Delta-V

NASA Boss Wants Innovation

New technology will get humans to Mars, says Charles Bolden, Jr.

Brittany Sauser 05/11/2010

  • 13 Comments
NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr. speaking in
a lecture hall at MIT. Credit: Brittany Sauser

NASA's administrator Charles Bolden, Jr. says the agency plans to come up with revolutionary new space technologies so that humans can reach Mars under the current plan. NASA's scientists and engineers, along with academic collaborators, will have to invent new forms of space propulsion, in-flight refueling systems, space robotics and precision landing technologies, Bolden said yesterday at MIT.

NASA's future has been hotly debated since President Obama announced his new budget proposal for the agency in January 2010. Obama's proposal cancelled the Constellation program, a plan for developing new launch and transportation technology and returning humans to the moon by 2020. Instead, the budget focuses heavily on using the commercial sector to ferry astronaut to and from low earth orbit; and on pursing a more flexible path--sending humans and robotics to the moon, asteroids, the moons of Mars, with Mars itself as the ultimate destination.

Bolden is "committed" to the president's plan. "It was a hard choice to step back from the Constellation program and create a new path forward, but the president, with my full agreement, made a change that took a lot of courage," he said during a talk given to students and academics. Bolden believes the new budget will set NASA on a sustainable course to explore beyond earth.

But he called for a new era of invention at the agency. "We have not done anything in the past decade for basic research," he said. "The frustration for me is that when I go to Congress, all we talk about is Constellation and human spaceflight. We forget that the president's plan is to spend a lot of money on basic research."

Bolden believes NASA should collaborate with academic researchers on new projects and Obama's plan includes billions of dollars for such research and development in a variety of areas. Ultimately, Bolden wants humans to colonize Mars. But the first step should be additional robotic exploration, he said. "Robots can help us understand everything there is to know about the planet's harsh environment." He also mentioned a new propulsion technology, the VASIMR engine being built by former astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz, for travel to Mars. "If it works, it goes fast, cutting the trip time down." (Currently, the Red Planet is an 8-month journey away and we don't have a vehicle to even attempt to send humans because of the radiation exposure. NASA needs to build bigger spacecraft with more shielding or better engine technology like VASIMR to get humans there quickly--Diaz engine would at the very least cut the trip time to Mars in half.)

The NASA administrator said that he believes strongly in the commercial sector. He noted that the commercial space industry has worked on NASA-built spacecraft since their inception. Under the new plan the difference is that commercial space companies will own the spacecraft and the government will lease them for missions. When a spacecraft is not being rented by NASA, the company can use it for space tourism or whatever they like. Bolden also said that the government is putting $6 billion dollars into the development of commercial spacecraft, so "we will be responsible for tests to human rate the spacecraft [to ensure they are safe] and to make sure it meets what we want."

How the spacecraft will be operated--who sits in the flight control room and where it's located, and how astronauts are trained, for example--is still being worked out. Bolden said he hopes to "entice" commercial companies to use NASA facilities as much as possible.

Bolden was energetic and charismatic in his talk, but spoke strongly. "NASA is committed to a new era of exploration, the 21st century space enterprise," he said, adding that the new plan has lofty goals that will create "a transformative path"--new technologies, new markets, new high tech jobs, new scientific discoveries, and a new era of space exploration.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

Gaetano Marano

246 Comments

  • 643 Days Ago
  • 05/11/2010

>>> innovate always is a good thing but too expensive at NASA's costs >>>

.

innovate always is a good thing but too expensive at NASA's costs, so, why don't use the existing technologies in a better, safer and cheaper way?

however, while waiting to go to Mars... why did NASA don't use its know how and engineers to solve the Gulf of Mexico oil spill issue?

here you can find MY proposal to STOP the oil leak:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/070oilspillsolution.html

PS - despite BP wants help from the web, to solve its problem in the Gulf, incredibly, its websites don't have an email address to send our proposals!

.

Reply

CoastalRon

52 Comments

  • 643 Days Ago
  • 05/11/2010

Re: >>> innovate always is a good thing but too expensive at NASA's costs >>>

I can't believe I'm saying this, but you make more sense on space related stuff than oil leak solutions...

Reply

Gaetano Marano

246 Comments

  • 642 Days Ago
  • 05/12/2010

Re: >>> innovate always is a good thing but too expensive at NASA's costs >>>

but it's always better than the BP guys that are doing nothing to solve the problem

Reply

Mapou

357 Comments

  • 643 Days Ago
  • 05/11/2010

Reality Sucks

Unfortunately for NASA, there will be no breakthrough based on current physics that will solve its number one problem: the high cost and inadequacy of rocket propulsion technologies. Conventional propulsion technologies are too expensive, too dangerous and too slow. This is true even if you use fancy systems like magnetic plasma engines or atomic rockets. Regardless of the method used, inter-planetary space travelers must carry huge amounts of energy and propellant on board. Because of the need to accelerate and decelerate, inertial effects impose a heavy burden that grows exponentially with speed and load. This drastically limits the usefulness of Newtonian physics for space travel. Reality sucks for NASA.

There is no point in denying it, the hard reality is that, unless a new revolutionary understanding of motion appears on the scene, space travel will remain prohibitively expensive, dangerous and primitive. Can there be such a breakthrough? Sure, but the physics community must first wake up from their collective stupor and acknowledge the primitive level of their understanding of motion. Physicists must be willing to admit to themselves that they don't understand motion and that Newtonian laws are incomplete. Why? Because Newtonian physics does not explain what keeps a body in motion (i.e., what causes a body in motion to remain in motion), something that Newton himself acknowledged in his writings. Sorry, you don't understand motion even if you think you do.

If physicists truly understood motion, they would realize that Aristotle was right in insisting that motion is caused and that, as a result, we are immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles: no lattice => no motion. And I means lots and lots of energy, much more than we'll ever need. We can tap into this field for both energy production and super fast transportation. But first, we need to understand that there is a problem with motion.

If NASA wants to boldly go where no one has gone before, they must let go of their primitive ways and forge a new future worthy of the 21st century. Fearless and even rebellious leadership combined with a willingness to go against the grain are what is called for. This means that all of our current cockamamie rocket propulsion systems must be abandoned. That's how I see it.

Reply

NelsonBridwell

9 Comments

  • 643 Days Ago
  • 05/11/2010

To Explore, or Not to Explore...

Obama's strategy has alwasy been to sacrifice the US manned space exploration program by diverting money for actual space exploration hardware into the pockets of his political supporters in academia.  His priority is to be reelected in 2012.

That we would never reach the Moon, let alone Mars, is unimportant to him.  Instead there would be yet more dead-end research projects and paper studies, just like NASA before the Vision for Space Exploration.

Reply

CoastalRon

52 Comments

  • 643 Days Ago
  • 05/11/2010

Re: To Explore, or Not to Explore...

Perhaps you would like to defend the old plan?  Maybe explain how ending the Shuttle after 2010, ending the ISS after 2015, and not having anywhere to go in space for 10 years or more is such a great idea.

Can you defend that plan?

The new plan starts the painful process of transferring routine crew access to space from the government to commercial companies.  We already do this for our most precious cargo, and now it's time to do it for crew.

In regards to the Constellation program, I would say most of us are glad for it's demise not because it was returning us to the Moon, but because it doing so in such a costly fashion.  The new plan lays the foundation for a less costly way to explore space, and because of that, we'll be able to do more, and without waiting 15-20 years like we would have for Constellation.

So Nelson Bridwell, instead of political diatribe, explain how the old plan would have been better.

Reply

dmm

270 Comments

  • 643 Days Ago
  • 05/11/2010

Error in blog article

From the VASIMR web site:
"A nuclear powered spacecraft could dramatically shorten human transit times between planets (less than 3 months to Mars) and propel robotic cargo missions with a very large payload mass fraction."

Notice it says 3 MONTHS to Mars, not 3 DAYS.  I think this article is mistaken in reporting 3 DAYS to Mars.

Of course, 3 months using nuclear-powered VASIMR engines is still a lot better than 8 months using current chemical rocket engines.

Reply

Advertisement

CoastalRon

52 Comments

  • 643 Days Ago
  • 05/11/2010

Re: Error in blog article

Yep, that was an obvious error.  Franklin Chang-Diaz has been pretty consistent about explaining that it would still be months to get to Mars, but significantly faster than chemical rockets.

Assuming VASIMR works as advertised, we still need a large nuclear power source.  There is some money in the new NASA budget, but it's going to take a lot more.  We have already bought Russian space reactors, and maybe the will want to work on a larger one?  It would be another area for them to carve out a niche in space technology.

Reply

Brittany Sauser

46 Comments

  • 642 Days Ago
  • 05/12/2010

Re: Error in blog article

dmm,

Thanks for pointing out the months vs. days mistake with the VASIMR engine. I heard from Mr. Diaz and it should have said a couple months. Your right that even months cuts the exposure to radiation down significantly and is a much more ideal scenario.

Thanks for your comments.

Brittany

Reply

penzor

18 Comments

  • 643 Days Ago
  • 05/11/2010

Uncertain Repackaging

"New forms of space propulsion(VASIMR), in-flight refueling systems, space robotics and precision landing technologies" All this was part of the Constellation program or in NASA's budget in some way. 
There is no reason why flexible path and Constellation cannot be combined.  Compleat  Aries I and slow the pace of the rest of constellation to fit with-in the budget. 
Why does NASA have lose a $9 billion investment?

Reply

CoastalRon

52 Comments

  • 643 Days Ago
  • 05/11/2010

Re: Uncertain Repackaging

In response to Penzor's comment about Ares I (not Aries):

When Ares I and Constellation were originally announced, there already existed a commercial alternative for Ares I - Delta IV Heavy.  Delta IV is a modern design, and numerous studies have shown that it can be man-rated (something like $2B+ & 5 years).  If we would have man-rated Delta IV, it would have been ready to take over crew delivery services from the Shuttle - no gap in U.S. crew capability.  Ares I will take at least 5 more years to be flight ready, and $40B to accomplish the same task.  Is this a good use of the U.S. Taxpayer money?

The real reason for Ares I was to absorb/cover-up part of the development costs for Ares V.  Otherwise everyone would notice that we were paying $50B+ for a launcher that might be used twice a year, and that doesn't include production, sustaining and launch costs.  We can't afford Ares V, and Ares I duplicates lower cost commercial alternatives.

Can someone please try and justify Constellation from a cost standpoint?  Please try and justify the business case for it, because I can't figure it out.

Reply

penzor

18 Comments

  • 643 Days Ago
  • 05/11/2010

Re: Uncertain Repackaging

Thank for the spell check!

Delta IV Heavy will not work for the existing abort system/Orion that why Obama only wants a descent vehicle. Man-rated which will take according to the Augustine commission 5 to 7 years.  Also, I would take your cost estmate of $2b and double it. It's not as easy sounds to man-rate. Adding safty redundant systems, adds weight.  That means Boeing will want to increase performance.  
That $40B for Ares I includes NASA center upgrades, launch pad, abort system, and Orion.

The cheapes way to go for rockes is single stage to orbit like the X-33. The more pices of the rocket you can reuse the lower the cost to launch.

Reply

CoastalRon

52 Comments

  • 642 Days Ago
  • 05/12/2010

Re: Uncertain Repackaging

Penzor, I'll let Michael Gass, ULA's President and CEO respond to your comments.  On June 23 2009 he said:

"In a public presentation here June 17 before the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, Michael Gass, ULA's president and chief executive, laid out the case for dropping Ares 1 in favor of human-rating the Delta 4 Heavy to launch the 25-ton Orion capsules. ULA's Atlas 5 rocket, meanwhile, could have a role to play launching smaller commercial alternatives to Orion.

Gass told the 10-member review panel that the Delta 4 Heavy, which has flown two operational missions to date, could make it through NASA's stringent human-rating process by 2014. U.S. Air Force-funded propulsion improvements, he said, would benefit NASA and permit the Delta 4 Heavy to launch Orion into orbit for both space station and lunar missions with greater than 20 percent performance margin. Human-rating the rocket would cost $500 million, Gass said, while launch pad modifications would add another $800 million to the investment. After that, he said, NASA could launch Orion atop the Delta 4 Heavy for $300 million a shot.

Gass said Delta 4 offers NASA a near-term, realistic alternative to Ares 1 for Orion while Atlas 5 could be ready by 2013 to launch commercial crew-carrying vehicles for $130 million a launch."

Reply

Bio

This blog focuses on the nuts-and-bolts of space technology. We're interested in the hardware that's actually going into orbit and beyond. We write about what's involved in building, launching, and operating spacecraft, exploration vehicles, and habitats (and what it takes on the ground to support them) today.

Delta-V is written by Stephen Cass, a senior editor at TR who has covered space technology and exploration for nine years, and Brittany Sauser, a space technology reporter at TR.

Subscribe to the Delta-V RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement