New subject: Two more :)

16 Aug 2009

      I would argue that manned space flight is much more costly, risky and yields less scientific bang for the buck.  This does not mean that I am against manned space flight merely that if funds are limited they should go to unmanned missions.  Funds for manned missions should be in addition to the funds allocated for unmanned flights.
If funds are lacking the manned missions should go.

Sincerely,
       Gary Vardon
The book DO It Right will help you understand vital ideas leading to your geater success.  GO to PublishAmerica.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Eads
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 2:05 PM
To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Findings of the Review of US Human Space Flight Plans Committee

The Presidential committee led by Norman Augustine chairman of the  
Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee gave their results  
this week http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0908/12augustine/
in case anyone was interested. Here are some highlights and from it I  
took it to mean that the current plan is not feasible as funded so  
changes will be forth coming.

Sally Ride a panel member and former astronaut explained that the  
"unconstrained budge" which would cost an estimated $50 billion means  
that Orion and Ares I arrive after a 2016 ISS deorbit (at a cost of  
1.5 billion) since ISS is only funded through 2015.  So the two  
rockets arrive but have no where to go.  If NASA has to live wit the  
2010 budget guidelines provided by the Obama administration the Ares 5  
heavy lift rocket will not be ready until 2028. Here we have a heavy  
rocket designed to go to the moon and take material with it but  
nothing is deployed and no money to fund a lunar system.

$3 billion was cut by the Office of Management and Budget from NASA's  
long-range budget projected last spring, money to be used for the  
development of the Ares V prior to the Augustine panel being formed.   
Knowing that a large budget would not pass the Office of Management  
and Budget right now, and a small budget would not forward exploration  
I guess they are trying for the just right size.

So the proposal does this:

1. Ramps up slowly to $3 billion a year over the budget they've been  
given until 2020 when the budget follows inflation of 2.4%

2. Astronauts return to the moon in the 2025 timeframe

3. ISS  as Russia, Japan, Canada and the ESA want, is left up through  
at least 2020.

4. IF ISS is left up then Ares I development is probably suspended  
fueling the money for booster development away from Ares I into the  
ISS operations (better go see the test on August 25!).

5. Augustine panel favors the development of commercial rockets and  
capsules to ferry astronauts to and from low-Earth orbit.

6. Augustine panel assessing the trade-off of flying 1 or 2 Space  
Shuttle Missions a year reducing the gap before the new rocket systems  
are developed.

7. I found this one perhaps intriguing: "the panel is assessing  
options for deep space exploration that might bypass the moon in favor  
of near-Earth asteroids, lunar reconnaissance flybys and even flybys  
of Mars, with "off ramps" for development of systems for use on the  
lunar surface and eventual manned landings on Mars."

8. Ares V rocket would be modified and made man rated to carry  
astronauts. No Ares I development with any of these cases though.

Sally Ride's final comment was ""We kept coming up with a common  
theme, which is this budget is very, very, very hard to fit and still  
have an exploration program," Ride said. "In fact, we are still  
looking for an existence proof that we can actually find one. We  
haven't found one yet, but we're still looking."

A few other items are listed, you can read the article.

   I am beginning to think that if I live to around 75 (2041) I may  
not live to see man leave low earth orbit. I wonder if we will get out  
of low earth orbit before the end of this century? I also wonder if  
emphasis is being placed on non-human exploration methods as they are  
less risky and can provide scientific breakthroughs with less cost? Or  
are they facing the same budget constraints as the human exploration  
side? I  think of the comment I read lately by the director of the  
Mars Explorers. As successful as they have been they have done in 18  
months what a man could have done in several weeks. Should we push  
back human explorations and put that money into other projects of  
exploration? Do you think you'll see human spaceflight beyond low- 
earth oribit in your lifetime? 

_______________________________________________
Utah-Astronomy mailing list
Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php
Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Findings of the Review of US Human Space Flight Plans Committee

Gary Vardon

David Rankin

Tyler Allred

David Rankin

Patrick Wiggins

Joe Bauman

Dave Bennett

erikhansen＠TheBlueZone.net

Siegfried Jachmann

Joe Bauman

erikhansen＠TheBlueZone.net

Joe Bauman

Josephine Grahn

erikhansen＠TheBlueZone.net

Patrick Wiggins

erikhansen＠TheBlueZone.net

Josephine Grahn

Siegfried Jachmann

Josephine Grahn

Patrick Wiggins

tags

participants (9)