Humans in space: Astronaut Heidemarie M. Stefanyshyn-Piper performs space-station maintenance during the Shuttle Endeavour’s visit to the ISS in late 2008.
NASA
Independent review of human-spaceflight plans gets under way today.
A 10-person committee charged with reviewing the future of U.S. human spaceflight will hold its first public meeting today, beginning a process that must cover a lot of territory in very little time.
The independent panel of experts will examine NASA's Constellation Program, which plans to send humans to the International Space Station (ISS), the moon, and possibly Mars, and will consider alternatives to options already on the table.
The review comes at a time when the Space Shuttle is facing retirement, and a new launch system, called Ares, isn't scheduled to begin operations until at least 2015, leaving a gap in U.S. launch capability of five years or more. NASA's Constellation Program has attracted criticism for the Ares design, as well as for slipping timelines and budget overruns.
In a speech at MIT last week, John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, outlined three key questions that the panel will examine: whether it's possible to reduce the gap in launch capability, what the options are for extending the use of the ISS beyond 2016, and what a timetable for missions beyond low-earth orbit (LEO) might look like, given budget constraints.
It is notably an "advice only" committee: it will analyze options and present recommendations but will not determine the future of human spaceflight. "We're not being asked to pick the direction," says Edward Crawley, Ford Professor of Engineering at MIT and one of the 10 panelists. "That's why the president gets paid the big bucks. We just give him the list of options."
The committee will report its findings to the Obama White House, Holdren, and a new NASA administrator: retired astronaut Charles Bolden is currently awaiting confirmation hearings. The panel's report is expected by the end of August in order to affect an administration decision on the way forward, before the 2010 financial-year budget is set.
Dubbed the "Augustine committee" for its chair, Norman Augustine, a retired chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin and a former member of the President's Council of Advisors on science and technology for Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the panel includes former astronauts, industry executives, engineers, and experts on the civil space program. A NASA review team will provide technical support to the committee.
John Logsdon, who served on the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and was founder and former director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs, says that the panel was well chosen, with "people that can do in-depth technical analysis, that have years of experience and reputations for integrity."
But a key question that many analysts and proponents of human spaceflight are asking is what the committee members will actually focus on.
The technical background of the panel, says Logsdon, equips the members to examine the current Constellation Program. Criticism of the Constellation "architecture," particularly the design of the Ares launch system, which requires separate rockets for crew and cargo, cropped up during President Obama's NASA transition-team investigations. The question was whether this architecture or those based more heavily on existing technologies could be built faster and more cheaply. According to Logsdon, that criticism prompted the transition team to recommend that before the president "embraces" the current architecture, he get an independent judgment on whether it's the right one. "And that's what this panel is set up to do," Logsdon says.
Moon and Mars missions are scrapped, but radical new technology gets funding.
I think NASA and the US government should work with private organisation who shares the same enthusiasm of space flight such as the Ansari X-Prize, instead of experimenting with their Ares rocket program or any other program for that matter.
On the personal note and also agreeing completely with Gaetano Marano, I believe that NASA should focus their budget researching intensively on sending astronauts to space rather than on the moon.
I just finished reading the book "To the end of the solar system: The story of nuclear rockets"
http://www.amazon.com/End-Solar-System-Nuclear-Rocket/dp/0813122678
The author presents a very convincing argument for the use of the nuclear rocket in any mission that is beyond LEO.
There are several ways that a nuclear rocket fits into mission planning. In general it has been considered as a shuttle that stays parked in low earth orbit and then completes missions to the moon or mars. This type of mission is further enabled by the fact that the nuclear rocket can be throttled just like a car engine and can be stopped and restarted without any external energy source (bootstrap starting).
At one point the author comments that if the nuclear rocket had been used for the Mars rovers it would have had the capacity to carry a HUMVEE to mars with 10,000 lbs of instruments!
I am not certain what chemicals are intended for use in the Ares rocket, but if it is H2 and O2 then the theoretical maximum specific impulse is 450s. The nuclear rockets designed in the 60's regularly ran at 800s and some nearly ran at 1000s.
There are certainly some missions where it may be preferable to use a chemical rocket, but if we are really serious about repeated moon trips and trips to Mars the then nuclear rocket becomes extremely relevant.
Let The Brave Little Toaster Do It
People have no business in space. Lives are at risk, costs are astronomical, and anything we can do unmanned can do better. Robotic spacecraft will out.
Re: Let The Brave Little Toaster Do It
I agree that robots can be far more cost effective, and also more efficient in exploring hostile environments. The perfect analogy is deep see exploration - in the early days people were competing in going down in submersibles, bu then this fever subsided, and today everyone agrees that sending robotic submersibles is far better.
However, space is a bit different. Eventually we do have to get off this planet, and we need to build a know-how on how to exist in space. Sending humans to space also enforces a higher level of engineering. You can be sloppy with a toaster, but you better make sure things work reliably if you send people out there.
And the 'cost argument' can be controversial too. Basically, almost any cutting edge activity costs a lot of money, almost by default. To stop development by arguing about costs is really short sighted.
Eventually, we just have to strike a smart balance between robotic and human exploration.
>>> dozens good and rational suggestions for the Human Space Flight Plans Committee >>>
now and in the next weeks, you'll find dozens good and rational suggestions for the Human Space Flight Plans Committee in my new ghostNASA article: http://ow.ly/f3vQ
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Gaetano Marano
246 Comments
>>> sorry, but NASA has NO (manned) FUTURE in Space if based on the Ares family of rockets >>>
.
sorry, but NASA has NO (manned) FUTURE in Space if based on the Ares family of rockets, since...
- the Shuttle will be retired next year
- the first manned Orion/Ares-1 launch is now slipped to 2017 (+ further delays)
- as consequence, the first/next manned lunar landing could happen only in 2022-2025
- the expected costs to develop and build the Ares-1 and Ares-5 has growth from the (early planned) $25 Bn to (today's evaluated) $40 Bn to a (more realistic within 2017) $50-60 Bn or more (so high funds that NASA might NOT obtain from politics!)
- the EELV solution may cost less than the Ares program but not fill the 7+ years manned flights "GAP" as explained in a NASA study leaked on Aviation Week:
http://ow.ly/ezFz
- not forgetting that Ares-1 could NOT fly, not even in 2017, as explained in this article:
http://ow.ly/ezG5
personally, I believe that, late this year, when the Ares 1-X test will be performed, NASA engineers will discover the obvious about the Ares-1: the rocket will be unstable and, since it uses a uncontrollable solid propellent motor with a non-linear thrust curve, this test will show that, in some points of the flight, the acceleration is too high for a manned rocket and the Ares-1 will be scrapped forever!
so, NASA will pay (very much) to Russia (and, perhaps, to Cina) to carry its astronauts to the ISS with the Soyuz or the ACTS and/or (maybe) the Shenzhou... just hoping that, the (SpaceX and Orbital) cargo-COTS will work well, to replace the Shuttle without buy (also) LOTS of Progress, ATV, HTV and cargo-Shenzhou... :(
.
Reply