(Page 2 of 2)
Future rocket: NASA’s test rocket, Ares I-X, being stacked at Kennedy Space Center in preparation for launch on October 31.
NASA
NASA's current budget for fiscal 2010 is approximately $18.6 billion, an increase from fiscal 2009, but the human space exploration program has received $3.4 billion less than was suggested by the previous administration. In addition, the budget's profile through 2020 is around $80 billion--$28 billion less than what the agency was told it could expect four years ago, when it devised the Constellation program.
"If you add in the $3 billion for the years 2011 to 2013 and put back in the projected inflation of 2.4 percent instead of 1.36 percent, then all the options that the Augustine Committee came up with are affordable," says Pace, who was assistant director for space and aeronautics in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy under former President George W. Bush.
Pace says he does not see any alternatives that are more attractive than the current Constellation program. "If the technical program is not broken, then do you change the policy, or do you change the budget? My opinion is you change the budget." He adds that the current policy has been endorsed by two different congresses, under the NASA authorization bill in fiscal 2005 and 2008, and "is as solid of a policy as you are going to get."
However, the Constellation program, which calls for developing the Ares I rocket for flights to the ISS by 2016 and building the Orion crew capsule to return humans to the moon by 2020, has attracted criticism. Logsdon says it's clear that the committee does not think the Ares I is a good idea and that the most feasible date for moon landings would be mid-2020s.
Pace argues that the criticism of Ares I obscures deeper questions. "Are we willing to be dependent on the Russians for a longer period of time? Or are we willing to bet that commercial capabilities will arrive on time?"
Among the other options put forth by the panel, Oberg says that the flexible option is particularly interesting. "This could be the breakthrough path to develop new technologies for human exploration, as opposed to the favored 'Apollo on steroids' approach," he says.
The panel also mentioned using a shuttle-derived launch vehicle, although most experts agree that this option would, in the end, be more expensive and leave the U.S. without an adequate heavy launch vehicle. It would only be viable if the Obama administration decided not to increase NASA's budget.
The committee concludes that "no plan compatible with the FY 2010 budget profile permits human exploration to continue in any meaningful way." The question the Obama administration will have to answer, says Pace, is "what sort of space program do we want to have, and what are we willing to pay?"
A successful launch moves commercial space companies toward human spaceflight.
Firms look to provide automated landers and inflatable modules.
The president wants humans to explore the solar system by 2025--but his plan faces hurdles in the Senate.
Human spaceflight is pointless right now. All we can achieve with chemical rockets is launching a couple people at extraordinary cost. There is not much economic or scientific benefit to this endeavor. The science can be done with telescopes, satellites, and robotic probes at a much lower cost, and much sooner.
If NASA really wants to advance human spaceflight, they need to work on advanced propulsion. They should be spending at least half their budget studying and developing nuclear thermal, solar sailing, etc. With those technologies (which may take decades to develop) humanity might possibly be able to exploit other planets for the economic benefit of humanity.
The Lunar Landing Was A Great Achievement.
We have stood on the surface of Luna. It was worth every penny and every risk. A crowning achievement for critters that evolved from one cell.
If there is a reason to return to the moon, let the free market fund it. There should be a payback. If not, then don't reach into my pocket to fund Giant Leap (part II).
Step one. Find a cheap, safe way to get off the planet.
Unfortunately, NASA still has not done it.
I think other people may have done it. Isn't it interesting that no-one talks about the Supersonic Pulse-Jet engine anymore....
Lots of money is (potentially) available
The total US cost of both military conflicts in Iraq and Iran is over one trillion dollars (more if you include secondary items like educating soldiers for ~12 years only to have that investment snuffed out with a bullet or IED). Add to this the 750 billion dollar Wall Street bailout then you will realize that a few extra billion dollar INVESTMENT in NASA (as well as our future) seems trivial by comparison.
I live in Canada and know there are many people outside of the US who are advocates of a manned space program. NASA needs to realize ASAP that they need to contact the governments of Canada, Europe, Russia, Japan, India and China for the purposes of creating "The Consortium of Space Faring Nations". (NASA is already doing something like to support the IIS and STS (the Canadarm is funded by Canadian tax payers)). Much more science and technology would be produced for all of humanity if all of humanity cooperated to support one (or more) permanent moon bases.
I am all for private commercial efforts to get into space, but going back to the moon is currently beyond the resources of any one government, including the US. As an aside, it was the governments of Spain and Portugal who funded the first missions to "the new world". Not private business.
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
>>> a "commercial space" able to "save NASA" (simply) DOESN'T EXIST NOW and will NOT be really available not even in the near future >>>
.
sorry, but, ALSO the former NASA chief (that STARTED the COTS and CRS programs and given away $4 billion of the NASA budget for them) agrees with ME that a "commercial space" able to "save NASA" (simply) DOESN'T EXIST NOW and will NOT be really available not even in the near future!
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/09/exnasa-chief-griffin-calls-augustine-panel-irresponsible.html
and NASA/USA have no chances to fill the 6-8 years US manned spaceflight gap, but, no one has the courage to admit that "the solution" to the problem simply doesn't exist, as explained in this EE Times Article:
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219700475&pgno=1
last, the three-months Augustine Commission's work has been (nearly) USELESS since its TEN "experts" haven't given ANY easy and clear PROGRAM but only a list of EIGHT (already known and, nearly all, wrong) "options", probably written thanks to their (special and hi-tech) "decisions machine" of which you can see the first image leaked, here:
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/053decisionsmachine.html
.
Reply