NASA Funding Boost, But No Shuttle Extension in Obama Budget 133
adeelarshad82 writes to point out that details have been provided for President Obama's proposed $18.7 billion in funding for NASA in 2010 (up from $17.2 billion in 2008). Quoting: "The budget calls on NASA to complete International Space Station construction, as well as continue its Earth science missions and aviation research. Yet it also remains fixed to former President George W. Bush's plan to retire the space shuttle fleet by 2010 and replace them with the new Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, which would fly astronauts to the space station and return them to the moon by 2020. The outline does make room for an extra shuttle flight beyond the nine currently remaining on NASA's schedule, but only if it is deemed safe and can be flown before the end of 2010."
Re:OCE?AN (Score:2, Informative)
More like "because we've already turned them into a huge sewer."
There's 10 million [democratic...ground.com] square miles [boingboing.net] of trash [bloomberg.com] just in the Pacific.
Re:Good To See Grownups In Charge (Score:4, Informative)
As for the shuttle, Hubble, ect, I always feel like I'm betraying an old freind when I trade in my car but the smell of fresh leather more than compensates.
Even for multimillion to billion dollar vehicles, they eventually wear out and replacement becomes the safer and more economical choice.
There was talk on the radio today about Obama potentially canceling the F-22 - but said cancellation would put something like 90k people out of work.
A couple points that I think was missed is that 90+% of the expenses for the F-22, R&D, setting up manufacturing, have already been met. Shutting down acquisition of the planes wouldn't actually save you much money. Not even $23 million per plane canceled. Meanwhile, maintenance costs for F-15s and F-16s are starting to skyrocket due to age. One of the selling points for the F-22 is that it's supposed to be much, much easier/cheaper to maintain.
Consider that old '88 chevy. Parts are getting hard to find, the seats need to be reupholstered, the exhaust system is shot; the engine needs a rebuild, cylinder 4 only gets half pressure, etc...
At some point, it'd actually be cheaper to buy a new car.
Re:Not enough money. (Score:3, Informative)
...with the exception of Gemini, which had no failures at all in its ten whole launches.
No failures on Gemini?
What would you call the stuck thruster on Gemini 8, causing the spacecraft to tumble out of control, nearly killing the crew, and requiring an emergency re-entry?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_8 [wikipedia.org]
Re:OCE?AN (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not enough money. (Score:3, Informative)
The heatshield incident on Glenn's flight doesn't count as a failure, because the heatshield didn't actually come loose, and Glenn was never in any danger from it.
One of the switches that detected landing beg deployment failed, causing a false telemetry indication.
Re:OCE?AN (Score:3, Informative)
... and Bloomberg?
Noticed you left them out when criticizing the sources. Do a serch - you'll find LOTS of related articles from the mainstream.
Re:Good To See Grownups In Charge (Score:3, Informative)
Another point in favor of the F-22 is that virtually the entire F-15 fleet was grounded last year because of unanticipated structural failures, requiring examination and recertification of each plane before it could be brought back into service.
The simple fact is that the F-15 and F-16 are now at least a generation out of date. The main aspect that keeps them in the lead when it comes to US forces against most other nations is that the US has such an overwhelming AWACS presence. However, other nations are rapidly catching up, having learned from the last 20 years of US warfare how critical AWACS functions are in the modern theatre of war. One-on-one, there are several planes from other nations that are matches for -- or superior to -- the F-15, -16, and -18 (including the Super Hornet), and that's not going to slow down. The F-22 is currently the main hope for maintaining a qualitative edge over other nations. The F-35 will help, but in case of large-scale operations against a country with a decent air force, it will be the Raptor clearing the way for the JSF's strike capabilities.
Re:Good To See Grownups In Charge (Score:3, Informative)
virtually the entire F-15 fleet was grounded last year because of unanticipated structural failures
Are you talking about the cracks in the frames? I recall that some were discovered long before that but I can't find the Google links.
The F-22 is currently the main hope for maintaining a qualitative edge over other nations......
That's true, but we don't need it right now. It'd make much more sense for the Air Force to use that money to produce more MQ-1's, MQ-9's, and RQ-4's (unmanned aircraft) given that, like it or not, we're gonna be in the Middle-East for awhile.
...in case of large-scale operations against a country with a decent air force...
The cold-war days that gave us Airwolf [youtube.com] are long-gone. Yes, there's gonna be plenty of bitching from the alpha fighter-jockeys, but fuck'em -- they're becoming obsolete. The United States has by far the best Air Force in the world, and such a FUD plea for more shiny toys is just greedy and insulting. Even the DoD is tacitly putting the program on hold [airforcetimes.com][propaganda warning]
;)
-- and I hate the Air Force
Re:Ares or DIRECT (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good To See Grownups In Charge (Score:3, Informative)