Safety system: This mock-up of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle was developed by NASA to test a planned astronaut escape system. Under Obama’s plan, the vehicle will be docked to the International Space Station and used as an emergency escape capsule.
NASA
The president wants humans to explore the solar system by 2025--but his plan faces hurdles in the Senate.
In February, with remarkably little fanfare, NASA released a budget proposal that eliminated plans for a return to the moon, but was vague about where humans would be going next in space and when.
Speaking at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida last Thursday, President Obama attempted to fill in the details of his new vision for the space agency, including identifying the solar system destinations he foresees humans visiting in the next three decades.
"By 2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the moon into deep space," he said, starting with a mission to a near-Earth asteroid. "By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow. And I expect to be around to see it," the president added.
Missing from the president's plan is a return to the moon, which had been the cornerstone of the plans outlined in 2004 by President Bush. "I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We've been there before," Obama said. "There's a lot more of space to explore, and a lot more to learn when we do."
Obama also used the speech to describe some changes to the plans rolled out in February. The biggest is the restoration of the Orion spacecraft, which was assumed to be canceled with the rest of the Constellation program after the February announcement. Orion will be retained in a scaled-down form to serve as a crew-return vehicle for the International Space Station. Orion will be launched unmanned and remain docked to the station for months at a time, serving as a "lifeboat" should crews need to evacuate the station.
The near-term benefits of keeping Orion may be more political than technical, according to Robert Walker, a former congressman who served on the science committee and advocated spending on the space program. Walker notes that language in NASA's current appropriations bill prevents the agency from ending any aspect of Constellation at least through the end of this fiscal year. Keeping Orion in some form makes it possible to get an early start on the new plan, especially if debate over the budget stretches through the end of the year. "It's a rather clever move by the administration," Walker says.
Obama's speech also revealed a plan to make a decision by 2015 on a new heavy-lift launch vehicle to support future exploration missions. The February plan included over $3 billion over the next five years performing launch-vehicle research and development, including the development of a new engine, but the plan didn't indicate when that research would translate into a decision on a new rocket.
Firms look to provide automated landers and inflatable modules.
Moon and Mars missions are scrapped, but radical new technology gets funding.
>>> The "exciting" new NASA plan >>
about the "new" new-plan...
.
develop the hardware for lunar missions needs 8-10 years, so, "decide [the HLV] in 2015" means NO lunar landings before 2023-2025
.
an Orion built ONLY to serve as ISS "rescue capsule" is very expensive and useless... it's much cheaper to (just) dock a third Soyuz to the ISS
.
why spend $6+ billion to build TWO rescue-Orion capsules???
.
three years ago I've suggested the idea of a $30M Multipurpose Orbital Rescue Vehicle:
.
http://bit.ly/dr9JmO
.
and two of them can be lauched unmanned with a single Soyuz rocket for about $120M
.
the most rational and logical partner to fill the 6-8 years US spaceflight GAP is Russia
.
launching two dozens Soyuz and Progress from KSC costs less than $2 billion (including the Soyuz launch pads built by Russia) so NASA can FILL great part of the GAP and SAVE $20-40 billion on the VERY EXPENSIVE "commercial space" and on the useless rescue-Orion
.
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/061comparison.html
.
also, many of the Shuttle engineers can be trained to work on the russian vehicles instead of layoff MANY THOUSANDS of them!
.
http://www.newspaceagency.com/articles/05soyuzfromksc.html
.
last, the billion$ SAVED can be used to develop and build NOW (instead of 2020) the new HLV for future Moon missions
.
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/069excitingnewplan.html
This is a plan to end manned space flight. Obama is manipulating the Congress. The US budget last year cut $3.4 billion(New York Times quote) in the five-year projection for the Constellation. This year Constellation gets canceled, saying that it's under funded and not on schedule. While NASA gets a $6.1 billion increase with 2 billion more for the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. So, after 5 years NASA would get 8.1 billion an escape pod and maybe a design for a heavy-lift rocket that may or may not be built by the 2020's. I didn't go to Harvard but this makes no sense. Why can't we finish Aries I and Orion and slow the schedule on Aries V.
Look at all thats been done so far. Aries 1X test, new launch pad, ground 5 segment booster test, 90% done on the new engine test stand, work on upper stage engines, all welding equipment installed, launch abord system for Orion(test soon), heat shield, orion over all structure, and Avionics. How can we junk all this work, we payed $10 billion for.
Constellation can do everything Obama is talking about. Starting over will NOT get us to Mars by 2030's. I want to see man on Mars too but we can't rush it. Chemical rockest can get orbit or moon and plasma rockets(VASIMR) to Mars in 6 months. The moon is an important test bed outside the earth's magnetic field the biggest risk on a trip to and stay on Mars.
Keep Constellation Save NASA
.
it's too expensive... if you want it, just find the money to do it...
.
Constellation had cost issues, and it was seriously behind schedule. These types of things aren't unusual in complex new programs, but Constellation also had questionable architecture and goals.
From a goals standpoint, it was being described as "Apollo on steroids", which if you want to repeat the Apollo missions, was OK. But there were many people that felt that to spend $50 Billion to repeat the Apollo program was not a worthwhile goal. The Moon is a worthy destination to return to, but we don't have to start with temporary manned missions.
For the architecture, it was not going to leave any reusable hardware (spacecraft, fuel depots, outposts, etc.) in orbit or on the Moon. Every mission was going to have to launch everything that was needed for the mission, and it would only be done on government-owned launchers. Many people felt that it was time to create dedicated reusable spacecraft and in-space fuel depots (along with other new technology) that would expand our presence in space.
The phrase I've heard used that best describes the change is that instead of building a program (Constellation), we're going to build an industry (commercial space).
Returning to the moon is the only realistic way that we have of learning how to live on another planet. For the president to say that way have been there and done that is the most awful attitude to science. Is the president forgetting about the potential nuclear fusion fuel on the moon? The problems of getting to and living on Mars are way beyond that of the Moon, which haven't fully achieved yet.
"Returning to the moon is the only realistic way that we have of learning how to live on another planet.". Hmmm, where could we find a planet to practice on??? Oh yeah, we're on one!
The Moon, being in a hard vacuum and having only 1/6 Earth gravity, is not necessarily the "only realistic" place to train for places like Mars. It is a good place for lots of things, but my point is that it doesn't have to be the next place we go to, and we can go back there with lots of robotic explorers first.
"Is the president forgetting about the potential nuclear fusion fuel on the moon?". You are talking about exploitation, not exploration - NASA is not a mining company. NASA should teach U.S. companies how to operate in space safely, and help them develop the technologies to create profitable enterprises in space. That's what the new space plan starts us down the road towards - creating a commercial space industry.
"The problems of getting to and living on Mars are way beyond that of the Moon, which haven't fully achieved yet.". In his own Reagan-esque way, Obama is following trickle-down space policy here. He is stating that NASA will set it's sights on the destinations that have not been conquered, and then help the private sector follow behind. This is what has always happened in history, so it's far from radical.
With Apollo, we proved that we could land and operate on the Moon, and return safely. Even 40 years later, we can still take that knowledge and use it as a starting point for the eventual manned occupation of the Moon. We still have a lot of work to do before we can accomplish that, and Constellation was not going to do much more that what Apollo did. I see the next step as sending lots of robotic rovers and explorers to do the initial grunt work before humans arrive for good. This may take a while, but I would prefer to land & stay, then land & leave again.
Ok we don't need Aries I but you sitll wrong about Aries V.
Any mission to Mars will be done with a plasma Rocket and nuclear-electric generator to reduce the crew's exposure to weightlessness and space radiation. The smallest nuclear reactor, I could find on the internet, weights 100,000lb and that does not include the electric generator or water needed.
VASMIR plasma roccket:
http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/
I agree with Obama on most things but he is absolutely wrong on trading the Moon destination for Mars while canceling the Constellation Program. First off, there is a misperception that two boosters (Ares 1 and 5) were a waste of money. Not true: One flight of each booster doubles the maximum lift capabilities of a single Saturn 5. Ares 5 was designed to lift much more hardware (like the four-passenger Lunar Lander called Altair, a larger lunar rover, and sections for a segmented lunar habitat). After a successful launch of Ares 5, four to six astronauts would be launched via Ares 1 into Earth orbit. Next, the two vehicles would need to rendezvous in Earth orbit (EOR) before proceeding to the moon.
Lots of people (like Buzz Aldrin) are very critical of Ares-1. But remember that there were also two Saturn launch vehicles: Saturn 5 and Saturn 1B. One of the original reasons for the Saturn-1B was to do EOR (Earth Orbit Rendezvous) until that method was abandoned for a direct launch to the moon with LOR only used prior to the return to Earth. Had NASA ever used two Saturn 5 boosters for EOR, the tax-payers would have screamed blue murder. Without the need EOR, the Saturn-1B was only used in Apollo test missions, Apollo-7, Skylab missions 2-4, and Apollo-Soyuz.
Now Obama wants to cancel some/all of the Constellation Program while trading a Moon mission for Mars, but it seems to me that NASA would still need to develop an Altair-like lander for Mars so I see no reason why to cancel Altair. I do not see any number of astronauts confining themselves to something the size of the Orion capsule for a 12-18 month mission to Mars so keeping Orion seems somewhat unrealistic.
Getting back to basic human exploration for a moment, everyone knows you need to learn to walk before you run. Europeans required many centuries to gain sailing experience by paddling around the Mediterranean before venturing onto the high seas. This experience included learning to live away from civilization. Like wise, humanity's "Mediterranean of space flight" will be the area between the Earth and Moon. We need to develop technologies to learn how to live away from the Earth before we venture to Mars or the asteroid belt. Rescue missions to the moon will almost always be possible while rescue missions elsewhere will almost always be not possible. Americans need to press congress to vote down Obama's plan to kill any part of Constellation. Having problems paying for it? Walk away from the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan which are currently depleting $5 billion per month. BTW, the budget for the 30,000 troop surge is set at $1 million per soldier per year. That's right: $30 billion per year. Think of what could be done if this destructive money was diverted to constructive purposes.
Why do politicians feel it necessary to cancel projects by their predecessors? Even though Bush-43 gave NASA's Constellation Program its start, everyone knows Bush/Cheney barely funded it (tax cuts to the rich while fighting a two-front war will take its toll on funding; all delays and cost overruns were due to poor funding). Meanwhile, having NASA and its contractors work on Constellation for 5 years, then through it all away, basically flushes 5 years of tax-payer funded research and development. If Obama would have properly funded Constellation it would still be a huge American accomplishment and both presidents and parties could (properly) share credit.
"Why do politicians feel it necessary to cancel projects by their predecessors?" So that they can leave something for the history books, specially if it actually gets done. The sad fact about Obama's plan is that it really extends the time before we have actually flown hardware to the mid 2020's. This makes the cost's seem smaller, as we spread it out longer. I'm betting that this plan has plenty of time to be dismantled before anything comes of it years from now, when another president is in power.
Yes, he hates them so much he is trying to increase their yearly budget. And he hates the ISS so much that he's not going to dump it in the ocean in 5 years, but he's going to force it to stay in space and be a long-term destination for our astronauts.
Fear is a good thing to have, but irrational fear is not.
I for one feared that the Constellation program would keep our commercial space industry on the sidelines, being fed mainly by government contracts, and without a robust commercial marketplace. ULA did not have any incentive to expand their Atlas/Delta product lines, and NASA was not going to be sharing their operational experience with commercial companies.
The new space plan gives me hope that NASA will be spreading their knowledge around the U.S. space industry, and helping them gain commercial and operational space capabilities.
The ULA was created out of faild boeing and lockheed programs. They had to work together only way they could make money. Boeing and lockheed will not take that risk again without large government backing. These companies will never make the first move in space until they know they can make money. You know Christopher Columbus didn't come and setup a colonie without government backing.
I agree that Lockheed & Boeing were convinced by the U.S. Government that there would be enough launches to merit investing in a shared-risk EELV development. This kind of proves out one business model that doesn't work, and that is to rely on a potential customer to tell you what kind of product you should build.
Instead, we need more contracts like COTS. With COTS, NASA has a firm/fixed price they will pay for performance. The companies agreed to the terms, and it is up to them to perform. Everyone knows what the expectations are. Same for Soyuz ISS crew delivery. What helps companies is predictability in the market place - if they know they will make $X for a service, they can decide if it's worth their time.
NASA needs to use our taxpayer money to help U.S. commercial space firms become more capable and competitive. They can do that with direct knowledge transfers, and by providing contracts for space services. Creating a robust commercial space industry needs to be one of their primary goals, and that will provide U.S. space leadership for the decades to come.
I agree with COTS, it is doing great with the budget it has. COTS will not work for an HLLV because there will only be NASA or government launches. Also a moon/mars capibile Orion for 6 people has no way to get into orbit without
Aries I. A COTS type programs could be used for infaltible modules or thing that have duel use for NASA and private companies.
penzor said "Also a moon/mars capibile Orion for 6 people has no way to get into orbit without Aries I".
First of all, Ares I became so over-weight that it had to be de-rated to carry only 4 people.
Second, you need to look around a little before you declare that Ares I is so unique. Both Atlas V & Delta IV can be man-rated (NASA had ULA do a study) in about 4 years, and SpaceX has plans to man-rate their launchers. Let's compare capacity to LEO for all the launchers (info from Wikipedia):
Shuttle - 53,790 lb/ 24,400 kg
Ares I - 56,000 lb/25,600 kg
Atlas V HLV - 64,860 lb/29,420 kg
Delta IV Heavy - 50,590 lb/22,950 kg
Falcon 9 Heavy - 70,500 lb/ 32,000 kg
Hmm, Ares I isn't so special after all, and we already have existing & reliable launchers that can do the same job. Those launchers are also much cheaper to launch then Ares I, and are currently under-used. Why should the U.S. taxpayer build another launcher to compete with existing U.S. commercial launchers?
why did'nt you list
Aries V 350,000 lb/160,000 kg LEO
You right that delta and Atlas could lift Orion
we dont realy know the cost for Aries I launches yet. I would think cheaper the first stage reuable.
penzor said:
"why did'nt you list Aries V"? I was responding to your comment "Also a moon/mars capibile Orion for 6 people has no way to get into orbit without Aries I", and was pointing out that are a number of alternatives to Ares I.
"we dont realy know the cost for Aries I launches yet. I would think cheaper the first stage reuable". The Augustine Commission estimated that recurring costs for Ares I + Orion would be $1B per launch. Delta IV Heavy costs $254M just for the launcher, and I'm guessing that Falcon 9 Heavy will be around $150M. If we were to ask the American taxpayers to choose between Ares I and commercial providers, I think they would vote commercial.
Regarding Ares V, considering we were able to build the ISS using 5M wide cargo (the same as Atlas/Delta/Falcon), many of us believe that the U.S. can achieve the same goals as Constellation using current generation launchers. The Augustine Commission also looked into proposed growth paths for Atlas V, and saw them as cost effective ways to increase mass and size of cargo.
We can build a lot in space using the money that it would take to just design an HLLV - let's stop talking, and start doing...
Obama is right to kill the moon program - we've already been there. If he could be honest (in other words, he can't say he wants to kill programs that would mean loss of jobs), he would probably kill any idea of sending humans to Mars, too. Robots will be able to do pretty much anything we need in space. They are much cheaper, more autonomous than ever, and more expendable than humans. As far as I can tell, all the arguments for going to the Moon are related to further human exploration of Mars, etc. Unless you consider sending humans instead of robots to Mars sensible, that argument is nonsense. For the money we'd spend on putting humans into space and on Mars, we could send dozens or hundreds of robotic missions around the solar system that would gather far more scientific information far more quickly. Perhaps this robotic exploration would pave the way for humans in space by discovering an actual reason to risk human life and spend hundreds of billions of dollars. Until we have a reason beyond wanting to be Captain Kirk, let's leave space to machines.
My answer to the question: "Why not let the robots go into space while humans stay safe on Earth?"
Because it is there!! The reason for human space exploration is that having a profound experience of space can only be achieved by 'putting the feet to the fire'. Having a second-hand experience intermediated by robotics and other technologies doesn't have the same allure.
Who can guess what kind of challenges will be faced by the engineers and tourists that only a human can effortlessly counter. Novel environments will force creative solutions to situations that could not have been anticipated.
Live Long and Prosper
;)
watch Ares Projects Quarterly reports
There have been 15 Ares Projects Quarterly Reports after watching them it makes no logical sence to cancel this program.
Take a look at all 15:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ8A5mY7B4w&feature=channel
Re: watch Ares Projects Quarterly reports
Perhaps you would like to detail what the U.S. taxpayer will get for the $50,000,000,000 Constellation program?
For instance, how many people would actually land on the Moon, and how long would they stay? Express it in terms like:
$/person visiting the Moon
$/Hour on the Moon
# of reusable spacecraft left in space or on the Moon (i.e. reusable infrastructure for future missions)
If you can answer these (and that's a BIG IF), then you'll be able to see part of the reason why some of us think the Constellation program is not worth the money & effort. It's not that we don't want to eventually occupy the Moon, or that we don't like big complex projects, it's just that the technology, business spin-off, and exploration payoffs were too small for the amount of money being spent.
Re: watch Ares Projects Quarterly reports
"It's not that we don't want to eventually occupy the Moon, or that we don't like big complex projects, it's just that the technology, business spin-off, and exploration payoffs were too small for the amount of money being spent." Really please show us in ROI terms, that's a big if there too.
Re: watch Ares Projects Quarterly reports
CoastalRon big complex projects cost to much let's build a balloon. What has the space program done for the world... "Tang" The technology and business spin-offs run the world economy directly and indirectly. NASA budget is .5% of total US. NASA has payed for it self 1000 times over. If NASA's budget is geting increased and keeping all the jobs why not keep Constellation. What's going to happen in 5 years when Obama starts his Aries V. Maybe he's declassifing Area 51 anti-gravity technolgy. You kown why Obama plan will be cheper because will not exsist. If it does it will only be because Aries program already up graded all NASA's centers
Re: watch Ares Projects Quarterly reports
Penzor, I'm not quite sure what your point is.
If you want to talk pure research, then yes, I agree pure research is a worthy investment.
Constellation was not pure research, it was an engineering project. What were the things it was going to do that had not been done before? About the only thing I can think of is that we would be able to lift a larger mass to orbit (Ares V). Yes there would lots of little things, but they would be incremental improvements from the Apollo program. Instead of two people landing, there would be four. Instead of one week on the surface... oh wait, we would still be staying for only one week. Land here instead of there, drive in a different buggy - these are all incremental improvements, and all would be disposed of at the end of each mission.
Two minutes after the end of the last Constellation mission, all we would have left in space would be footprints & flags (and more museum pieces laying around the Moon's surface).
If the U.S. taxpayer is going to spend $50,000,000,000, shouldn't we end up with fuel depots, space tugs, Earth-Moon shuttles and other useful stuff? Constellation would not have given us anything but "knowledge". The Moon is not going anywhere, and I would prefer to wait until the price for "knowledge" is quite a bit less.
Re: watch Ares Projects Quarterly reports
Constellation is not about just going to the Moon its main goal is to test technlogies to live off the land skills will need for Mars. There is no reason why Aries V can't launch fuel depots, space tugs, Earth-Moon shuttles under Constellation program. This is why I think Obama is so wrong and believe his real intent is to kill human space flight.
Re: watch Ares Projects Quarterly reports
Constellation consisted of a number things, some more beneficial than others.
The launchers:
- Ares I duplicated existing U.S. commercial launcher capability, so I think cancellation was warranted.
- Ares V provided heavy lift capacity for getting equipment to the moon in one shot. While having this type of lift capacity is nice, there is very little need right now for it, especially without Constellation. We have lots of med-heavy lift capacity, it's proven, and it's under-used. Until there is a demonstrated & continuous need for an HLLV, we shouldn't build it.
The exploration:
- The Altair lander was a redo of Apollo, and did not lend itself to reuse - we would have to send a new one for each new mission. What a waste. Look up the ACES 41 study Lockheed did for a series of usable spacecraft based on current technology.
- Exploring the Moon. The work that was being planned would have been interesting and valuable. However, I agree with those that say we can use robotic explorers to do the initial exploration of the Moon, and help us understand what is needed before we finally send people. When we go, I want to be there to stay, not to stay a week and go home.
Re: watch Ares Projects Quarterly reports
.
"$50,000,000,000 Constellation program"
$50 Bn is ONLY the "price" to develop and build the Ares-1 and Orion (to fly in 2017 or later) and not the full Constellation "price" that should be over $200 Bn
.
Re: watch Ares Projects Quarterly reports
10 billion a year is not that bad. Don't act like Constellation Program $200 billion for 1 mission. Its infrastructure capable of hundreds of flights.
You don't even have to go the Moon but you need heavy lifter for any manned mission to an asteroid, Mars, space fuel depo, in-space transportation, and solar power stations.
Re: watch Ares Projects Quarterly reports
penzor said "but you need heavy lifter for any manned mission to an asteroid, Mars, space fuel depo, in-space transportation, and solar power stations".
You say these things, but you don't seem to be aware of the many alternatives that have been proposed. One example is Lockheed, which did a lot of work designing a family of vehicles based on existing hardware, with all of it able to be launched on existing launchers. Google ACES 41 vehicle (http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf).
Alternatives exist - you just have to open your eyes, and your mind...
Re: watch Ares Projects Quarterly reports
ULA call's for 22 launches a year for there moon shot. That $15 Billion a year with delta IV heavy. Constellation Program is much cheaper.
Re: watch Ares Projects Quarterly reports
Penzor said "ULA call's for 22 launches a year for there moon shot. That $15 Billion a year with delta IV heavy. Constellation Program is much cheaper."
No wonder you think Constellation is such a great deal, you are using the wrong cost basis!
The 2004 price for a Delta IV Heavy launcher was $254M, and that's buying it one at a time (price would drop with volume purchases). Using your number of 22 launches per year, that would be $5.6B.
I'm glad you brought this up, because now everyone can see that if we wanted to go back to the Moon, we could start going there this decade, and use existing launchers that are already proven. Win-Win!
How much was Ares V going to cost just to develop, and when was it supposed to be ready?
Re: watch Ares Projects Quarterly reports
Even if Delta IV Heavy price were cut in half for 22 launcher(will never happen). The cost would be $11 to $13 Billion. Where are you getting $5.6 billion your leaving out the per pound cost for the payload.
Once R&D is done. Constellation Program is the better deal for NASA and US.
Re: watch Ares Projects Quarterly reports
Penzor said "Even if Delta IV Heavy price were cut in half for 22 launcher(will never happen). The cost would be $11 to $13 Billion. Where are you getting $5.6 billion your leaving out the per pound cost for the payload. ".
I think you're getting wrapped up into some funny math. I use a simple formula:
Delta IV Heavy mass to LEO = 49,470 lb (ULA)
Delta IV Heavy launcher cost = $254M (2004 USAF)
Price to LEO = $5,134/lb
The USAF buys their launchers one at a time, and this has already been identified as an area of potential cost reduction (buying in bulk), so the price quoted is probably on the high side in volume.
Let's use another example with a family of launchers that can be online within 5 years, the Falcon 9 Heavy:
Falcon 9 Heavy mass to LEO = 70,548 lb (SpaceX)
Falcon 9 Heavy launcher cost = $154.5M (3x Falcon 9 price)
Price to LEO = $2,190/lb
Let's say that we use Falcon 9 Heavy for those 22 launches (same payload). The cost for those 22 launches is now $3.4B.
What are the comparable figures for Ares V? Show me the business case that says Ares V is at least the same cost, or significantly cheaper?
One of the fantasies that HLLV supporters buy into is that bigger and bigger launchers will lower the cost to space. I like to use the example of building a bigger building. Each time a new "tallest building in the world" is proposed, they don't build bigger trucks to deliver the material, they just make more deliveries. The delivery trucks are commodity items, and can be used for any size project. This is what we need to do for space, trade purpose built space craft for commodity building blocks. It's the only way we'll be able to afford expanding our presence in space.
Pretend like you have a set amount of money from the U.S. taxpayers - how much could you get done in space?
Re: watch Ares Projects Quarterly reports
Price = rocket + per pound cost of payload?
Re: watch Ares Projects Quarterly reports
Penzor wrote "Price = rocket + per pound cost of payload?"
With NASA, the cost per launch is hard to determine because of all the overhead, facilities, etc. It's pretty messy, and NASA has been criticized for decades on the way they break out their program costs. Suffice it to say, they are not the lowest cost provider of anything (and that's not their mission).
For commercial launchers, it's pretty simple - you buy their launch services for a fixed price. For Falcon 9 (see the SpaceX website), if you have up to 23,050 lb of cargo that you want inserted into LEO, then you will pay $51.5M. You provide the cargo, they take care of the rest. Price to LEO for your cargo is $51.5M, or as little as $2,234/lb.
Now do you see why many of us want commercial providers to be used until there is a demonstrated need for an HLLV?
Give us a reason to go into space.
We need a place to go to and a reason other than science for the populace to support a space program, and for industry to start pumping money into it. Funding advanced propulsion and robotics technology makes sense to me. Get those robots out there building bases and mining resources for us and you will see a much greater expansion of everything space related than you would get from a science mission to Mars like Bush claimed to be planning. Obama is right to push these technologies, but he should also be planning grandiose things like solar power satellites and ways to get the resources from space to build them with. We need people to get excited, to see new opportunities there, maybe even a little greed to get us going. There is <understatement>WAY MORE STUFF</understatement> out there than down here after all.
No firm goals, no firm timetable.
This is a time-out.
Time for space exploration to take a back seat to pork barrel. Time for academic research with little or no useful deliverables. Time for politicians to make deals and do what they do best, trade power for money.
Time for manufacturing capability to be idled and replaced with power point slides of the rosy future. A distant future.
Candidate Obama said correctly that Constellation was critical to America's leadership in space. He said correctly that the program was underfunded and overstretched to the point where it both cost MORE and delivered LESS, opening an unacceptable gap in America's access to space. Candidate Obama also said he would fully fund the program to reduce the gap.
He was right, but those were mere words.
Now it's time for the Obama fan club to cheer the "new course" to nowhere.
Guest (mongander)
With the silly moon shot out of the way, NASA can better focus on climate fiction and propaganda.
Did somebody giggled secretly?
Won't that be a dream of any scientist? Why is this world used so much to put deadlines to every thing?
Let's us remind one quote for all those people who wants get most beautiful things faster and reduce the beauty of it. "Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom - Albert Einstein "
Re: Did somebody giggled secretly?
He was possibly referring to his extraction from nazi influences and subsequent freedom in the United States. It would be interesting to find out if he said this before or after he aided in nuclear bomb development.
How does Enstein's quotation relate to actuality?
And does the so called 'quotation' stand the test of time? Do you forget that even in the face of unimaginable egregiously deprived freedom,great
men and women have developed great ideas,philosophies and even inventions?
Do you remember Mahanttan Ghandhi of India?
Martin Luther King of USA,and so many Nobel
Prize awardees? Or have their ideas not stood inspirational test of our time?
Freedom only serves as a more
comfortable conducive environmental
platform for creative and critical
deep thinking,but then, this in itself,
is contingent upon so many factors.
I suggest, folks begin to relate quotable quotations to realistic changing time applications. That is when it conveys
more meaning to the brightest minds.
Martin Atayo
Washington, DC 20013
Okay, how does Einstein quotes relate to actuality. The quote is not related to the theory of relativity. It is a quote made by Einstein about how you should leave a person who is thinking constantly about achieving something. Here the person or individual who is thinking is NASA, Doesn't NASA think about it? May be Mr.President Obama is the head of it or some thing higher in related to it, but he is not a scientist or a researcher who can say about this, something have to be achieved by 2025. Scientists would be thinking if that is possible, scientists would love to live in space itself. Because there could be more results possible to them. Don't you think it would be every scientists dream, what I say is don't put limits or deadlines. That should never be for research. Even if you have, may be have it for business interest, not for research. Research is something enjoyable to scientists, You put a limits on it, you pain them, force them, make them do mistakes, ignoring, in this case, can cause severe causalities.
Perhaps I just think differently to the average person (or president), but to me what matters most is the knowledge acquired from exploration, not being the first to plant a flag with an (organic) hand. The most expensive space programs (Apollo and the International Space Station) occurred because of international competition in the first place and as a sign of international co-operation in the second, while more productive unmanned missions struggled with a few percent of the budget. Putting men in orbit around Mars has almost no scientific value beyond being a test run for putting men on Mars later. And that is a very, very long from the ambitious (but very difficult to justify) aim of a manned colony later. The budget required for this would be implausible in the forseeable future.
What I would like to see is increased resources going into getting all the benefits of manned exploration without doing it. Vastly improved sensory apparatus, artificial intelligence and manipulation skills - the sorts of technology that makes life better on Earth, through application in manufacturing. Also the sort of technology that makes it possible to do everything a human payload could do. Money better spent than delivering a human for a soundbite and political kudos.
Mannded missions away from Earth-Moon will be really difficult
We all know Jack Kennedy had many discussions with Wernher von Braun long before he publicly announced America's intention to go to the moon. I fear the Obama administration didn't talk to any scientists or engineers before redirecting NASA's moon mission(s) toward Mars (where was Steven Chu on this?).
Non-technical people always imagine planets as standing still but as we all know, Earth and Mars are in independent orbits around the Sun which is way more complicated than the moon being in orbit around the Earth (for all intents and purposes, the Earth is stationary as far as the moon is concerned but even moon missions can go horribly wrong). Due to timing, Earth-Mars only comes into optimum positions every two years or so. So what happens if astronauts head to need to be rescued? What happens if the Sun emits a Coronal Mass Ejection which would require the astronauts to be shielded? (apparently the Apollo crews just lucked out in not being irradiated via a CME).
My last point relates to lifting off from Mars which is 80% the size of Earth. Although the Earth's atmosphere is much thinker compare to Mars, it is still really difficult to launch from Earth without a booster. To the best of my knowledge, no one on Earth has ever built an Altair-like lander to get from the Earth's surface into orbit (not even close). For the time being, Mars missions should be left to JPL's robots.
It is time for congress to reinstate the NASA's constellation program to the moon. Besides, since NASA had already been working on it for 5 years, wouldn't killing Constellation flush 5 years of tax-payer sponsored research?
Re: Mannded missions away from Earth-Moon will be really difficult
neilrieck said " I fear the Obama administration didn't talk to any scientists or engineers before redirecting NASA's moon mission(s) toward Mars (where was Steven Chu on this?).".
I think you're forgetting about the Augustine Commission? It was composed of industry experts & leaders, and former astronauts. Their goal was to ensure the nation is on "a vigorous and sustainable path to achieving its boldest aspirations in space.". They presented their findings to the President, along with suggested paths forward.
What the President chose is a plan that is essentially Option 5, Variant 5B - "5B employs an EELV-heritage commercial heavy-lift launcher and assumes a different (and significantly reduced) role for NASA. It has an advantage of potentially lower operational costs, but requires significant restructuring of NASA".
There we go, fears addressed.
Instead of wasting all the US tax payers dollars on exploring too far off planets that we will never see in our life time. It would seem far wiser to spend our money on building large inhabitable space dwellings in orbit above the earth in space, so that we could leave earth and use it as a garden to nurture and thrive. This would also allow us to conserve energy given that once in orbit, we would seemingly need less energy to move around (given that we are no longer fighting gravity). It would also allow us to develop the foundation for space travel. Heaven forbid the earth is ever struck by an asteroid, if we were living in orbit around the earth in space structures similar to aircraft carriers, we would avoid losing everything and be able to restart the gardening process. When you're building a house you don't just put up a blind pole in the middle of nowhere, you build a foundation and continue to grow on your foundation. So, set up a network of cities in space from which we can continue to network into outer planets. My guess is that's what the billionaire who's building hotels in space thinks too. Besides, if you move people into space then they won't have to pay taxes to any one government.
Just a thought.
d
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
DennisBuller
118 Comments
New Direction
It is funny that this article is listed as "business".
This is the problem. It is not business, like our politicians seem to think. They act like NASA is Sikorsky or a Electric Boat. It is not.
It is a Federal Agency that is tasked with getting us into space cheaply and safely.
Which it has failed to do so.
So much money has gone into the Shuttle that they have abandoned true research into getting us into space.
Which should have been their focus for the last twenty years.
Reply
seyao
4 Comments
Re: New Direction
I don't really think "cheaply" was ever part of NASA's mandate. Safety has always come first and almost no cost is spared in that pursuit.
I see this funding devoted to research as a way to achieve the performance and cost needs of future vehicles by focusing resources on innovating technology for a while, rather than tightening nuts and bolts on existing methodologies.
Reply
Shootist
39 Comments
Re: New Direction
Seyeo,
Back in the middle 70's and 80's the Shuttle was billed as the truck to get us to space cheap.
Crap.
Should of build NERVA. Should of gone to Mars. 25 years ago. We missed it folks. We humans had the chance and we blew it. I will be 100 years before there is a colony on Mars. It should have been now.
Reply
delphinus100
20 Comments
Re: New Direction
But if you want to keep doing it (or any other significant human activities in space), you still need a 'truck' to LEO. (or believe we can somehow use expendables until the end of time)
Just because that particular iteration we call the Space Shuttle wasn't really it, doesn't mean it isn't possible or necessary.
I want to see a Mars exploration (and utilization) plan that won't be cut off after the first few successes, for being too expensive and unsustainable.
I've already seen that show once with respect to the Moon. We don't want to repeat it there or elsewhere. But if you don't create an affordable transportation infrastructure as you go, you take that risk.
(And the 70's/80's Mars plans still assumed a Shuttle of some sort, to take the elements of a Mars ship to LEO for assembly, much as was done with ISS. Indeed, the reason the flight version NERVA engine itself had the dimensions it did, WAS in order to fit in an orbiter payload bay. That we never went on to do these things, is not the fault of the Shuttle itself.)
http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2009/02/in-july-1969-as-apollo-11-brought.html
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/nerva.htm
http://www.nss.org/resources/library/shuttledecision/chapter09.htm#loose2
Reply
JaimeLannister13
5 Comments
Re: New Direction
I don't think we can accurately judge what impact the last 20 years had. We performed experiments in space, received from sharing the ISS, The Hubble telescope has and is currently bringing us stunning images of the universe which continually lead us toward a greater understanding of our surroundings.
It's a bit premature to be judging the last 20 years to be worthless. We've come away with so much. Being in space with the shuttle helped accomplish that.
I agree that they should have been more aggressive in pursuing alternate R&D. But that's another point altogether.
Reply