Talk:Constellation program

Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Page Needs Work!

I have created the Wikipedia entry for the Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, but it needs someone to read the two articles and watch the NASA video and then write a decent Wikipedia article. Can someone please step forward and do this? --Radical Mallard July 11, 2009, 7:53 PM EST

cancellation proposal announced on 7 year anniversary of the Columbia disaster

This was noted in the article and later was removed from the remover called it "unrelated trivia." If the Associated Press considers it worthy to be mentioned, which they did in several articles, I think it is appropriate here also. Thoughts?--69.248.225.198 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Add it
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 01:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated trivia. The disaster has not direct bearing on this. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Post-Constellation policy direction for NASA

I have started a discussion in the main NASA article Talk Page.

Now that NASA has announced a new (post-Constellation) direction for their plans to get humans into Earth-orbit,(Private Spaceflight Goes Public, Alan Boyle, MSNBC Cosmic Log, 2010-02-01; many other sources will be published this week) and the Obama Administration is backing the new policy in the just-released budget proposal, it seems we need two things. First, we need an update to the general article on NASA, in order to reflect the new policy direction. Secondly, it seems to me we need a new NASA-related policy history article created in the vein of, and as a successor to, Vision for Space Exploration (2004), Aldridge (2004), and Augustine (2009).

If you are interested in the topic, suggest you comment there. N2e (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Cancellation Image

Funny as it is, the second logo with the word 'cancellation' below needs removal, right? It Figures. (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed it. Looks like image vandalism or something. Unhelpful anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Fate of Constellation

Please make sure to leave the status of Constellation and all of it's child projects as "under development" until the budget is approved by the congress. The fate of the project is still unknown since many in congress want it to stay, and recently wrote a provision into law that makes it so the president can't change funding without the approval of congress.

Ittiz (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its cancellation is still only a proposal, there is no indication that it has been cancelled yet on the NASA webpages. 88.105.46.10 (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

My edits to include the likely cancellation in the first phrase were reverted as purported "vandalism". Well, I am sorry to say to all those trying to present this chimera as a viable program: you are just deluding yourselves at taxpayer's expense. There is absolutely no doubt it will be ultimately cancelled. We'll see you next year. 76.176.24.87 (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a news site or a blog. I didn't see what you wrote, but the fact that the constellation program is not included in Obama's budget for NASA should be mentioned, not that it has been canceled however. Since it won't be canceled till congress votes on the budget, it doesn't matter how certain it is. Sure if you throw an wine glass into the air, and the odds that it will break when hit hits the ground is almost certain, you can't say the glass broke until it actually breaks. All you can say is it will "most likely" break, especially in an encyclopedia.

151.204.226.4 (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Needlessly biased or political text removed from cost.

The cost section appears needlessly political in its discussion when projecting costs. While it may be legitimate to mention costs from other programs, extending those same costs to another, different, program is biased and appears to be advocacy and not explanation of material directly related to the subject at hand. Text removed is pasted below.

Applying the same underestimate to the Constellation program would put its actual 10-year price tag at $151 billion (in 2008 dollars), or $404 billion over 20 years including the Commercial Crew and Cargo program. It is too early to know if similarly over-optimistic estimates will apply to Constellation's launch frequency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southern Forester (talk • contribs) 12:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives

The Alternatives section (Constellation_program#Alternatives is becoming a bit ridiculous in my opinion. Do we really need to list every possible method of reaching space, theoretical or not? Should we add Space Elevators, Soyuz, Shenzhou (spacecraft) and the possibility of using the tried and proven Apollo spacecraft launched on the good old Saturn V?

This Section needs to be limited to only alternatives that are being SERIOUSLY and OFFICALY considered, and not include any old method that a Wikipedia editor thinks may work. To do otherwise is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research

I will remove non-verified information from this section on April 22, 2010. Aalox (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My problem with that section is not so much the list of what's there now (someone had added the X-33, which I thought was going overboard). My problem with it is that "alternatives to Constellation" is really "alternative near-term methods of servicing the Space Station" and "alternative methods of attaining access to the Moon". The former topic is useful and verifiable; the latter one is more subject to speculation. It's possible that a section on possible lunar access methods might be useful to distraught users looking for solace or ammunition, both legitimate uses of Wikipedia, if a good, well-referenced section on the topic could be supplied. Voronwae (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw the suggestion that the X-33 could be an alternative, with a reference to an archived letter someone (possibly the editor) sent to nasa with the suggestion. Quite silly. Perhaps the ""alternative near-term methods of servicing the Space Station" should be moved over to one of the International Space Station articles, and the the alternatives to get to the moon in Exploration_of_the_Moon?Aalox (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I admit I just initially did a drive-by edit on the list of what was there without including references or going beyond getting rid of the X-33 bits. I think that what's on that list as of just now is legitimate and maybe even useful to people who come to the page looking for Constellation/Ares-specific info. I just hit it again and removed the Ares IV ref, given that Ares IV demonstrably doesn't exist, and basically just threw in a list of the CCDEV/COTS vehicle contractors (without listing the non-vehicle awards). I don't have time right now to make the section any better, but reasonably speaking the entire article could really stand some work. This is probably a very popular article right now, and it really would be good to have answers for the many questions I see people asking in their blogs (or articles in mainstream publications, for that matter). Most of the American public are very misinformed about Constellation. I think right now it's not a bad section to have in the article. The rest of the sections, on the other hand... Voronwae (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting this be a "Bash Constellation Article?" I would not condone anything of the sort. This must be WP:NPOV (Although the debates section has pretty much destroyed all hopes of WP:NPOV. Aalox (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the present article is at all neutral and it doesn't present a clear picture of the opposing arguments to CxP. I'd say that probably the CxP debate section should be moved to its own article, and the CxP article re-neutralized to include only objective information. Regarding CxP debate, few CxP negatives are presented here in any substantive manner, whereas there's a liberal sprinkling of quotes from angry CxP advocates. The article needs to present just the facts. Regarding Ares IV, it isn't a proposed alternative to anything unless somehow someone brings it back, very unlikely, although it certainly merits mention elsewhere and it has its own article. Like I said, there's a lot of information that could be mentioned in this article and probably should be, like the many design changes that have occurred that make it no longer "shuttle-derived". Objective and factual information can be presented without "Constellation-bashing".Voronwae (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Bias and error

I was surprised to see Neil Armstrong's comments featured so prominently along with the note that he was "the first man on the moon". This is nonsense in the way it is written. He was indeed half of the crew of the lunar lander that landed on the moon first but I can't see how this or his being closer to the door of the craft (and therefore the first to exit) gives him any special credibility on evaluating Constellation. On the other hand, none of Aldrin's comments are mentioned nor is it mentioned that Aldrin has a PhD and wrote his doctoral dissertation on docking in space compared to Armstrong's Master's degree. Nor is it even mentioned that Armstrong's open letter was signed by two other astronauts: Apollo 17 commander Eugene Cernan and Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell. cbsnews The way this is written it gives undo weight and notariety to Armstrong.

Secondly, there seems to be some doubt as to how much weight Ares V could lift into LEO. I've seen this figure given as 414,000; 396,000; and 287,000 lbs in NASA's own publications. Presumably they can't all be correct and since there are several it seems unlikely that the highest one is correct.

I also didn't see anything about complications caused by increasing the SRB stack from 4 to 5.5 segments or that the gain was less than expected. Nothing about base heating with RS-68 and solving this adds weight or reduces efficiency. Nothing about the weight problem on the 40 year old crawlerway with Ares V or that the launch pad would have to be upgraded or the doors on the assembly building enlarged.

The way that it is written it suggests that canceling the program was an almost unilateral decision by president Obama rather than his following the advice of a commission that studied the issue at a cost of $3 million over half a year.

There is also no mention that using SRB's may have a welfare component to support the company (Thiokol) that makes solid fuel engines for military applications such as Trident II's, Sidewinder's, HARM's, and other missiles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brehmel (talk • contribs) 10:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the preceeding. The article is seriously biased. It does not reflect the vast delays and cost overruns of the project, or the lack of any realisic budget, and fails to provide any rationale. John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, had spoken out strongly against the project, called in "not a dream, but an illusion" and said clearly that the nation could not afford it when it was introduced in 2004.

The goal of this article should be to provide an unbiased report of the chronology, not a political rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwoodard (talk • contribs) 02:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I did my best to remove the drivel that was editorial about unrelated programs, administrations and budgets, as well as properly cite both who was talking and where they said what they said. I added some references to Armstrong's complete point of view about limitations of relying on private enterprise, as well as a quick note that private enterprise is making some progress (which still feels like editorial, but honestly, the cherry picked quotations were such horseshit when I read this the first time, I think it helps to have 'he didn't think this was possible, but it apparently is' in there just to keep the whole thing honest). I still feel like the Buzz Aldrin bit is a non sequitur put in for an artificial perception of 'balance', but, because it's much more recent, it serves as a kind of bookend on the thing, and gives some closure on the idea of Constellation being a program with a specific purpose, as opposed to the jingoist personification of American glory or whatever the hell the previous editors were trying to convey. -Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:C0:1006:EC23:58CB:6133:BBA7 (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys like Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Jim Lovell, and Gene Cernan, and others really know what they speak about. They have lived trough it. If they think that this is worth doing, I believe them. Pekka Lehtikoski.208.65.88.172 (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Capitalize title

The name of the program is the *Constellation Program*, which is a proper noun and both words are capitalized. Inkeeping with Wikipedia's style guide, the P in the article title should be capitalized., and this page should be moved to Constellation Program.   –Justin Force 19:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)