Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

What Is the Future of Humans in Space?

Continued from page 1

By Anne-Marie Corley

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon
NASA’s next launch vehicle: Ares I-X, the first rocket to be tested for NASA’s Constellation Program, sits in pieces at Kennedy Space Center, in Florida. The rocket’s first flight test is scheduled for August.
Credit: Brittany Sauser

The committee's evaluation may also step outside of NASA's current budget. Scott Uebelhart, a member of MIT's Space, Policy and Society research group, who coauthored a white paper outlining potential goals of human spaceflight earlier this year, says that the question is whether the panel really has "carte blanche" to choose the best plans regardless of cost, or if it will be told, "Here's the budget, tell us what you can do with it."

Meanwhile, in a bill set to go to the House of Representatives today, the House Appropriations Committee has cut $700 million from the Obama administration's requested $3.9 billion for the Constellation Program's fiscal-year 2010 budget, which leaves the program at 2009 funding levels, pending the recommendations of the Augustine committee. While the administration will likely submit an amended budget request once it hears the panel's results, Uebelhart says that this "time-out" sends mixed signals about the breadth of the Augustine charter.

Alternative technologies that the panel may consider are the primarily DOD-funded Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), based on already-existing rocket launchers like Atlas and Delta, and an option called Direct, based on existing Space Shuttle components.

The panel will also debate a balance of human missions with robotic ones. These could involve precursors to moon or Mars missions that set the stage for human exploration, as opposed to purely robotic missions. Other issues include opportunities that exist for international collaboration and how to further stimulate commercial spaceflight capability--NASA has already issued contracts to two space companies, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, to bring cargo to the ISS. The panel must also consider whether the United States should stay involved with the ISS beyond 2015. "You cannot just go back to the moon and utilize the space station at the same time on the same projected budget," says Logsdon. "You have to give up goals, schedule, or increase the budget."

However, without the power to evaluate human spaceflight against other space priorities, such as Earth observation satellites or orbiting space science telescopes, it remains uncertain how the panel's results will fit into a comprehensive plan for future spaceflight. With a budget that's tightening on all fronts, the administration and Congress will have to figure out how much NASA can afford to do safely after the committee completes its review.

Still, Crawley believes that the panel's influence will be significant. "There are times and places where these groups can make an impact," he says. "At the beginning of an administration, with a high-ticket item like the space program, there's a lot of influence." Logsdon agrees that the panel is "absolutely crucial to NASA's future and the country's future in space."

Another former astronaut, Jeff Hoffman, adds, "They need a policy [on human exploration beyond Earth]. You can't just cut the budget and push things further and further into the future, because eventually it will just fall apart. So they need a decision, what do they want to do, what do we want to do as a nation, and I think the Augustine committee will have big input on that."

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... :(

    .


    Rate this comment: 12345

    Gaetano Mara...
    06/17/2009
    Posts:120
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • X-Prize
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    tinker
    06/17/2009
    Posts:3
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • Nuclear Rockets.
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    ssintay
    06/18/2009
    Posts:6
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • 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.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Phineas
    06/19/2009
    Posts:85
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • 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.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      gabrielg01
      06/22/2009
      Posts:402
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • >>> 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
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Gaetano Mara...
    06/19/2009
    Posts:120
    Avg Rating:
    2/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

The Marcellus Shale Gas Rush
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.