Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
jayfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 12:09 PM
Original message
NASA Says it Cannot Produce Heavy-Lift Rocket on Time, Budget
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 cant 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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. Defund our 'wars' of aggression abroad, and the problem is solved...
think that will happen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
social_critic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. By 'defund', he means 'end'.
As in come home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. No, they're not. They're turkey shoots, at the least, and state sponsored terror more
Edited on Mon Jan-17-11 02:34 PM by ixion
accurately. If they were real wars, you wouldn't be able to ignore them at your leisure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
35. NASA's never had anything close to "too much money." (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HowHasItComeToThis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
24. GOTTA HAVE THOSE WARS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kievan Rus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
27. I say defund the war on drugs
Edited on Tue Jan-18-11 12:09 AM by Kievan Rus
For all the money we waste on trying to stop a f*****g plant, we could have put humans on Mars by now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #27
33. I'm all for it. Defund both the WoD and the WoT
and we'd be better off for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. Gravy for Boeing Rocketdyne division
How about we buy eyeglasses for seniors instead?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exultant Democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #9
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/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #21
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 ...

:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
22. + Neil deGrasse Tyson at UB: What NASA Means to America's Future
Edited on Mon Jan-17-11 03:14 PM by Duppers
Listen up, naysayers:

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


"Half a penny on a dollar."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
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 experimentof a rapidly warming worldwas 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:




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #23
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #9
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roy Rolling Donating Member (762 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blackspade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atypical Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
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.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atypical Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smuglysmiling Donating Member (82 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
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...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klimmer777 Donating Member (26 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-11 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
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?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #18
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?






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
32. OFFS - We've been doing heavy lift, dumb rockets, since the 50's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
34. Translation: "All the good engineers retired".
Edited on Tue Jan-18-11 06:31 PM by Xithras
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?!?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 24th 2024, 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC