UP IN THE AIR? Ares rockets, components of the Constellation program, are shown in this artist's conception. Given budgetary and manpower constraints, the future of Constellation, currently scheduled to begin service in 2015, may depend on the future of the space shuttle, which could be retired in 2010.
Image: NASA/MSFC
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
As the moments tick away before tonight's scheduled launch of the space shuttle Endeavour to the International Space Station (ISS), another countdown is underway: Only a handful of launches remain before the shuttle program's scheduled retirement in 2010. When President-elect Barack Obama takes office two months from now, he and his aides will need to decide quickly whether or not to hold to that date, a determination that will have major implications for the future of U.S. space exploration.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress's investigative arm, has identified the shuttle's future as one of the most urgent issues facing the incoming Obama administration. "NASA has already begun the process of shutting down production and transitioning people, equipment and resources to new endeavors," GAO director of acquisition and sourcing management Cristina Chaplain says. She adds that the longer the decision is delayed, the more difficult it will be to keep operating the shuttle safely and cost-effectively. "Moreover, putting off a decision may hamper the transition itself and keep NASA from pursuing new space transportation development," Chaplain wrote in an e-mail.
At present, the scheduled replacement for the low Earth orbit–only shuttle is the Constellation program, which would allow astronauts to return to the moon and target even more distant destinations such as Mars. But even assuming a 2010 shuttle phaseout, Constellation won't be ready for manned flights until at least 2015.
The shuttle's retirement, and the introduction of what became the Constellation program, are key points of Pres. George W. Bush's 2004 Vision for Space Exploration. Another central tenet of that plan is a target for returning astronauts to the moon by 2020, a goal that some deem problematic.
Bush's plan "added what seems to many people to be an arbitrary and sort of artificial deadline of landing people on the moon," says Jim Bell, an astronomy professor at Cornell University and recently named president of the Planetary Society, a nonprofit that advocates for space exploration. "We're not saying that NASA shouldn't go to the moon, we're not saying the moon's not worthy of exploration," Bell says. "What we're saying is that those kinds of things could be the right thing to do, but not in this artificially constructed timescale."
The Planetary Society this week unveiled its road map for the future of the space program, timed to provide the incoming administration with outside scientific guidance. The document advocates for increasing international partnerships, setting Mars as the ultimate target for human exploration, and allowing the shuttle to enter obsolescence as planned in 2010.
"We are absolutely in favor of its scheduled retirement," Bell says, praising NASA Administrator Michael Griffin for supporting the plan and noting that the Columbia Accident Investigation Board recommended the shuttle be replaced as quickly as possible. "The longer that NASA hangs on to it, the more of—unfortunately—a liability it becomes."
Some see a lapse in NASA's ability to command manned space missions as unacceptable. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) of Texas, where space exploration is a major industry, wrote an op-ed for the Houston Chronicle last year warning that NASA would need to rely on Russian spacecraft for transport to and from the ISS during the five-year gap between 2010 and 2015.
"As the world's leader in space technology, it is simply unacceptable that we will be in this position of technological dependency," she wrote. "Our national security depends on our ability to explore space without relying on nations who may not always have our best interests at heart." (These sentiments were echoed in an e-mail from Hutchison's press secretary today.)
See what we're tweeting about
29 Comments
Add Commentthe space program must continue, there can be no debate
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if it is the time for privatization, & if not now, then where do we draw the line and say, "ok, it's time now". If man is to be a space-faring race at some point, there must come a time when the technology that worked more than a generation ago trickles down and becomes commercially viable, proliferates, and we wind up with NASA acting as more of a flight control & command service, and industries worldwide take up the actual missions. ...that time may not be here, but considering the relative level of technology that worked 40 years ago, and the amount of time for not only trickle-down but advancement since then, it seems there's a low-end to the spectrum of space work that's missing. Perhaps now is the time to consider beginning the transition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisManned exploration of the solar system is foolhardy. Our biology will make us terrestrial beings for virtually ever. There may prove to be practical value to moon habitation, but beyond that, robots will have to be our surrogates. We may one day "seed" the galaxy with DNA, but unless there is a techno advance which delivers what is now science fiction, we won't be going anywhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with hotblack that space exploration needs to start transitioning into the public domain (not to say it should be capitalized and dominated by a handfull of conglomerate corporations) because it would free up several billion dollars a year on the federal budget, creat new jobs ect...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe would not be in the postition of not having our own launch platform for 5 years if the previous administation had considered such a transition. G. Bush (a self proclaimed "war president") was not interested in space exploration and cut the budget of NASA several times and such budget cuts are partially* responsible for the shuttle problem.
Regardless, on the matters of using russian equipment to launch, that is significantly more of a national pride problem than one of national security. Beyond the fact that the military and federal govornment saw this problem coming and launched their major space payloads ahead of time and can wait 5 years for the incredibly advanced tech to be put up (neutrino detectors for pinpointing the location of any decaying (nuclear) matter from space,refined or natural Ore [theoreticaly]) theres no technical or safety concerns regarding the rockets (as if the shuttle itself is stable and safe) operation or functionality. It simply wont have our emblem on it.
The end result however is that NASA will remain on track financially and operationally if we retire the shuttle in 2010.
As far as obama's intentions for NASA, he claims to be a heavy supporter of science and, although only time can say for sure, if he is honest about such things, it is not likely* future NASA missions will be stifled by budget or political obsticles.
I agree with the other people above my post. The Shuttle is 20+ years old now. However, I am sure that with 20 + years behind us, we should be able to build a more improved shuttle to replace the current shuttle fleet. One thing though is, that I do not see where the Constellation and Orion launch vehicle is any better or any more safer then the shuttle. They both use chemical rockets to launch them. What everyone forgets is the fact that during the challenger incident, It was the external fuel tank that blew up, not the shuttle itself. The shuttles launch vehicle is what had a problem, and the new aries 1 does not sound any better. In fact, it sounds like it might be worse. The Orion crew capsule is not new tech. It is 40 year old Apollo technology wrapped up in a new wrapper and N.A.S.A. is trying to sell it like as if it is something new. On another note that I guess no one has mentioned yet, is the fact that this Orion crew capsule is not slated to fly untill about 2015. The same year that the I.S.S. Freedom is to be decommissioned. If the new capsule is to fly in 2015, to where is it going to be hauling its payload? Oh, wait, I forgot something. IT DONT HAVE A CARGO BAY TO HAUL ANYTHING TO ANYWHERE. Now how is this going to help us with independence from Russian spacecraft again? What? To just haul people up? To where? The moon? That is not until 2020. What are they going to do until 2020? Just float around for another 5 years? Doing what we have already done for 40 years? What we need is a better shuttle, one sheilded from solar radiation and high speed cosmic particles so it can reach the moon, and a way to extend the life of the I.S.S. so the new craft has a reason to fly. WITH A CARGO BAY! ....I hope some one smells the coffee soon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust a few other thoughts to notice, The shuttle has reuseable tanks, the aries rocket is not reusable that I know of. The Orion crew capsule will need extra fuel, which means an extra external tank will be needed. One could fit a tank and a lander in the shuttles cargo bay already. The Orion crew capsule will need to be recovered from the ocean. The shuttle came home on its own. By the way, does anyone know that Russia also is finnishing their own shuttle? Basicly, it is just a capsule with wings, but it is still something better then the Orion crew capsule.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy can't the shuttle becertified for flight . It will take at least 5 years before Orion will be ready. Other wise the US will have to depend on the Soyus which will have issues of advaibilty . Also what happened to the 500 million which was supposed to encourage a private space launch alternatives ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso the author failed to mention that congress aproved the authorization for the physics experement for the ISS. Wouldn't that also require the shuttle to continue to be used ?
This same thing happened in the early 80's when the shuttle was supposed to be thew cure all for our nation to get into space. So all the reusable rockets were used up . Then the Changanger diaster happened and there were no supply of expendable rockets to be used as a alternative. We put all our eggs into one basket. Does this make sense with Orion. What if something unforseen happened ? I know the Shuttle is expensive complicated and does not have the best alternatives in case there are problems plus it is expensive. Does the US which to be gounded for 5 years until there is a alternative ? The choice is in a Obama administration .
My personal hope is the will have continutity between constellation and the retiring of the shuttle program so that there will be a seemless transistion with minium interuption in the United States access into space but this is only my viewpoint .
Why can't the shuttle becertified for flight . It will take at least 5 years before Orion will be ready. Other wise the US will have to depend on the Soyus which will have issues of advaibilty . Also what happened to the 500 million which was supposed to encourage a private space launch alternatives ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso the author failed to mention that congress aproved the authorization for the physics experement for the ISS. Wouldn't that also require the shuttle to continue to be used ?
This same thing happened in the early 80's when the shuttle was supposed to be thew cure all for our nation to get into space. So all the reusable rockets were used up . Then the Changanger diaster happened and there were no supply of expendable rockets to be used as a alternative. We put all our eggs into one basket. Does this make sense with Orion. What if something unforseen happened ? I know the Shuttle is expensive complicated and does not have the best alternatives in case there are problems plus it is expensive. Does the US which to be gounded for 5 years until there is a alternative ? The choice is in a Obama administration .
My personal hope is the will have continutity between constellation and the retiring of the shuttle program so that there will be a seemless transistion with minium interuption in the United States access into space but this is only my viewpoint .
.Why can't the shuttle be certified for flight? It will take at least 5 years before Orion will be ready. Other wise the US will have to depend on the Soyuz which will have issues of advaibilty. Also what happened to the 500 million which was supposed to encourage a private space launch alternatives?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso the author failed to mention that congress approved the authorization for the physics experiment for the ISS. Wouldn't that also require the shuttle to continue to be used?
This same thing happened in the early 80's when the shuttle was supposed to be the cure all for our nation to get into space. So all the reusable rockets were used up. Then the Chalenger disaster happened and there were no supply of expendable rockets to be used as an alternative. We put all our eggs into one basket. Does this make sense with Orion? What if something unforeseen happened? I know the Shuttle is expensive complicated and does not have the best alternatives in case there are problems plus it is expensive. Does the US which to be grounded for 5 years until there is an alternative? The choice is in an Obama administration.
My personal hope is the will have continuity between constellation and the retiring of the shuttle program so that there will be a seamless transition with minimum interruption in the United States access into space but this is only my viewpoint
To answer the above questions about why we cant just keep flying the shuttle: The Shuttle is not like an aeroplane that can be routinely maintenanced for a 100 years and keep flying untill something better comes out, for multiple reasons one of the biggest being structural integrity. The shuttle experiences typical** speeds of 17,500 miles an hour (1), and although they are in space, the forces exerted on the shuttle "airframe" are immense, especially when trying to reach those speeds and slowing down for re-entry, including the stress on the shuttle while on the booster rockets during launch. the structural integrity of the shuttle airframe is questionable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecondly, according to NASA Administrator Michael Griffin "we estimate there is a one in 80 chance of losing a crew during any single shuttle launch."
"The NASA administrator goes on to write, 'If we were to conduct 10 additional launches prior to retiring the shuttle, there would be about a one in 8 chance another crew would be lost..." (2)
The probability of various equipment and mechanical failures is outrageously high, so high it shouldnt even be considered to fly the shuttle for any more than a month or two after 2010. My sources for this information are the links below.
-J IX
(1) http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/space/ask/flying/Shuttle_Top_Speed.txt
(2) http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/04/1631680.aspx?p=1
Additionally, yes the soyuz rockets can carry a payload, and more than just people. the soyuz rocket was responsible for carrying the vast majority of pieces for the ISS into space. The R-7 family of rockets, of which the soyuz belongs to, is also responsible for puting almost every satelite/space vehicle Russia has launched into space, including commercial and millitary payloads.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as the capsul needing an external tank for fuel to maneuver, that is completely false. fuel requirments in orbit are amazingly minimal. Many cargo craft heading to the ISS like the 'Progress M-50' use only 2,677 kilograms of propellant {4.40924 Lbs.). Or things such as the 24500 lb Hubble space telescope can maneuver huge rotations and can presicely align itself down to ".02 of 1" " with the RWA and MT drive system that (I suggest anyone interested in understanding how these work check out the NASA link at the bottom.)
http://hubble.nasa.gov/technology/optics.php#pcs
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz_lv.html
"the space program must continue, there can be no debate"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this?? This while I don't have a car, don't have a house, don't have any savings?
I agree about the stresses on an airframe are immense as one author put it. But air craft are recertified routinely and can be operated well into old age safely. However there are big trade offs in cost and safety factors increase as age advances. The shuttle could be kept going for mission a little while longer if those constraints were considered and money approved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is the rub money laid out for return on investment. Many people just don’t get it NASA has a great return on investment for American people. With the budget going to be the biggest concern (for the incoming administration) I worry if anything is going to be done that is right for NASA. My biggest concern for me as an outsider is the government will cut costs at any cost.
I agree about the stresses on an airframe are immense as one author put it. But air craft are routinely (no pun intended ) recertified routinely and can be operated well into old age safely. However there are big trade offs in cost and safety factors. They increase can the budget handle those extra costs? As components get older getting spare parts becomes more difficult if not down right impossible. This is what’s happing to the shuttle large parts of which are now made of 100% solid unobatianium. That is one reason for Orion. The next generation space launch systems. Should be STS2 after STS for the shuttle. The other choice is if we intend to go to the moon you need to have a vehicle that can with stand the stresses of re-entry. Orion can take the heat the shuttle cannot.
Escape velocity from earth is 25000 miles per hour. That means all 25000 miles per as energy must be dissipated upon re-entry (on return) taking the fuel up (to slow down) would add weight cost etc. A shuttle derived vehicle will just burn up going at those speeds. That is why the Russian built clipper vehicle is more for earth orbit it only has to dissipate 17500 miles per velocity which is escape velocity which is earth orbit. Same problem if you go to Mars. That is why Orion is a capsule shape. However inside that what seems to be an obsolete shape is modern electronics and avionics and materials (science) that are very modern indeed.
We need a good direction and a good transition that will not gum up the works so to speak. I still feel the Russian have done this the best which is not to depend on any one system.
The R7 launcher is an example of this it is very reliable and modularized in design. In fact the European are buying R7 launchers and building a launch faculty in French Guyana to accommodate the Soyuz . May be the US should consider outsourcing some of their booster needs by buying Russian or Chinese built components. Just a joke but in some ways this business will go that way in time and I feel just like aircraft Boeing and others are built form many pieces from many countries. This will happen in civilian and military rocketry in time. Build many pieces internationally and put it all together anywhere in the world that has the right location. Rocketry also needs a good location near the equator to use the least amount of fuel (to get into orbit) that is why US space program is in Florida not for the weather but for a location that is near the equator.
I fear a repeat of the post-Apollo years, when we "stop spending all that money in space and use it for problems here on earth." I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what we got for all the money we diverted from space exploration after Apollo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince the space program has had a return on investment to the US economy of approximately $7 for each dollar invested in it, the program should be continued for that reason alone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne other thing to consider...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe NASA rockets that took the first people to the moon, especially the Saturn V, were the result of a frenzied race against the USSR. The problems with such a race have become evident- NASA brought in numerous experts from all over the world to build the rockets, which meant that there does not exist a cohesive "blueprint" to build a Saturn V. Documentation, to a certain point, was limited to make the process faster so as to beat the Russians. When the Constellation project was announced, NASA scrambled to find plans for such a rocket, but instead had to settle on deconstructing an existing Saturn V. Problem was, the only complete Saturn V in existence was in their own backyard, on display outside in the weather for 35+ years and quite rusty (and even inhabited by animals.) Right now, NASA has a team whose sole task is dissembling the rocket, piece by piece, and trying to figure out how each part works, why it was included, its heat and pressure stress resistance, and if it can be improved. At the rate the team is working, the thousands and thousands of components will take years to be decoded. This is one of several reasons, including funding, that makes resuming manned expeditions to the moon so monumental. There has got to be a better way!
By the way, there is a PBS special on this struggle, but I unfortunately was unable to find the name.
reply to sputnik:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting, kind of sad also.
It is as if the only legacy of the Apollo program is to be found in a pile of garbage.
I never saw that documentary, but I found this reference: http://www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience/story/95-space_junkyard.html
What is truly needed is a WWII type commitment to solve our energy needs once and for all through Space Based Solar Power. People always enjoy pointing out how much paper (money) it would cost to do such a thing. Well, if during the start of the war we had said it would cost too much to fight it the U.S. would not be here today. Today we face a far greater problem. If we do not develop a recycling civilization which uses solar system resources humankind will not exist in the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf the dozens of constellations recorded by the ancient Roman astrologer Ptolemy, there is one shaped like a fish, tucked away deep in the Southern sky. He called it Piscis Austrinus, and the star that represents this fish's mouth is also the fish's brightest light. In fact, it's one of the brightest stars in the sky.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts name is Fomalhaut (in Arabic, Fom al-haut means "mouth of the southern whale"), a young star just 200 million years old, 25 light years away (a distance about six billion times the circumference of the Earth).
In the autumn sky, it's the only first-magnitude star seen from the mid-northern latitudes -- in cities like Shanghai, Baghdad and Casablanca. It's no wonder that Fomalhaut, appropriately known as "The Lonely Star of Autumn," has made its way into Chinese, Persian and Arabic culture.
Its mystical quality has also made its way into Western culture. One of Fomalhaut's many literary references is in "Radio Free Albemuth," a novel by American science fiction writer Philip K. Dick, where it is the origin of an alien satellite.
But now, it's something entirely alien to Fomalhaut that is looking into its region of the universe -- NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. Orbiting 360 miles above the Earth's surface, it's the first and only space telescope to view the universe using primarily visible light.
The Hubble has taken a snapshot of one of the Lonely Star's planets: Fomalhaut b, a planet three times the mass of Jupiter. The image is the first one taken of a planet circling another star other than our own, using only visible light. It is the result of eight years of NASA's research.
Speaking about America's space program in an interview with Cleveland's WKYC-TV in February, President-elect Barack Obama said, "I want to do a thorough review because some of these programs may not be moving in the right direction and I want to make sure that NASA spending is a little more coherent than it has been over the last several years."
He has said that he will fund his education plan in part by reducing NASA's budget. This seems counterintuitive.
As Mr Obama reviews NASA, he should consider Hubble's picture of Fomalhaut b and its other major -- and no doubt inspirational -- accomplishments, such as giving us the most precise age of the universe (13.73 billion years). He should give the government's full support to NASA's continued success with this extraordinary piece of modern technology.
With his famous 1961 "Race to the Moon" speech, President Kennedy inspired a generation to study science, saying, "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will more impressive to mankind or more important for the long range exploration of space."
In his WKYC interview, Mr Obama mentioned that he grew up with "Star Trek," saying he believes in "the final frontier." He should recall Mr Kennedy's inspirational words -- and perhaps expand his knowledge of astronomy beyond sci-fi television -- before he makes a decision that could draw the frontier's border at Fomalhaut b.
Of that, Ptolemy would surely approve.
It's always very educational to read these post but I have a question. Why would you ever want to fly a shuttle to the moon? It seems that we have gotten why off track and have forgotten men like Werner Von Bran and Gerrard O'Neill who described a transportation system. I read years ago that one of the biggest problems with the space shuttle is it's complexity. This was the result of military performance requirements beyond the original concept. The space shuttle should be s simple craft designed to fly to low and mid earth orbit only. The space station should be modified to work as a transfer station and Orion should be eliminated and replaced by a dedicated spacecraft that never sees the surface of a planet. Some tasks lend themselves to robots like fetching satellites and bringing them back to the station for repair. Lunar mining might be a place where they can be used and that would require a moon base. And then there was the grand plan to build the zero-g solar smelt at L-5 with a space station to support the workers. After all lunar soil is a treasure trove of goodies for industrial use. Did I miss something? Was there some technological hurdle that we can't clear or have we just forgotten? As a tax payer I want a return for my investment which means industrialization but as a human being I believe that colonization is the single and most driving reason for every dollar we spend in space. Sometimes it's frustrating when we see hundreds of millions being spent to explore or photograph aspects of space that then becomes trivia lost in some book. We need to recapture that grand dream which can be the economic outlet we need for the new world supply chain. If we don't we may wake up one day to hear on the news that the world will be ending June 17th on a Tuesday at 3:07pm by asteroid at which time the human species will cease to exist. It's time to get that next wave of colonist out onto the new frontier. If as 13.7 writes Obama really does believe in the final frontier I hope he understands it doesn't mean landing a man on the moon and returning him safely before Obama's possible eight year term is up. We need a vision and this may be the moment where some leader can make that speech again and not only set a new economic course for this nations future but a new course for the future of mankind. Mr. Obama please rekindle the dream.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNews flash for you. As long as you continue to think it is someone else's job, you will never have a car or a house or savings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTeam593, you seem to miss a few important points in your assumptions. Until we have a way of building a space elevator or some other system, chemical rockets are pretty much the only option at the moment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason for the return to the Apollo-like (not the same as) capsule design is the desire for missions out of low-earth orbit. A shuttle design just isn't capable (currently) of sustaining the extreme forces attained when returning to the earth from the moon or even mars (the Apollo capsule returning to Earth was the fastest humans have ever gone, approximately Mach 30). The capsule is much larger than Apollo and as for not having a cargo bay, the plan would be to fly the rest of the equipment up on other Ares rockets into orbit, then assemble there.
Let us clear up a bit of history. By far the most up mass of the ISS is from the Shuttle, not only all the large pieces of the ISS but the supplies as well. The Soyuz and the shuttle have the same safety record – two fatal crashes each and because the shuttle has flown far more people your odds of dying are the same. The original shuttle used a mother ship to lift the orbiter over 100,000ft but OMB decided it was too expensive and NASA came up with the solid boosters and external tank to save the program. The two failures so far were caused by the boosters and tank. If the aircraft industry had abandon the jet as a mode of flight because the Comet had square windows and the corners caused stress cracks causing several fatal crashes we would still be flying prop jobs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEveryone above makes there point well. In the spirit of cooperation and understanding I submit an alternative however: Go forward with an Obama-improved version of the NASA plan; while at the same time moth ball the best of our shuttles, keeping it available should we unexpectedly need it for an emergency. While it would be more expensive to do this the cost would be marginal and the benefits great. Including job retention.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs there any conceivable business plan that a private firm could make money operating the space shuttle? Maybe a joint venture with the Russians using a modified Energie boosters as a replacement for the external tank.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best guess is a Shuttle launch cost NASA half billion for max payload of 50,000 pounds or $10000 per pound. A commercial Proton launch is about 2000 per pound (Of course a Proton is not human rated, and who knows how much the Russians are subsidizing). Also the Proton has been around for 50 years, where the development cost for Shuttle/Energie system would need to be considered, but both systems (Shuttle and Energie) have flown, hence you would not need develop a new system from scratch.
Basically NASA is giving away the Shuttles to museums for $42M, A well healed organization should be able to obtain airframe, spares and GSE relativity cheap(Like Google). Each Shuttle is designed for 100 flights, and that probably could be extended. Keep in mind that the C-47s (DC-3s) are still flying revenue service after the government sold them as surplus 70 years ago.
NASA need for commercial LEO capability
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090918/tecnology/ctech_us_space_commercial
ENERGIA BOOSTER
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm
Used Shuttles
http://gizmodo.com/5113084/nasa-explores-possibility-of-selling-shuttles-for-42-million
Is there any conceivable business plan that a private firm could make money operating the space shuttle? Maybe a joint venture with the Russians using a modified Energie boosters as a replacement for the external tank.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best guess is a Shuttle launch cost NASA half billion for max payload of 50,000 pounds or $10000 per pound. A commercial Proton launch is about 2000 per pound (Of course a Proton is not human rated, and who knows how much the Russians are subsidizing). Also the Proton has been around for 50 years, where the development cost for Shuttle/Energie system would need to be considered, but both systems (Shuttle and Energie) have flown, hence you would not need develop a new system from scratch.
Basically NASA is giving away the Shuttles to museums, A well healed organization should be able to obtain airframe, spares and GSE relativity cheap. Each Shuttle is designed for 100 flights, and that probably could be extended. Keep in mind that the C-47s (DC-3s) are still flying revenue service after the government sold them as surplus 70 years ago.
NASA need for commercial LEO capability
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090918/tecnology/ctech_us_space_commercial
ENERGIA BOOSTER
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm
USED SHUTTLES
http://gizmodo.com/5113084/nasa-explores-possibility-of-selling-shuttles-for-42-million
I am surprised someone like Gates or some corporations.hasn't sent some robots to some of the richer deposits of elements on the moon.Those elements are there just waiting to be picked up.No humans or the risk there of is needed,and the machines could be operated via remote control.And a solar powered maglev launch systems could be sent to return the materials that have been gathered.The richer ores would not need to be refined,just put in a package,Launched by the maglev to be picked in Earth orbit and placed in a reentry vehicle,and back down to Earth you go,and the package could be sent back to the moon with more needed materials needed on the moon.The round trips to and from the Moon could be solar powered,Where are the people with the vision and the money to get this done?I myself don't have the money,but would love to be part of one the projects to get this endeavor done,Won't someone with the resources please help get the ball rolling.Please send me an e-mail if you are such a person and explain a way in which I could be part of it..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a NASA fan and supporter since I was kid, I do have to say that the Constellation program was outdated. It was to use old Apollo style technology and cost billions. NASA and many of its contractors have had decades to come up with something new to replace the shuttle. Cancellation of the National AeroSpace plane was a mistake. The initial research into the NASP project showed it could be realized with many new technologies being sprung from its creation. Then new more advanced spacecraft could be built from the spacestation to take men to the moon and beyond.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe shouldn't rely on other countries for access to space, but we should have clearer defined goals for our present situation in space and for future space exploration of the cosmos.
One is the creation of a National Aerospace Plane for access to the space station. Two to create super fast and advanced spaceships to travel to destinations of interest. Three telescopes and inferometers to detect earthlike planets and develop superfast unmanned probes to investigate those planets. Fourth, a continual effort for developing spacecraft to reach star systems within a human lifetime. The fourth, isn't meant to be funny or have an unrealistic view of space research. We ultimately want to explore space to establish ourselves on other liveable worlds. Spending billions of dollars year after year for a few people to have access to space is ridiculous. Overall goal, should be developing technologies for eventual colonization. We can only accomplish this if we are allowed to pursue such endeavors with the money given to spend on the program to begin with.
God Bless the USA,
A citizen of common sense
When I apply the principals of Green, or Environmentalist Ecology to Space exploration I can only think of the same way that I learned these ideals here for Earth. Observing and learning from nature itself. Thus, I believe we can guide our reasoning about what we aim for and spend on time and resources towards space exploration the same way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo it seems like we were flees jumping onto any animal that walks past their hosting dog, at the risk of meeting their death when a iguana carries them into a desert.
Let's face it. We were made here, we evolved fitting perfectly each one of our living atoms to the precise combination of gases and gravity that constitutes our planet.
I sure hope no one has a nervous breakdown at NASA when they finally figure out that we are moving nowhere any time soon, at least nowhere reachable in our present day living physical form.
What should be spending our billions of Space dollars on then? The answer is simple. On things that will benefit the human spices here at home. And the best way to do it is to simply mimic the best we can the way celestial bodies do it.
To me in makes more science to invest on telescopes for example. I can envision giving the planet a set of eyes, to reproduce perspective more accurately. two or three satellites orbiting the Sun that aim at observing the Universe. A stationary ring orbital global space station, with a high speed transit system to carry out all work that is made possible by zero gravity. Then open the door to space "tourism" not squander money shooting people up into the sky just to retrieve them again somewhere in the ocean. We should just dump all future energy production plans that pollute our planet or create impending danger one way or another and just focus on harvesting the Sun's energy out in Space. Visiting and robotically exploring our moons and planets is fine, we never know what may be out there that will help us here on Earth. But plan on landing people on Mars? Common people, we are not kids playing with rubber band glider launchers. We have people and children nearing the end of their lives (78.whatever years of age is a pretty fast running flickr of time in the Universe) ...not knowing if their illnesses will ever be cured that are in much more need of our sciences and resources, space isn't going anywhere. Let's think right, in the name of our children's future, their children's future...and the lives of the living.When I apply the principals of Green, or Environmentalist Ecology to Space exploration I can only think of the same way that I learned these ideals here for Earth. Observing and learning from nature itself. Thus, I believe we can guide our reasoning about what we aim for and spend on time and resources towards space exploration the same way.
To it seems like we were flees jumping onto any animal that walks past their hosting dog, at the risk of meeting their death when a iguana carries them into a desert.
Let's face it. We were made here, we evolved fitting perfectly each one of our living atoms to the precise combination of gases and gravity that constitutes our planet.
I sure hope no one has a nervous breakdown at NASA when they finally figure out that we are moving nowhere any time soon, at least nowhere reachable in our present day living physical form.
What should be spending our billions of Space dollars on then? The answer is simple. On things that will benefit the human spices here at home. And the best way to do it is to simply mimic the best we can the way celestial bodies do it.
To me in makes more science to invest on telescopes for example. I can envision giving the planet a set of eyes, to reproduce perspective more accurately. two or three satellites orbiting the Sun that aim at observing the Universe. A stationary ring orbital global space station, with a high speed transit system to carry out all work that is made possible by zero gravity. Then open the door to space "tourism" not squander money shooting people up into the sky just to retrieve them again somewhere in the ocean. We should just dump all future energy production plans that pollute our planet or create impending danger one way or another and just focus on harvesting the Sun's energy out in Space. Visiting and robotically exploring our moons and planets is fine, we never know what may be out there that will help us here on Earth. But plan on landing people on Mars? Common people, we are not kids playing with rubber band glider launchers. We have people and children nearing the end of their lives (78.whatever years of age is a pretty fast running flickr of time in the Universe) ...not knowing if their illnesses will ever be cured that are in much more need of our sciences and resources, space isn't going anywhere. Let's think right, in the name of our children's future, their children's future...and the lives of the living.