Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (883155)	8/28/2015 11:04:06 AM
From: locogringo	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1577835

Thanks idjit Rs for cutting the space program Some partisan hack idjits have short memories: White House to Propose Funding Cut for NASA U.S. President Barack Obama will ask Congress for $17.7 billion for NASA for 2013, an amount that would leave the agency funded at its lowest level in four years, according to sources familiar with the forthcoming budget proposal. NASA’s planetary science division would shoulder a heavy share of the cut. Under the president’s proposal, its budget would drop from $1.5 billion to $1.2 billion, a 20 percent reduction. Due on Capitol Hill Feb. 13, the $17.7 billion NASA budget proposal represents only a slight reduction from the $17.8 billion Congress approved in November for 2012. But compared to the $18.7 billion Obama penciled in for 2013 in the five-year budget he sent Congress this time last year, it represents a 5 percent cut. Things could have been worse. According to a source familiar with the Obama administration’s internal budget deliberations, the White House Office of Management and Budget asked the agency last fall to submit budget proposals for three scenarios: a 5 percent cut, a 10 percent cut and a 15 percent cut, relative to the outyear spending plan submitted last year. space.com

To: tejek who wrote (883155)	8/28/2015 11:06:05 AM
From: locogringo	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1577835

How will the White House's brutal budget cuts affect NASA? Bill Nye Urges President Obama To Stop Budget Cuts To NASA … Obama budget would cut moon exploration program - CNN.com Obama to slash NASA budget. Will space exploration … Obama budget proposal scraps NASA's back-to-the … Obama Cuts NASA Budget, Takes Credit for Success ...

To: tejek who wrote (883155)	8/28/2015 1:26:53 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577835

It is actually worse than this article makes it seem. Congress actually decided the program was in danger of a schedule slip, so they cut the funds so as to guarantee a schedule slip. Ma The reason is solidly rooted in politics. Marshall Flight Center has traditionally run the rocketry program for NASA. With the retirement of the Shuttle, Marshall is not left with much. Starting in the 1980s, Marshall tried to come up with a shuttle replacement. Most never made it off the drawing board. Those that did, faced schedule slips until they were killed. Some were killed for baffling reasons, like DC-X and Aerostar. Now both of those ran into problems, but the problems were fixable and were even fixed shortly after getting the axe. Marshall then developed the Constellation program, which was supposed to re-use as much shuttle technology as possible, reducing risk. Despite that, its schedule was slipping. Slipping to the point where man-rated launches wouldn't occur until 2020. Or later. By this time, SpaceX had a successful launch and a reasonable schedule to get to man-rated launches and even a heavy lifter before that time. ULA, working with Boeing, had a schedule for man-rated launches before then, too. Constellation did have one thing the others hadn't talked about, deep space capability. So Constellation was killed but the Orion capsule, which is supposed to be deep space capable, was kept. So Marshall cobbled together yet another shuttle-derived program, space launch system or SLS. Which started late and, predictably, has had schedule slips. Since it is abundantly clear that this is Marshall's last hurrah, Alabama congress-critters have been doing all they can to stall SpaceX and ULA/Boeing from man-rated launches. Even if it means shoveling more billions at the Russians. There were mis-steps along the way. Congress' reluctance to fund NASA has always been a problem. I still believe that Constellation's real goal was to finally get NASA shut down. It was overly ambitious, didn't really have a defined mission and was front-loaded with a lot of studies and designs that produced a lot of contracts and nothing in the way of hardware until after Bush was to leave office. I still think Aerostar should be revisited. It was killed because they had trouble fabricating one of the tanks. Using carbon fiber for such an application was in its infancy at the time. It is much more mature now. And, in fact, a tank has been fabricated and tested. Much of the rest of the craft had been fabricated and tested by the time they killed it. Because the Aerostar is a single-stage to orbit and is completely re-usable. None of the SLS is re-usable. In the real world, SLS is going to have to compete with SpaceX, which is very close to partial re-usability, and ULA, which plans on recovering engine clusters by parachute, which is the high dollar part of a rocket stage.