, largely thinks that Obama's move is the right one for NASA. It seems as though this new budget acknowledges reality, specifically that Constellation just wasn't going to be successful in its current form. This is really putting NASA's focus on innovation, where it should be, and encouraging private companies to make earth-orbit spaceflight efficient.

There aren't any politics here. This really does look like the right thing to do, not only for NASA's long term (sure, we're resetting a bit on getting back to the moon, but it didn't look like Constellation was going to succeed anytime soon), but for space exploration as a whole.

Put in those terms, yes, it does sound a bit better (and from what else I just googled. :lol, but what about all the investment already put into the program? Ares had a perfect launch, and the MLP was just completed. What will they do with all that? I'm hoping the new plan will be a modified Constellation Program...

 

[rsoxguy]

That's not even remotely accurate. NASA is seeing an overall budget increase of $6 billion over the next five years, with $3.2 billion of that increase going to research. This budget does axe the constellation program, but this was done at the recommendation of the Augustine Commission, a " blue-ribbon panel of experts appointed by Obama to look into NASA’s future plans and make recommendations."

NASA’s Constellation program – based largely on existing technologies – was based on a vision of returning astronauts back to the Moon by 2020. However, the program was over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies. Using a broad range of criteria an independent review panel determined that even if fully funded, NASA’s program to repeat many of the achievements of the Apollo era, 50 years later, was the least attractive approach to space exploration as compared to potential alternatives. Furthermore, NASA’s attempts to pursue its moon goals, while inadequate to that task, had drawn funding away from other NASA programs, including robotic space exploration, science, and Earth observations. The President’s Budget cancels Constellation and replaces it with a bold new approach that invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration…

Phil Plait, an astronomer, science writer, and all around awesome guy, largely thinks that Obama's move is the right one for NASA. It seems as though this new budget acknowledges reality, specifically that Constellation just wasn't going to be successful in its current form. This is really putting NASA's focus on innovation, where it should be, and encouraging private companies to make earth-orbit spaceflight efficient.

There aren't any politics here. This really does look like the right thing to do, not only for NASA's long term (sure, we're resetting a bit on getting back to the moon, but it didn't look like Constellation was going to succeed anytime soon), but for space exploration as a whole.

You seem a bit political in your heated defense of semantics. I stated nothing for or against the President. OK, to make you happy, "The President's budget did not allocate money for this NASA project". Better?

 

[fyn]

UGH. Exactly. Nothing with nothing, and buzz words. Only this is far worse.


And, yes, I hope congress can at least do that, collectively.

Why rely on 3rd hand information?

Build the Foundation for a Bold New Course for Human Space Flight

NASA’s Constellation program – based largely on existing technologies – was based on a vision of returning astronauts back to the Moon by 2020. However, the program was over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies. Using a broad range of criteria an independent review panel determined that even if fully funded, NASA’s program to repeat many of the achievements of the Apollo era, 50 years later, was the least attractive approach to space exploration as compared to potential alternatives. Furthermore, NASA’s attempts to pursue its moon goals, while inadequate to that task, had drawn funding away from other NASA programs, including robotic space exploration, science, and Earth observations. The President’s Budget cancels Constellation and replaces it with a bold new approach that invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration that includes:

• Research and development to support future heavy-lift rocket systems that will increase the capability of future exploration architectures with significantly lower operations costs than current systems – potentially taking us farther and faster into space.
• A vigorous new technology development and test program that aims to increase the capabilities and reduce the cost of future exploration activities. NASA, working with industry, will build, fly, and test in orbit key technologies such as automated, autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems, in-orbit propellant transfer, and advanced in-space propulsion so that our future human and robotic exploration missions are both highly capable and affordable.
• A steady stream of precursor robotic exploration missions to scout locations and demonstrate technologies to increase the safety and capability of future human missions and provide scientific dividends.

Expand America’s Drive to 21st Century Space Exploration

• $369 million for a new agency-wide technology development and test program aimed at increasing the capabilities and reducing the cost of future NASA, other government, and commercial space activities.
• $183 million to extend operations of the ISS past its previously planned retirement date of 2016. NASA will deploy new research facilities to conduct scientific research and test technologies in space. New capabilities could include a centrifuge to support research into human physiology, inflatable space habitats, and a program to continuously upgrade Space Station capabilities.
• $600 million to complete the final five shuttle missions, allowing for a safe and orderly retirement of the Space Shuttle program even if its schedule slips into Fiscal Year 2011.

Invest in New Science, Innovation, and Jobs

• $1.2 billion for transformative research in exploration technology that will involve NASA, private industry, and academia, sparking spin-off technologies and potentially entire new industries.
• $150 million to accelerate the development of new satellites for Earth Science priorities.
• $170 million to develop and fly a replacement of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, a mission to identify global carbon sources and sinks that was lost when its launch vehicle failed in 2009.
• $500 million to contract with industry to provide astronaut transportation to the ISS, reducing the sole reliance on foreign crew transports and catalyzing new businesses and significant new jobs.

Increases Scientific Understanding of the Solar System and Universe

• $3.2 billion for science research grants and dozens of missions and telescopes studying the planets and stars – including new missions such as the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope, missions to study the Moon, and two Mars exploration missions.
• $14 million ($420 million over five years) for a mission to the Sun, flying through its outer atmosphere to better understand how it is heated and how it ejects the stream of charged particles known as the solar wind.
• Increase funding to detect asteroids that could potentially pose a hazard to the Earth.

High-Priority Performance Goals
The Administration is committed to building a transparent, high-performance government capable of addressing the challenges of the 21st century. As part of developing the budget, every department identified high-priority performance goals (along with the strategies and in-house resources to achieve them) that each will work to accomplish over the next two years. Highlights of this agency’s currently identified goals are:

• Increase efficiency and throughput of aircraft operations during arrival phase of flight.
• Make significant progress towards completion of the integration, test, launch, validation, and initiation of early orbit operations of the Aquarius, Glory, and NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP) missions prior to the end of Fiscal Year 2011.
• Increase annually the percentage of NASA higher education program student participants employed by NASA, aerospace contractors, universities, and other educational institutions.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Why rely on 3rd hand information?

Yep, googleing up info now.:wave:

 

[E P C O T]

Void.

 

[fyn]

You seem a bit political in your heated defense of semantics. I stated nothing for or against the President. OK, to make you happy, "The President's budget did not allocate money for this NASA project". Better?

How in the world was anything I posted political? The points I touched on were solely on whether or not the new federal budget was good or bad for NASA. Also, there's a big difference between:

"The President's budget did not allocate money for NASA."

and

"The President's budget does not allocate money for the Constellation Program, and instead invests more money in other NASA programs."

One's simply untrue, and the other is accurate, just not precise (though it's more precise than even your 2nd attempt). Giving people vague and confusing information really doesn't help move a conversation forward, especially on the internet.

 

[fyn]

Put in those terms, yes, it does sound a bit better (and from what else I just googled. :lol, but what about all the investment already put into the program? Ares had a perfect launch, and the MLP was just completed. What will they do with all that? I'm hoping the new plan will be a modified Constellation Program...

The Ares launch did go extremely well, but shouldn't it have? It's based on 20 year old technology! I sincerely hope we can get that right. The sad part about Ares is that we're not learning much from it. Sure, it can haul stuff into space, but we knew it could. That sort of signifies what was wrong with NASA for the past 20-30 years. We've been operating in this mode of "do what works" without really knowing what value we've been getting out of those motions. I'd like to see NASA push boundaries again, and Ares just isn't doing it.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

The Ares launch did go extremely well, but shouldn't it have? It's based on 20 year old technology! I sincerely hope we can get that right. The sad part about Ares is that we're not learning much from it. Sure, it can haul stuff into space, but we knew it could. That sort of signifies what was wrong with NASA for the past 20-30 years. We've been operating in this mode of "do what works" without really knowing what value we've been getting out of those motions. I'd like to see NASA push boundaries again, and Ares just isn't doing it.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh....I guess. :lol: It's so hard for me to from an opinion on these things, everything they do really leaves me in awe.

While Ares was based on old tech, it was going to be a stepping stone for the Orion rocket, which would help launch a reusable, like the shuttle, Capsule into Space. Much like the Gemini Program, Ares was perfecting the technology of an idea that came before it, Mercury.

 

[CDavid]

I'd like to see NASA push boundaries again, and Ares just isn't doing it.

NASA should indeed be pushing boundaries, but that in no way means there isn't a place and need for Ares. Everything doesn't have to be cutting-edge technology to get the job done. NASA should properly retain a manned space exploration program, and that certainly includes continued ability by to get an astronaut into space without foreign or commercial launches. Don't cut Ares without a alternative launch vehicle in the pipeline, in a similar time frame (the shuttle-Ares gap was going to be bad enough).

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

NASA should indeed be pushing boundaries, but that in no way means there isn't a place and need for Ares. Everything doesn't have to be cutting-edge technology to get the job done. NASA should properly retain a manned space exploration program, and that certainly includes continued ability by to get an astronaut into space without foreign or commercial launches. Don't cut Ares without a alternative launch vehicle in the pipeline, in a similar time frame (the shuttle-Ares gap was going to be bad enough).

Another large concern. ...How long is the gap as it is?