Delta-V

NASA's Blueprint for New Space Technologies

The agency announced its latest revision but budget uncertainties in the U.S. Congress make plans moving targets.

Stephen Cass 09/02/2010

  • 10 Comments
An artist's impression of an electric rocket powered
by an array of solar panels that can deliver 30 kilowatts.
Courtesy NASA.

At the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics' 2010 Space conference currently underway in Anaheim, California, NASA announced the latest revision of its programs to develop new technologies that will transform human spaceflight. NASA first began developing these plans in February following the Obama administration's unveiling of its new space policy, and revealed them to the space community in May. Already however, significant changes have been made, in small part due to feedback from the space community, but mostly due to Congressional opposition to the White House's policy. The House and Senate are fashioning a compromise, but NASA's representatives cautioned that the impasse over the 2011 Financial Year budget is not likely to be resolved until several months into FY2011, and so even more changes are likely in the near future.

However, at least in broad strokes, the agency's commitment to developing and demonstrating certain technologies it believes are critical to its future are clear, with four test missions slated for launch between 2014 and 2018 by NASA's new Flagship Technology Demonstration program.

The first mission is a Solar Electric Propulsion test flight, scheduled for 2014--a large solar array fitted to a small unmanned spacecraft will generate 30 kilowatts of power that will be used to drive an electric rocket. The mission will last two years, first visiting a dead satellite in geosynchrous orbit to test new proximity sensors for an automated rendevous and docking system NASA hopes to build, and then the spacecraft will go on to visit a near Earth asteroid, studying it with a small set of science instruments. NASA hopes such a propulsion system will let them build efficient space tugs, or power space debris removal vehicles.

The second mission will launch a satellite that will demonstrate the ability to store cryogenic propellants such as liquid oxygen, and then transfer propellants from one spacecraft to another. The 200-day mission is targeted for 2015 and will demonstrate the technologies needed to build in-space refueling depots. Such depots could make it much easier and cheaper to send manned and unmanned spacecraft beyond low Earth orbit, as the fuel for long journeys won't have to be brought up all in one go, meaning smaller rockets can be used.

NASA hopes to launch the third mission in 2016; this would be an inflatable habitat module more or less permanently attached to the International Space Station, similar to the modules currently being developed by Bigelow Aerospace for a private space station. In 2018, NASA would use the inflatable module as a test bed for an advanced life support system intended for long-duration manned missions.

The fourth and final mission planned would also launch in 2018, and demonstrate how NASA can use aerocapture and other techniques to land large payloads on Mars. With current technology, NASA can't land more than 1,000 kilograms on the Martian surface at a time, far too little for a human mission. It hasn't yet been determined if the flight test would actually take place at Mars, or if useful results could be obtained by testing the technology with Earth's atmosphere.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

NelsonBridwell

9 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/03/2010

Nowhere

The problem is that these are a distraction, a sideshow, that is part of Obama's plan for NASA to go NOwhere.

Show me the destinations. Show me the deadlines. Show me the preliminary designs. Show me the numbers. Only when there is a specific need for a proof-of-concept to reduce risks, only then does a quick TD project makes sense, such as the heavily instrumented Ares I-X to check for thrust oscillation.

NASA does not have the budget to waste on feel-good science fair projects.  Nor does it have another 4 decades to spin it's wheels.

Real space exploration is expensive and risky.  NASA needs real spacecraft that will get us to the Moon and Mars as effectively and safely as possible over the next 40 years.

Reply

Liberal Spacer

3 Comments

  • 523 Days Ago
  • 09/04/2010

Re: Nowhere

Sorry, but destinations & deadlines have been missed so many times.  Look at Station, look at Shuttle, and most importantly, look at Constellation.

What this is about is about building the infrastructure to do deep space missions (and BTW, there is at least 1 specific destination & deadline).  These are no more feel good science mission than the construction of the VAB was a feel good construction process - it has a purpose.  Doing these tech demos allows us to do infrastructure building.  I'd much prefer that than  one of stunts. 

And if you want to look at spinning your wheels, I suggest we look at how poorly Constellation was doing. 

As for needing real spacecraft - Well, given that Altair has been canceled (and wasn't scheduled for beginning it for a while), and Ares V was a LONG from its first flight (and hell, lest be honest, Ares I is a long time until first flight - at least 5 years, more likely 6-7) I don't see how you can view that as real spacecrafts. 

Reply

stargazer

9 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/03/2010

Distractions

I don't agree that these technology demonstrations are mere distractions, but I do agree that they are no substitute for a real human exploration program with real -- attainable -- objectives. I also agree that the Obama Administration's eagerness to gut Constellation and substitute odds-and-ends projects which even taken together don't amount to much makes it abundantly clear that the Administratiion wants to kill off human space exploration beyond low earth orbit. This is particularly obvious in view of then-candidate Obama's initial proposal to end manned space flight for a period of five years so that the money could be spent on education. Even though then-candidate Obama subsequently pledged his support for the space program, the real objectives of this shell game approach to human space exploration is all too obvious.

I was particularly amused by the proposal to put off even the "evaluation" of a potential heavy lift booster for an additional five years. That, coupled with prospective missions to nowhere using space flight hardware that would not exist because it had just been cancelled, was all the proof I needed that the real mission of this program was to kill off human spaceflight -- at least beyond LEO -- for the duration of the Obama Administration and probably for many years after.

Because of the intervention of the House and Senate, parts of Constellation will be saved and work will begin on developing the heavy lift booster. Lori Garver recently gave an unintentionally amusing interview stating that there should not be "political interference" in the choice of a heavy lift booster. Obviously the effort to kill off Constellation and defer action on a heavy lift booster and anything else related to human space exploration until -- hell freezes over -- was a purely political move. Congress's actions specifying when heavy lift booster development should begin -- immediately -- and the type and capability of the booster in the funding language can be directly traced to their conclusion that the current Administration and NASA leadership cannot be trusted to carry out Congressional intent on these issues. If human exploration in space beyond low earth orbit is to continue under the Obama administration, it will not be with their willing cooperation, it will be inspite of their resistance.

Reply

Liberal Spacer

3 Comments

  • 523 Days Ago
  • 09/04/2010

Re: Distractions

Oh good lord, we are really going back to a single statement in a campaign white paper, to demonstrate that Obama is out to destroy Human spaceflight.  Its almost as bad as the birthers movement, and the "Obama is a Muslim" claim. 

Countless reports, over the decades, have made it clear, we desperately NEED to do real R&D for NASA - not develop an operational vehicle to do what we can already do using existing systems. 

These aren't odds and ends projects - these are vital if you want to do exploration beyond the Apollo model - that is, launch everything all at once, never reuse systems, and never do infrastructure building.  Tech development is vital for infrastructure building.  For example, the possibilities offered by fuel depots are incredible, and we've known a good chunk of how to do fuel depots for a long time.  If its so great, why aren't we using them?  Its time to shut up, and actually invest in the infrastructure needed to do BEO missions, rather than try and replicate the stunts that are Apollo. 

As for Heavy lift - we don't need heavy lift.  We haven't needed it for a while.  What we need is an ability to get a lot of stuff up there, and then be able to put it together in a fashion that makes it usable.  EELV & things like Prop depots and inflatable habitats will do that for us, much better than a single big rocket that is too expensive for us to fly. 

Whether it takes 20 years to open space, or 50 years, will be decided by whether we invest in infrastructure development, like Obama proposes, or keep trying to do more stunts, alla Apollo. 

Reply

stargazer

9 Comments

  • 522 Days Ago
  • 09/05/2010

Re: Distractions

As a Democrat, and a liberal, I know that opposition to the space program – particularly manned spaceflight – is the prevailing view among many liberal Democrats. That single campaign statement, as you describe it, typified that opposition to human spaceflight, constituted the public view of candidate Obama, and was repeatedly cited and defended by the campaign through most of the contested primaries. It was only changed when Florida and Texas came into play. I am no “birther”, nor am I anti-muslim or alleging that the President is a Moslem. However, I do recognize a feeble effort to raise spurious arguments in an attempt to discredit a critic and change the subject. The subject has not been changed.

No one is arguing against R&D for NASA. Certainly I am not. However, none of the indicated R&D projects we have discussed need to be abandoned in the presence of a real live goals and objectives for the manned space program. Indeed, they would need to be pursued – and they would be – in the context of a genuine exploration program. But taken in whole or in part, they do not constitute a coherent and real human exploration program. The goal of the Constellation program to return to the Moon was clearly described, and fully justified, as a first step in restoring and building up the necessary technological infrastructure and skills that will be required to enable human exploration of the solar system. The smart way to begin this mission is work the kinks out close enough to earth that major problems and errors will not always result in loss of mission and loss of crew – as it frequently would on a two or three year mission to Mars. Additionally, missions to the Moon are cheaper than missions to Mars so building up the skills and technology on missions to the Moon before going into the deep end of the pool – Mars -- is cost effective. Finally, the Moon offers enormous potential for scientific research. The initial Apollo missions were cut short before the scientific aspect of the program swung into place. It is time to pick up where we left off in exploring our nearest neighbor in the solar system.

As for heavy lift – it is the essential part for any way forward for human space exploration. It is the long pole in the tent – the long lead time item you have to have before any realistic program – beyond R&D -- can move forward. EELV is fine for the small stuff, but it simply won’t do for the bigger mission equipment. We can’t even support the space station with the current EELVs. They weren’t designed for that and everybody knows it. The reason the Obama Administration wants to put off heavy lift until the next Administration is that they don’t want to have to actually do anything meaningful. It’s the old shell game. Keep people distracted and they will loose track of the overall goal. Or, when they actually want to do something, just tell them it will take X-years and X-billion dollars before we can build the necessary rockets and equipment – again pushing it out of reach and out of time. And, of course, in the interim all the people at NASA who know how to do this will have left the agency, their knowledge lost – not passed on -- and many will be dead. The private sector will not build this on its own, nor will they explore on their own. No way around that.

Finally, I have to address your effort to label the achievements of the Apollo program as “stunts.” That remark is an insult to everyone associated with the space program during the Apollo era, and to the nation as a whole. The men and women who worked on the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs -- and the astronauts who flew those missions -- were heros in the best sense of that word. We should never forget, let alone demean, their contributions, their courage, and their sacrifice. Your absurd effort to discredit their achievements does accomplish one salutary goal however, it makes it clear what kind of person you are.

Reply

Liberal Spacer

3 Comments

  • 521 Days Ago
  • 09/06/2010

Re: Distractions

stargazer - I'll take your word that you are a Democrat. However, it has not been my experince at all that Democrats are inherently opposed to human spaceflight. In fact, I submit that most of them that don't care, and those that do have an opinion tend to fall in favor of it (but they aren't as loud as those who outright oppose it)

Second, you are wrong - that was not Obama's only comment on space prior to the comments in Titusville, Florida. In fact, lets go back and actually look at Candidate Obama's space comments, as stated by official position papers, or major addresses (I am leaving out crowd questions).

November 20, 2007 - Obama gives a major speech on education. He also releases a policy paper, related to education, where proposes to pay for increasing the education budget by delaying Constellation.

January 10, 2008 - Obama releases a 1 page White Paper/statement, talking about space. In it, he talks about Orion & Ares I (he refers to them as the Next-Generaion of Space Vehicles), completing ISS, and a number of other space issues. While not reversing his stance, he does address some points, and you can see his policy views evolving.


August 2, 2008
Obama gives a speech in Titusville, where he talks about reversing his position on Space policy.

August 17, 2008
Obama formally releases his final space policy white paper. 7 pages, detailing a number of issues related to space, from selecting the next generation of vehicles, to export controls, aeronautics research, etc.

The release of the January piece, where you can see the policy evolving argues against it being this claimed flip-flop, and it being all about him needing to win Florida & Texas (and, mind you, its not like it really had much of an effect, ultimately, in the final outcome - Space Coast went to McCain, and Texas was always going to go to McCain).

Third, using Obama's proposal in no way means we aren't going back to the moon. In fact, if you listen to his speech from April, he doesn't actually preclude going back to the moon. What he actually says is there is more to explore than just the moon.

Forth - we absolutely could support ISS with EELVs. Thats the whole idea behind Commercial Crew, behind CRS, and the like. Using CST-100/Atlas V, Dreamchaser/Atlas IV, (and you can in many ways, extend that to the Taurus 2/Cygnus & Dragon/Falcon 9 - while not developed for EELV, they are comprable in many respects to EELV). The issue is whether we choose to or not.

As for going to the moon - there is already a proposal for going to the moon using only EELVs & tech development - http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf

You don't need the Super Heavy lift of something like an Ares V. There may (or may not) be a need to upgrade the EELVs & similar vehicles to something in the 50-70 mT range, but there is no need for something in the 100 mT range.

An no one is suggesting that the private sector will do this on its own, but, as I said, there is no need for a Super Heavy lift vehicle.

Finally - Merriam webster defines a stunt as...
an unusual or difficult feat requiring great skill or daring; especially: one performed or undertaken chiefly to gain attention or publicity

Now, I fully grant Apollo (and its earlier programs, Mercury & Gemini) were very difficult, and wholly remarkable. I think we can probably agree that can be added to unusual - certainly only a handful of people have walked on another palnet. But it did not result in making it so that a lot of people could go to the moon. It did not result in large scale uses of human spaceflight. It's primary purpose was not to gather scientific knowledge of the moon (although I grant it did that).

Its primary purpose was to demonstrate to the world that America was technologically superior to the Soviety Union.

Explain to me how that isn't a stunt

Reply

genus11

2 Comments

  • 523 Days Ago
  • 09/04/2010

Engines! Energy Source! is a must

As usual NASA played politically safe. Its absolutely clear that without nuclear fission or fusion engine the efforts to  do anything beyond close orbit are non-effective and super expensive. Instead of striving towards new light weight fission reactor - these idiots are playing with solar arrays.. Lawyers and community organizers are not the best strategists for Space exploration.

Reply

Advertisement

stargazer

9 Comments

  • 522 Days Ago
  • 09/05/2010

Re: Engines! Energy Source! is a must

I am game for that -- at least a fission power source for an electro-magnetic plasma propulsion system like VASIMR is presumed to be required for missions to Mars and beyond. Perhaps we could get the Russians to contribute this to an international effort. That really would put us on the road to exploring the solar system.

Reply

bryan886

1 Comment

  • 508 Days Ago
  • 09/19/2010

Apollo 1 - 10

Remember that it wasn't until Apollo 11 that we landed on the moon.  There were 9 'demonstration' flights before the big show.  These flights were necessary to test the technology and work out kinds before moving to the next level. 

I agree that the marketing on these flights isn't great.  It is kind of hard to stir up excitement over a new rocket engine that can remove space junk, but these technologies will form the basis for the infrastructure that will colonize the moon and put people on Mars.

Two bad "Ares" is dead, it was a good name.  Missions "Ares" I-IV anyone?

Reply

dobermanmacleod

7 Comments

  • 507 Days Ago
  • 09/20/2010

New rocket engine/new power source

I strongly suggest NASA investigate this revolutionary new rocket engine ( http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/rocket-engine-mars-trip-100305.html "New Rocket Engine Could Reach Mars in 40 Days") powered by this new energy technology ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymlc8nk7Mdk "Blacklight Power on CNN 12/12/2008").  NASA has already done preliminary investigation ( http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2002/06/51792 "NASA Takes a Flyer on Hydrinos"), but there is serious resistance from the scientific community due to the controversial nature of the physics behind the BlackLight Process.  Imagine, a super powerful rocket engine whose fuel is H2O (or rather the hydrogen).

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

Recent Posts From
Delta-V

Blog Topics

heavy-lift rocket nasa rocket satellite SLS space junk spacecraft UARS

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement