ONE OF A KIND? Pieces of the Ares 1-X rocket at Kennedy Space Center in Florida in 2009. The 1-X, a test rocket for Constellation components, was launched in October 2009.
Image: NASA
-
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 »
President Obama delivered his budget request for fiscal year 2011 to Congress on Monday, proposing sweeping changes to NASA's spaceflight program while increasing the agency's overall budget. As had been rumored for days, Obama's blueprint for NASA would cancel the Constellation program, the family of rockets and hardware now in development to replace the aging space shuttle, and would call instead on commercial vendors to fly astronauts to orbit.
Since 2005 the U.S. has spent roughly $9 billion developing the Constellation program's Ares rockets and Orion crew capsule, which were originally supposed to return astronauts to the moon by 2020. Constellation took shape in the wake of the 2003 Columbia disaster as a safer, longer-range successor to the space shuttle, which is slated for retirement this year. But Constellation's costs have ballooned and its timeline has slipped; an independent panel convened by the Obama administration and chaired by former aerospace executive Norman Augustine estimated last year that the Ares rocket system would not be ready for manned missions before 2017, with a lunar return sometime in the mid-2020s, even under the most favorable circumstances.
By scrapping the troubled program—along with its focus on a moon landing—and leaning on the private sector, the agency thinks it will actually accelerate efforts to loft astronauts beyond low Earth orbit, the farthest reach of the shuttle. NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver declined to specify a preliminary target for exploration in a teleconference Monday afternoon but mentioned near-Earth asteroids as a potential stepping-stone on the path to ultimately exploring Mars and its moons. She also pointed out that, although the agency will relax its focus on the moon, lunar exploration remains on the table. "We're certainly not canceling our ambitions to explore space," Garver said. "We're canceling Constellation."
Garver tried to put the new approach in context, calling Constellation's stated goal of a moon landing in 2020 "wishful thinking." By stepping back from that unrealistic timeline, she said, the U.S. would be free to undertake more ambitious exploration. "We had lost the moon," Garver said, "and what this program does is give us back the solar system."
Sources revealed the contents of the budget request to various newspapers last week, spurring a wave of condemnation from Michael Griffin, a former NASA administrator and tireless Constellation champion, and from members of Congress who represent states with major NASA centers focused on the human spaceflight program—Texas, Florida, Alabama. Those lawmakers will have their say when the houses of Congress hammer out their own budgets in the coming weeks.
In Monday's teleconference, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden expressed support for the budget request, saying that he was "excited" to present the president's proposal, which would add $6 billion to NASA's total outlay over the next five years. Bolden said that he and Obama agreed that Constellation was in an untenable position. "The truth is, we were not on a sustainable path to get back to the moon's surface," Bolden said. He applauded the decision to delegate the development of launch capabilities to commercial providers while, he said, "NASA firmly focuses its gaze on the cosmic horizons beyond Earth."
In addition to spurring the development of commercial rockets, Obama's budget is designed to extend the life of the International Space Station, still under construction, to at least 2020. It would also fund a replacement for the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, the CO2-tracking satellite that failed to reach orbit in a February launch.
Sally Ride, the first U.S. woman in space and a member of the Augustine commission, which cast Constellation's future in a fairly unflattering light, called Obama's budget request "a significant vote of confidence for NASA." The proposal, Ride said, "puts NASA on a sustainable path toward the future."
Bolden, also a former astronaut, vowed that tapping private spaceflight companies for manned launches would not diminish NASA's commitment to safety. He seemed to become choked up as he spoke of losing friends in both the Challenger and Columbia accidents, the latter of which occurred exactly seven years to the day before Monday's budget announcement. "No one cares more about safety than I," Bolden said. "I give you my word that these vehicles will be safe."
See what we're tweeting about
72 Comments
Add CommentA greater concern should be the potential impact to safety and reliability. Certainly NASA is not the most cost effective toy in the box, but in recent decades, through exhaustive public and government scrutiny and supportive funding, they have achieved very high marks in these areas. A commercial enterprise will always be balancing the books against potential catastrophe. Take a close look at how some airline equipment is currently maintained, or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI support privatization of space travel and exploration. I believe it will be one of many new industries that will breathe life into the economy. Go Scaled Composites and Virgin Galactic!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI support privatization of space travel and exploration. I believe it will be one of many new industries that will breathe life into the economy. Go Scaled Composites and Virgin Galactic!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile not a great fan of huge, government sponsored bureaucracies, the economy will need new life after NASA starts laying off employees.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have never understood why NASA destroyed its blueprints for Saturn series (1 & 5) vehicles after Apollo. Its ability to heft large masses to orbit, its can-do engineers, its potential to evolve the designs as new materials became available were irretrievably lost. So much so that NASA to this day could not even recreate a 40-year old vehicle design that worked. Now it is repeating this. There is no learning curve. Everything will have to be done from scratch every time with multi-decade waits for finance, testing, recruiting of trainable engineers, and all the time, the only thing skyrocketing will be the cost. No new development directions were specified. Whither ion-propulsion, VASIMIR, solar-sails, nuclear power-plants, life-support, NASA-built re-entry-protection systems built for private companies like Space-X, Virgin etc. The lay-offs will be costly. Hopefully engineers will be snapped up by these space start-ups, but NASA's know-how will be lost, probably permanently, which means no manned return to the moon, or to Mars which will be too complex, in my opinion for space privateers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRest assured NASA will not lay people off. The private contractors that work for NASA will bear the brunt of any cuts. Please remember that tax money will pay for any trips into space even it is "privatized". "Privatization" will most likely be subsidised through grants for research or testing facilities. After all we are not talking about a couple minute shot here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that's a helluva good idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe huge money corps have been kicking in, ie: the Google X prize and that is as it should be.
Privatize the whole thing and get the taxpayers out of it.
This budget cancels NASA's Constellation program, and gives money to the private sector to build vehicles for space. After years of work by thousands of people and NINE BILLION dollars of taxpayer money, they . . the government . . .decides to throw is all away. THe NASA administrator essentially says . . whatever. Over and over again money has been wasted because the government cannot stick with it's commitments. Programs funded one year are redesigned to accomodate a cut in funding in succeeding years, more money wasted. Programs funded are cancelled before they can even show results, not because what they are planning is not feasible, but because they must depend on a fickle Congress to allocate funding. And I am sure NASA is not the only government agency to have similar problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn history it was always desirable to have the best technolgies, albeit most were in the arena of warfare, and to hold the high ground.
In the development of space flight, technologies have been developed that benefit our daily existence. Look up the Spinoff website and on the first page alone NASA research helped develop technologies for biohazard sensors, life rafts, bioreactors for producing healthy cells for cultures, and new more efficient air purifacation. Research done for any new program spawns new and beneficial discoveries.
And the high ground, you think if NASA gets out of manned spaceflight that other countries won't see this as an opportunity for them to field their own program for the prestige, the discoveries, to have the whole world watching when they accomplish what we abondoned? Think of countries whose interests might be quite different from ours with control of the ultimate high ground. So much science is expended in the cause of war, yet one of our most challenging and beneficial accomplishments was for the very human desire to explore our world and beyond. NASA's imaging of our world has been a great boon to science studying the earth's climate, resources, and weather. The Hubble Telescope has moved our knowlege to the edges of space, to discovering new planets, tu the understanding of our universe.
Last, think of your work, what ever work you do, how much of yourself invested in it. Teach children for five years, then discover that someone has taken all that knowledge from their minds. Do all the research for to diagnose and treat a disease, design and plan a bridge over a bay or river, a bridge to help people bring produts to market, or connect two countries, now that you have solved many of the problems, done the hard work of requirements, spent years on it, your company decides not to give you money to make the drug or build the bridge, but to give the money to some other company along with all your work, but make YOU responsible if something goes wrong.
THe cancellation of Constellation is short-sighted, wasteful, and destructive to the very thing we need most to create new technologies, to the people whose work creates that science, and must depend on shifting sand of government funding.
Please consider what this will mean to our future, to science, even to our security.
I think it's a great idea. As for reliability and safety, well, they have managed to destroy 2 of 5 shuttles and their crew. Now they have had 9 billion odollars which is what they asked for and haven't achieved the goals they said they would accomplish with that money.....Much is wasted because congressmen all want to have their state benefit from the budgets so instead of doing things economically and building it all in one place, we have mission control a thousand miles away from the launch site and giant fuel tanks floating on barges to get assembled in Floride and I don't think that giving them more money is the answer. They have had a monopoly on space for almost 50 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI fear this will also turn into another paper rocket project. In the past 20-years NASA has canceled the X-33, X-38, OrbitalSpacePlane, Space Station Freedom, Ares I & V rockets, Orion and Antares spacecraft. Also canceled was George Bush Sr late 1980's proposal for a return to the moon. It seems that NASA is unable to see a human spaceflight project through to completion without massive delays, cost overruns and ultimate cancellation of the project.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, I am no fan of bloated bureaucracies, but there’s nothing more dangerous than large scale engineering implemented by non-profitable private companies with inadequate regulation and oversight. Whatever happens will be mostly new and untried by newly formed organizations. Good luck to all…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrivate enterprise must be a truly magical thing. For the last 50 years it has done nothing in the area of manned spaceflight becasue there is no profit in it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut now, because the faithful truly believe that the free market will supply all of their dreams, they pretend that magically human space flight will become a profitable business, as garage based tinkerers strap old discarded vacuum cleaners on their backs to blow themselves and their faitful customers to the moon and back.
If manned space flight was profitable, why doesn't Lockheed Martin have a manned space flight program?
America is a dying nation because members of the Conservative Free Market Faith have discracefully worked for the last half century to destroy their own country.
Some dare call it treason.
Space, it's ownership, exploration and exploitation, DOES NOT belong to the United States. We should insist that all civil space programs be given over to an international operation, with each nation contributing a share of the costs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat sense does it make for five little programs acting to get, say, to the moon, fail, when one big program would succeed?
Shouldn't the growth of extra-terran endeavors benefit all peoples and not just a few nations?
Or just a few business consortiums and their investors? We forfeit our seed investment that way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most redeeming quality about the constellation program was that it was an actual fully laid out plan for what NASA should be doing. It insured that NASA would keep on pushing the boundaries of exploration. That being said it was not necessarily the best plan. Going forward NASA should encourage commercial space flight and put forth a newer long term vision for space that along the lines of what I will lay out
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConcerning Constellation while its goals where noteworthy, it was a fundamentally flawed plan in terms of how much money it would cost and the direction it would take development. The Ares I rocket had two main design goals. Be safer than the shuttle and be a lot cheaper than the shuttle. While I do not doubt NASA could reach the safety goals of the program it was looking like it would still fail miserably in terms of being economical. The shuttle started to cost close to 1.5 billion per launch but the Augustine commission estimated that an Ares 1 launch would still cost close to 1 billion dollars per launch. Better than the shuttle but still terrible.
While I disagreed with the constellation programs execution and approach I overwhelmingly agree with its objectives of expanding humanity's reach into space: namely returning to the moon, traveling to mars and giving us the capability to launch substantially more powerful space telescopes in order to advance the cosmological and astro-physical sciences to help propel the technological revolutions of the future.
Some things about the Obama announcement actually signal the right direction to go to. The purpose of government is to achieve what none of us individually would be able to reach. In the context of government agencies such as NASA that means pushing the scientific envelope beyond what private citizens or corporations would be able to or have the incentive to do. In terms of developing rocket technology NASA has already fulfilled this role. Their role now should be as a benefactor and mentor for private corporations in fulfilling launch duties as private companies have the capability to achieve vastly superior economically efficiency than NASA could . This would allow NASA to be spend substantially less money on its launch needs than it would spend otherwise and free up personal, money, and other valuable resources for doing what NASA actually does best, science.
As evidence for the efficiency that private enterprise can provide I present the example of SpaceX. Their newest rocket, the falcon 9 cost only 78 million dollars per launch in the triple booster
The rockets and their accompanying dragon capsule spacecraft ( analogous to Russian suyoz/progresso spacecraft) have been designed with manned flight in mind in from day one and it will probably take only six years to get to them to man rated qualifications with some NASA stewardship. Hands down, that takes NASA to the cleaners which is why NASA awarded them a contract to resupply the International Space Station for at least the next 5 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to testifying to NASA’s efficiency at many scientific missions look at the recent Spirit and Opportunity rovers. The program cossted only 820 million dollars and has vastly exceeded expectations. Another example is the mission to Pluto that launched last year. The entire life time cost of the mission is only 650 million dollars and its going all the way to the far edge of the solar system to a place that has never been visited before.
Another advantage of private enterprise for launch systems is that it gives you alternatives when your main system is grounded. The US couldn't send anyone into space for years following Challenger and Colombia and will not be able to after this year’s shuttle retirement. If it wasn't for the Russians right now the space station would be in huge trouble and our entire astronaut corps would be grounded. Private enterprise could make this a problem of the past and overall helps everyone to do what their most efficient at, therefore allowing NASA and everyone to get more done that we would otherwise.
As for what NASA's new plan and direction should be I would suggest two plans. The first one is areas of development they should pursue and the second is of specific missions they should try for. Together they form a super plan duo.
Development Plan
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Accelerate and support private enterprise launch capabilities like Obama said. Specifically, SpaceX is way closer to meeting NASA’s needs for both crew and cargo so focus on them. Even more specifically have them upgrade the falcon 9 boosters merlin 1c engines to something about 15 percent more powerful and commission them to create a 9 booster super heavy lift configuration of the system. Multi booster rocket like this are how the Russians have always done it and they have always been way cheaper than us and more recently have gotten a lot fewer people killed. Such a rocket would have about half the lifting capacity the Ares V but would literally be about 1/20 the cost per launch and thats not even including the huge development costs Ares V would have. The halved lifting capacity of about 90,000 kg to leo vs Ares V 188,000 kg to leo won’t matter so much due to my next point.
2) Going beyond rockets. When it comes right down to it they’re pretty shitty. There the confounding oxymoron of being both rather primitive yet extremely complicated. Plasma ion thrusters and related technology are where almost anyone would agree space propulsions going to be. So why waste resources on the status quo when you can instead start making the future a hell of a lot closer to right now. It’s vaguely similar to a 70's era computer company investing in vacuum tubes when transistors could offer exponentially better performance going forward. That being said rockets are still needed for launching purposes however.
Ad Astra's vasimir plasma ion engines are the farthest along and they’re geared up to start performing missions to the moon later this decade. I would advice focusing efforts on this company while still pursuing alternatives to a lesser degree. Due to the tremendous performance advantage these rockets can have, like a 39 day trip to mars kind of advantage, they easily warrant a multi-billion dollar investment.
They also could reduce the need for super heavy boosters. The Ares V would push 71,000 kg to the moon or to the L1 point, approximately. Because plasma ion engines are more fuel efficient, craft can weigh substantially less. If you could boost only 90,000 kg to leo as opposed 188,000 for Ares V you could make up the difference for lunar missions by having a vasimir third stage that would be able to make up for less rocket thrust and still get the same amount of payload to the moon or L1 as if you had a rocket booster twice as large. Additionally Vasmir tugs could stay in space and be reused indefinitely with periodic propellant restocking.
Furthermore such developments could help along inertial confinement fusion research for energy production and vice versa. When ICF technology is eventually developed having already developed plasma ion thruster would vary greatly ease the creation of fusion thrusters. One that happens we can all say hello to vacations on the moon and bye bye to chemical rockets.
3) Develop nuclear reactors modified for space as these would be required by plasma ion thruster and other application.( Solar arrays are limited to the inner solar system and would be to big and fragile for ship.) They would also be able power radiation shielding required for manned flights beyond earth orbit. This is not that big of a deal though because lots of companies are coming up with very light small reactors such as Hyperion and Toshiba’s 4S.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this4) Accelerate the development of lighter, stronger and other high performance materials. Particularly carbon nanotubes as they are way stronger and lighter than any metal or even carbon fiber. You could have way lighter, stronger and more durable spacecraft and things like an ultra hypersonic (mach 5-12) parachute for mars landings.
5) Develop and launch a series of very large and advanced space telescopes to replace Hubble and the like. New technology's could enable them to be over a hundred times more powerful and if you’re gonna go through the effort to design one then you might as well get your design dollars money's worth and build more than one, especially if launch costs in the future will be cheaper. Also give them repair bots and extra space parts so we don't have to launch a bunch of repair missions which leads into 6.
6) Develop construction robots that can operate in orbit in order to put together things like larger plasma ion based ships form smaller components sent over various launches. If robots do it all it would be way cheaper than if people in space suits did it. Also have repair bots that can repair those ships if they become damaged during a mission.
Having laid out a plan for areas of development here is the plan for proposed missions and a possible schedule for them.
Mission Plan (note, just has most notable milestones, not necessarily entirely comprehensive)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2011- First SpaceX ISS resupply mission
2016- First manned Spacex dragon capsule mission to ISS
2016- First Vasmir tug to moon sending a robotic rover.
2019- Manned mission by companies and craft other than SpaceX and their dragon begin.
2019- Very large probe to mars surface via a vasimir space tug
2020- Manned mission to moon using a plasma ion propulsion to get from LEO to the moon
2021-More manned missions to the moon and probes to mars with the same payloads as a manned mission would have.
2022- First in series of new, post Hubble super space telescopes launched.
2023- Full plasma ion propelled mars practice mission with a payload landing on mars and then actually returning to earth.
2025- Manned mars mission. Approximate round trip time 120 days. 45 to mars, 30 on the surface, 45 back. (because you travel so fast you can do the entire mission in one orbital cycle instead of waiting 1.5 yrs for the next alignment).
2025 and on- More manned Mars missions and lunar missions
2025 and on- More space telescopes launched
2027- Manned mission to near earth asteroid
2029-Either a manned or robotic mission to the Saturn moon of Titan to drill through its ice sheets and explore its under ice oceans for life, along with searching and exploring the rest of the moon.
2031 and on- More missions, manned and robotic, to distant moons and planets.
2036- Robotic mission to Alpha Centauri. Yes you read that right. A highly developed plasma ion engine should be able to eventually accelerate to between 10 and 20 percent light speed after a year or so. Propellant would normally be a problem but at that speed a magnetic scoop should be able to collect stray hydrogen atoms in space at a rate fast enough to keep the engines supplied.
2038 and beyond – Robotic missions to the other nearby solar systems.
Overall I believe these two plans would be both extremely respectable, ambitious and definitely doable both technically and financially. Many of us mourn the loss of Constellation but if that program were to be replaced by one that could send us to Mars, Titan, and other solar systems I think we would all agree that the space agency and humanity would be better for it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod willing Obama , NASA, and whoever comes after them will see the light and have the conviction, fortitude and foresight to come up with a ten , twenty and thirty year vision similar to the one I have laid out as an example. In summary develop private launch abilities, develop plasma ion thrusters, new space telescopes, new materials, space nuclear power, back to the moon by 2020, mars in 2025, Titan in 2029 and Alpha Centauri in 2036. In terms of budget .005 percent of the federal budget is not asking much. What does it say about us as a society if we spend 35 times more on defense than we do on exploring the enormity of creation.
"God willing Obama , NASA, and whoever comes after them will see the light and have the conviction, fortitude and foresight to come up with a ten , twenty and thirty year vision similar to the one I have laid out as an example" - urukon
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the end of the decade Uncle Sam will owe $24 trillion and be paying at a minium $1.2 trillion on interest on the debt owed.
He don't have no cash money for playing with rockets.
In face, Uncle Sam will be hard pressed to feed himself.
Welcome to planet reality.
Billions--no, strike that--trillions--for Wall Street, for Big Insurance, for wae-oil, but not a penny for knowledge. Way to go.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, it sounds like NASA is finally getting its head pointed in the right direction and setting aside its dead programs. While they are working on that ion engine, they should also be building a laser mounted platform so they can knock some of that space junk out of orbit so it can burn up in the atmostphere. The laser cannon can also reflect incomming dangers. They should also start building magnet shoots that would fire non-exploding projectiles to bust up non-reflecting objects heading toward earth. To me, this laser cannon and magnet shoot would be a more logical way to spend tax payers money. If NASA can get private funding, then they can spend that money anyway they want, but with tax payers money, they should start building machines that can protect the earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvendicar9 – Thanks for the reality check. It is so easy to focus on minutia, losing track of the boulder rolling down the hill. If we take care of the big problems, we might survive to someday understand the data that has already been collected. If population is not reduced humanely, it will be reduced inhumanely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe constelation plan shouldnt be cancelled, president Obama and the powers that be are making a massive mistake
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpace exploration and even colinization should be a major focus of not only america but the entire world. if the administration wasnt wasting so much money on other things we could have this program happen sucessfuly.
Incredible that in the same week that Constellation is canceled India announced their intention to launch their first manned mission in 2015.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfoertschdg – Also an excellent point. Nothing personnel, but perhaps India has committed to the “get off this dying planet” strategy. The U.S. might reap some short term benefit by negotiating a technological exchange: space technology for population control (it’s a joke).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeriously, the most effective survival strategy for a virus, once its individual host organism has been decimated, is to locate a new, healthy host. It is not unreasonable for us to conclude that this host has already been consumed, but keep in mind that humanity is not equipped to effectively survive the next billion years on an asteroid. In the meantime, most of us will be cheering our successes from the home front…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bottle neck to space exploration and exploitation is the relatively low level of energy contained in rocket fuel. Going to the moon again would have involved only refinements to propulsion systems and payload. I think it is appropriate to let commercial enterprises work at improving these currently viable systems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real space advancements can only come from a brand new concept of propulsion. By not being hamstrung with a return to the moon by a certain date, NASA can put aside the current technology and begin to invent something new.
"While not a great fan of huge, government sponsored bureaucracies, the economy will need new life after NASA starts laying off employees."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot really. All government jobs are a net loss to the economy in purely dollar terms because of a factor known as economic drag.
We do space exploration for reasons other than providing jobs.
"Private enterprise must be a truly magical thing. For the last 50 years it has done nothing in the area of manned spaceflight becasue there is no profit in it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe obvious question then becomes: why is there no profit in it?
Hmmm. Could the answer maybe be choking government regulation?
"The obvious question then becomes: why is there no profit in it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmmm. Could the answer maybe be choking government regulation?" - QuackFart #1
I certainly can confirm that it's those stinking Gubderment Regulations that is keeping me from going to mars.
Hahahahahahaha...... AmeriKan Dumb... Dumber than dumb....
"The real space advancements can only come from a brand new concept of propulsion." - QuackFart #2
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suggest that we use some of that Republican Magic Pixie Dust that they have been snorting to convince themselves that cutting taxes increases government revenue.
"Billions--no, strike that--trillions--for Wall Street, for Big Insurance, for wae-oil, but not a penny for knowledge. Way to go." - YoYoYo....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI appreciate your sentiment. But the choice was between a Republican created depression with 40% unemployment for a decade which would have shut down Constellation or bailing out Bushie's Buddies on Wallstreet and shutting down Constellation.
NASA is the only Gem that America has left. Better to preserve the best than throw it all down the toilet persuing Lunatic Bush's underfunded magic carpet to nowhere.
"All government jobs are a net loss to the economy " - Conservative QuackFart #1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Science leads you to killing people." - Ben Stein - Republican Speech Writer.
@vendicar9 -- Your response to "The real space advancements can only come from a brand new concept of propulsion." - QuackFart #2 was unwarrated and reflects your lack of understanding the new NASA objectives. "Simply put, we're putting the science back into the rocket science at NASA," White House science adviser John Holdren said at a budget briefing Monday.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe $4 billion that NASA spends yearly on human space exploration will now be used for what NASA and White House officials called dramatic changes in rocketry, including in-orbit fueling. They said eventually those new technologies would be used to send astronauts to a nearby asteroid, a brief foray back to the moon, or the Martian moons."
Thus it is particularly galling for my comments to be considered as part of the Republican/Neo- conservative Chicago fundamentalist theology.
"The $4 billion that NASA spends yearly on human space exploration will now be used for what NASA and White House officials called dramatic changes in rocketry, including in-orbit fueling. They said eventually those new technologies would be used to send astronauts to a nearby asteroid, a brief foray back to the moon, or the Martian moons." - Bill Case
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeep the faith Baby.
What part of $24 trillion don't you understand?
Hardcore Republicans should be overjoyed about this one, but somehow, I doubt that they will be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sick of partisan politics, aren't you?
Ahh! vendicar9, you are a member of the Theological Chicago School of Silly Economics. Well then, there is no chance of rational discussion with you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNASA is old and corrupt, full of people who have learned to 'work' the system, to get bonuses and promotions. NASA employees are 'permanent' government employees.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Constellation project was a very good deal for these people. They were going to do the same thing they did before, -no new technology, no new science.
Obama is doing the US tax-payers a big favor by killing the Constellation project.
Would be even better if he would kill NASA all together. Because most people who love science and are patriotic, NASA takes advantage of this and spends more brains on PR than on actual science. These people must understand what NASA really is. A good example is NASA Ames. It has no mission. It was hoping to get money from the Constellation project so it cooked up all sorts of ridiculous ideas. It hired lots of contractors as slave labor (ask Larry Hogle at UARC). When they failed, the 'permanent' NASA employees 'fire' the contractors and blame them.
It is the same in other NASA centers. Lisa Nowak provided us good tabloid entertainment, but that is a sad waste of tax-payer money.
We need to replace NASA with smaller institutions with clear goals.
The pride people have in NASA is understandable. What is sad is that NASA abuses that pride. The average NASA employee is more interested in bonuses than science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you truly love science, help kill NASA and replace it with a proper scientific research organization. NASA is full of employees who are permanent, they have absolutely no incentive or desire for research, -they are just bureaucrats.
Of course, things were different 40 years ago.
Obama has effectively killed Nasa. It has been decades since man last walked on the moon and now I believe it will not happen within what remains of my lifetime. Private industry will never see the day non-military, private citizens enter space. The military must always hold the high ground else there is no national defense. This ideology was clearly demonstrated in the recent film "The astronaut farmer". Even in America, anything the government doesn't want the average citizen to do, the average citizen doesn't do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome years ago I read this very scenario played out in a short story published in Analog Magazine. I no longer recall the title but America turned its back on space choosing instead to revel in past glories. Meanwhile the muslim world launched a manned mission to the moon to dismantle and remove our every artifact to "cleanse the moon of the touch of the infedel". The moon in Islam is sacred. Only after they erased our achievements did theAmerican people reawaken the dream and send man on to Mars. I admit that Nasa has taken overlong to rediscover and reinvent what we have already done to great success in our manned missions to the Moon but to extend an agencies budget after cancelling its reason for being is turning his back on our dreams and any hopes of future achievement. I believe that now Nasa will become the joke it was portrayed as in an episode of "The Simpsons" where Homer went into space and the chief objective of their mission was the continue their study of the effects of weightlessness on screws. America is done, move over Britain.
Constellation was a program with serious problems - well over budget, way behind schedule, and off mission. NASA $100 billion is best spent on developing technologies for space exploration versus low earth orbit. Private companies will be capable of developing low earth orbit missions at a 1/10 the cost and meet the mission deadline.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKazisaki: "The constelation plan shouldnt be cancelled...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Space exploration... should be a major focus ..."
If you read the article, report, and subsequent budget proposal - that is exactly why Constellation was cancelled. Constellation was a mess - over budget, over time, and way over an acceptable delivery date.
"Ahh! vendicar9, you are a member of the Theological Chicago School of Silly Economics." - Bill
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGakk, exactly the opposite actually. But there are economic realities, and $24 trillion is a very big one, particularly when those Chicago pre-Schoolers are continuing to dump their poison into the U.S. economy.
"It has been decades since man last walked on the moon and now I believe it will not happen within what remains of my lifetime. Private industry will never see the day non-military, private citizens enter space." - AmericaIsDead
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat America needs is another round of tax cuts for the rich.
If Americans weren't so highly taxed then more of their tax money could go to NASA.
It only makes sense. Right?
RE: throwing away $9 billion already spent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNASA estimated Bush's Constellation program at $230 billion (through 2025). In 1972, NASA estimated Nixon's Space Shuttle program at $16.1 billion -- its actual cost was 55% higher (and, more importantly, its launch frequency was nearly 10-fold lower). So getting out of a program likely to cost in excess of $400 billion program for a mere $9 billion is a pretty good deal.
Well vendicar9 you have caught my attention. Although an article in SciAm about NASA is not the place to have a macro-econimic discussion, I have been looking for a chance to communicate with someone who likes to reason things through.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me say however, that it is very unlikely the American public debt would ever get to $24 trillion, unless you developed a $50 to $60 trillion GDP. You can't trend line from the bottom of a business cycle when so much is in flux.
If you would like to continue the discussion my email address is in my profile, but be warned I like to argue economics starting from trusted facts provided by sources like OECD, CIA Source Book, UN Stats, Labour Department and the like.
USA, Russia, ESA, China, Japan and now India are all running their own version of "Name That Program". Six small competing operations will not bring success in this enterprise. Competition works in building cars for a market you can define. Pushing the frontiers of exploration requires co-operation for advancement. Independent and corporate assails into the common destiny of all mankind should be outlawed, not financed by the USA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can't go to the moon and give a trillion plus dollars to China. We are not the country that put men on the moon. That country had its soul bought and sold when we stopped making stuff for ourselves and instead tried to manipulate financial markets for fun and profit. History is replete with examples of this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNASA with its budget cuts should not despair. They are one distinguished organization who brain power need not be wasted. A marriage between NASA and John Hunters Quicklauncher could be a solution? Johns concept (with working models) launches payloads into space. Cannons to space , uses extreme pressure hydrogen to propel bullet shaped cargo/fuel to space. What makes this concept so appealing is its relatively inexpensive cost to placing items in space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThink end goal and all leads to transportation costs& getting a colony on Mars requires bringing the materials/supplies/infrastructure to build it. HOW?
A 30km space cannon, capable of launching bus sized cargo pods to space& the cargo being the key. NASA is very equipped to design this next part& what to send& infrastructure; supplies; materials; know how.
The cargo launched will form the space craft constructed from the bodies, which will in tern become the colony on Mars. As these units arrive they will form a circle, rowed side by side with branches leading to a central fuel/space craft hub. This can then be rotated to create gravity for colonists along the journey. Rocket propulsion systems and fuel will propel the craft to mars& and once there used to descend the structure to the surface& some simple construction by colonists and this new site could grow outward integrating food/water/oxygen systems to maintain long term development. Smaller launches could routinely send more supplies but this time the craft could return home with people and products manufactured once a commodity worthy of the expense is developed.
This basic design of launching to space could allow pre developed space exploration vehicles/space ships manned or not to be constructed at home launched then assembled if necessary in space then launched from there. Imagine launching 10 smaller probes all at once, or building a faster better developed space station complete with community, manufacturing base, science centre, accommodations for space vacationers or a new multi-telescoped Hubble or launching a solar collection base to power these systems.
The equator would be the ideal location but not necessary& Quito Ecuador may be such a location. 5km north and heading near due west is a 30km (?) slope that could accommodate a launch site for a 30km cannon. This ultra straight structure would require rollercoaster type supports and perhaps tunneling to retain trueness, also complete with all support facilities. The added benefit would be to give poorer nations an opportunity to be part of humanities space programs.
NASA needs to help here on earth as well& there are so many domains that with some brain power added could improve the quality of life for all. Other countries that have resources but no real space programs could use this facility to add to the USs newly formed space communities making the project global by developing internationally. A planet that works together for a common goal could finally be obtained.
To implement the Constellation program SERIOUS funding was cut from science and technology development basically slamming on the brakes and setting the US years behind and allowing other nations to play catch up. The cancellation frees the funding to go back into Science and Technology. Hopefully, we will be able to pull out ahead again. The NASA space program opened the door for the commericialization/ privatization of space flight in earth orbit and even to the moon. Now it can focus on getting humans BEYOND and to where no man has gone before. Let others follow where we lead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The shuttle would never have made it in the private sector" - stew6302
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe shuttle is exactly what the Republicans and the U.S. military wanted it to be. A spacecraft designed to service and return for service low altitude military recon spacecraft.
It's primary reason for failure was the U.S. military's abandonment of it's shuttle program thereby dramatically reducing the number of shuttles planned to be in service and the economies of scale with providing that service.
It's just one Republican failure after another. Shuttle, Space Station, Starwars, Bushies little war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, the S&L banking disaster, offshoring, banking deregulation, and now the collapse of the entire U.S. economy after 40 years of Republican economic treason.
I think Americans need another tax cut to reduce their government deficit.
To Ghandhi:::
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat beast is this you describe? John Hunters Launcher? Using Hydrogen as a compressed gas projectile force imparter?
Try shooting a Integrated circuit out of a gun and see how many calculations it'll perform afterward.. Fuel delivery? Deisel fuel self ignites at the pressures of launch from such a deliverer (almost all our liquid fuels will ignite under 10's of g's) So, it seems only a solid brass or iron or some other metal is all you'd launch. And that is solid weight, not a lighter craft containing humans, supplies instruments, etc.
And why Hydrogen? Wouldn't a simple compressed air system work as effectively?
Not knowing the particulars of a JH system as you can see, prevents intelligent debate. Please provide better descriptions of the launcher or provide links. I would love to learn how escape velocities are developed without tissue destructive forces involved.
My idea would be to hollow out the vertical core of a high altitude mountain and fill it with water. Sink a craft to the bottom of that well and latch it in place. Start pumping air pressure into a launch sledge taking advantage of the Archimedes' bouyancy Force. Once enough pressure is imparted, release the sledge carrying the craft. As they rise and gain velocity toward the top surface begin to ignite booster rockets. By the time the combo breaches the surface, low g forces would have built a few hundreds miles per hour velocity to the craft, separate from the sledge and begin increasing v due to the rockes now. Being at altitude, the escape velocity is thousands of miles per hour less than from sea level.Recover the sledge, reload, repressurize and fire again.
We have the tunneling machines. We have the mountains. We can easily and cheaply deliver the water medium for the system. Every mountain range in the world could eventually have a launcher (See the Moon Is a Harsh Mistress)
Dear Michael Hanlon, did you take the time to check out, "cannons in space" "www.youtube.com/watch"?v=1IXYsDdPvbo? John Hunters at "Quicklauncher" has made this video explaining how they did it... Mr. Hunter understands well that integrated circuits need to be secured better (ciruit boards can be made to withstand g's forces... have you seen rockets with guidence systems? lots of speed and vibration). Quicklauncher has a working model... but is too small in my opinion as it does need to get it's bullet shaped projectile up to escape velocity in a short time span... thus the 30km launcher! The longer the barrel the more time one has to bring, in this case shuttle sized payloads, up to escape velocities... hydrogen has the ooomph to do it and remain stable... most of the hydrogen can then be collected for re use not like present solid fuel launch systems. I agree with you that humans may need to use existing systems to achieve orbit due to the g-forces involved. Lets leave the science and engineering to those with the back ground to do so. This is just a concept that may solve some of the expence involved in space exploration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI totally agree with you and could not have said it better. We used to be people with "the right stuff" but sadly have become the people "without desire, direction or foresight" as far as space technology and technical drive go. Saying that we will suddenly attain the moon through "privatization" does not make it so. Once we lose our technical ability as more and more experienced aerospace engineers and technicians lose employment to work as cab drivers and hamburger chefs, we may never get manned space travel back. The moon was always a "stepping-stone" to the outer planets and beyond and we should have had colonies there thirty years ago, if the government had even the brains of a small goose. The moon represents an opportunity to mine new elements, learn how to survive in a hostile environment, and create self-sustaining systems while only three days from earth, not a year and a half as Mars would be. Sadly, if this continues, the first colonists on the moon will be speaking chinese. This is a total disgrace for Americans that remember our "can do" heritage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease ghandhi, don't discount my qualifications to post on this topic. I was continuouusly enrolled in classes in universities until I was 38yrs old. I have several degrees to my credit and have invented several important devices for today's world (voice coil tuned coaxial coupled cavity magnetron for one) I went to Gizmodo and saw the "contraption" you talk about and tried to input the following (below). Don't know if I was sucessful or not as that is a site seemed geared to the short attention span of "on the go texters" and not real thinkers. My idea:::
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's the problem spelled out. You want to go from relatively stationary point (A) to an orbiting point (B) which has a relative velocity (v) and to get there you must pass through a region of decreasing force being applied against the movement in the direction you are headed in (gravity).
To accomplish this task, you must engineer some sort of machinery which translates an available force into delta x,y&v's. To date that harnessing has taken the form of vectoring the result of chemical reactions through a focused parabolic rocket muzzle. No one has invented a spring strong enough to use. Electro-magnetic rail guns havve been built to scale just as this devise has. The falure of these last two methods is that they apply all the Acceleration at the beginning of the movement curve. The chemical rockets worked because they slowly but steadily overcame the opposing force of gravity.
Are there any other sources of force we could employ? A catapult using ways to take advantage of centrifugal force could work but the forces needed to be harnessed are more than the structure of the catapult could withstand and remain in one piece ( okay, rebuild it after each launch) Other forces? Thermal differentials? No, not good at developing high forces. They work best at the subtle low end of the machine spectrum.
Dang stiffling text limitations which the "on th go"ers don't understand dumbs down debate to a moron level. To finish::
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne source of force has only seen a limited action with the military to launch rockets from submarines, bouyant force discoverd 5 thousand years ago by Archimedes. Imagine if those sub launches were taking place from atop Mt Everest! The same size engine and same weight of fuel could launch 100's of times the tonnage they launch at sea level. Use our modern mining machines to drill straight down into any high
altitude mountain, fill the cavity with water, wench the craft down against the bouyant force (like stretching a spring) at the bottom pump in some extra air pressure and then let it loose. Just before breaching the surface, ignite the boosters and get to space in two minutes, all without imparting more than 5 gravities! I claim patent rights on this design but just ask and I'll let you build one for free!
And from the Moon end as a poster at gizmodo suggests to build another one, where does the sea come from to build one of those sea cannons? From the Moon, the e/m rail launch is most feasible. Read Heinlein's "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" all but my bouyant expoitation is spelled out there.
"America is done, move over Britain"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow that's not very constructive, is it?
I never thought of Americans of having a "let's just lie down and die" attitude!
Keep in mind that if America's economy goes down the sink, the whole western world will go with it.
And although America has made it's mistakes, (some of them big for sure!) who will the world turn to leadership if America (and Europe with it) fades away?
Communist China? India with it's class system?
Somehow I doubt they'll do a better job..
"Imagine if those sub launches were taking place from atop Mt Everest!" - whatever
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell... Ahhhhh.... No..... That is false.
The energy needed to lift 1 kilogram of material to the height of mount everest is about 90,000 joules. The kenetic energy it needs to oribit the earth is about 50 million joules. About 550 times more energy than needed to lift the mass.
You don't gain any significant advantage by launching from the top of a mountain since you have to attain the same velocity in the end, and velocity is where the energy expenditure goes.
"Keep in mind that if America's economy goes down the sink, the whole western world will go with it." - Whomever
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA note to the world.
If someone owes you $100 then they have a problem.
If someone owes you $24 trillion dollars, then you have a problem.
However, America no longer produces anything of value at at some point the investors are going to have to cut their losses and cut the failed American state loose.
The earlier that time comes the better it is for everyone.
"Communist China? India with it's class system?
Somehow I doubt they'll do a better job.." - Whatever
Given the extent of the American failure and the tens of millions of civilians murdered by the failed American state, almost anyone is perferable.
I prefer the U.N.
And as they say... Get the U.N. out of the U.S. and the U.S. out of existance.
""You don't gain any significant advantage by launching from the top of a mountain since you have to attain the same velocity in the end, and velocity is where the energy expenditure goes.""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStanding still at sea level and standing still at the top of Everest equates to a difference of velocity of approx 1000 mph vs 1250 mph, so contrary to your input, there is advantage to launch at altitude. In fact that's the whole premise behind Virgin Galactic.
Consider that all human effort requires joules. I say that with mid 19th century tachnology, cog rails, We can get almost two of the needed hundred miles up out of the way. It is those first two miles where most of the acceleration takes place. The less 'a' you need to impart to a payload, the more complicated in nature that payload can be.
If our mountain were 300 miles high and we got into orbit by jumping off and falling into it, you'd probanbly say no because the fall is too far.(And we could get up that mountain with steady velocity-20mph. Let your mind soar up out of the gravity well that is traditional thought.
The Budget outsources Human Space Flight to Russia, now how is that a good idea. We will not have a lounch vehical to get humans into space for 10 years or more. Obama just made the United States a third world country as far as human space flight. We should keep the Space Shuttle going until a replacement is ready.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuman spaceflight is the greatest challenge to developing new technologies since to sustain humans in the hostile environment of space requires technologies that are way out. These range from genetic engineering and life support to propulsion and mining. The spin-offs from such challenges can be enormous and will far outweigh the spin-offs from robotic exploration alone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have worked with NASA people. They have become the most over-paid, inefficient organization in America. Much better to hand EVERYTHING off to the private sector and save our tax $$$!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCanceling the manned mission to return to the Moon by the Obama Administration is extremely ill-advised. With all due respect to the commission which met to discuss and recommend NASA future missions to the President you cannot abandon manned missions to the moon if you ever expect to get to Mars or any where else for that matter. There is so much we have yet to learn. We want to go to Mars, fine...but if we are going to get there we have to take small steps instead of trying to the hit the long ball right off. We need to learn to live and survive on a piece of real estate that is close by so rescues can be mounted if necessary. Additionally, as new technologies are readied they can be tested 3 days away on the moon. We want to go to an asteroid, fine...but if we don't learn how to self recover and be able to build the large space logistic base it will take to go to either of those places we just won't get there. Launching from a moonbase will be a lot less expensive than trying to do it from Earth. If we can survive there we could, with a few exceptions, survive anywhere. So I urge the President to relook at this. Private industry is already involved as contractors, but NASA must be at the helm of this effort and in command.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNASA needs to tighten up and get control of its safety culture, cost overrun problems and generally get rid of the massive layers of bureaucratic management it has built up over the years. It must become a lean mean engineering machine that cares about realizing the goals to get to Mars and beyond. But NASA, now with an Astronaut at the helm must continue to lead the manned effort.
For the new kid on the block, see The Centripetal Reflex Method of Space Launch, US Patent #7,523,892. This concept utilizes a whip-like tow boom/airborn refueling line made out of carbon composites to enable conventional air-breathing airplanes to tow a space load to the low stratosphere for a launch maneuver that would accelerate the intended space load well past 4,000 mph.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso see cookaerospace.net for a conceptual aircraft that would work well with the Cook space launch concept in lowering the cost-per pound into LEO or beyond
The current proposal for the future of manned space flight is logically sound, but politically non-viable. The probability that the Congress will support for many years a program to develop technologies for possible use in manned spaceflight to somewhere, at sometime in the indefinite future, is vanishingly small. The proposed program is likely to be killed within three years as an unjustifiable expense for a purpose uncertain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhatever one's assessment of the President and his administration, they are politically astute. They understand that a program that costs billions of $$ per year and that has no clearly articulated objective cannot long survive. The cancellation of Constellation program is intended to remove the post-shuttle objective, thus setting up American participation in manned space flight for termination by Congress a few years down the road. That way the administration can kill a program in which it has little interest, without the political fallout of going down in history as having rung down the final curtain on the New Frontier.
If President Obama had any interest in the future of American endeavors in human space flight, the subject would have merited a mention in the state of the union address, or at least a brief announcement from the White House. Instead, this is one subject about which President Obama has been, and remains, mute.
The current proposal for the future of manned space flight is logically sound, but politically non-viable. The probability that the Congress will support for many years a program to develop technologies for possible use in manned spaceflight to somewhere, at sometime in the indefinite future, is vanishingly small. The proposed program is likely to be killed within three years as an unjustifiable expense for a purpose uncertain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhatever one's assessment of the President and his administration, they are politically astute. They understand that a program that costs billions of $$ per year and that has no clearly articulated objective cannot long survive. The cancellation of the Constellation program is intended to remove the post-shuttle objective, thus setting up American participation in manned space flight for termination by Congress a few years down the road. That way the administration can kill a program in which it has little interest, without the political fallout of going down in history as having rung down the final curtain on the New Frontier.
If President Obama had any interest in the future of American endeavors in human space flight, the subject would have merited a mention in the state of the union address, or at least a brief announcement from the White House. Instead, this is one subject about which President Obama has been, and remains, mute.
"republican created depression?" I suggest you go back in history, and revisit the laws signed and presidents in charge that created this fiasco. People who think its "republican created" are media sheep, that believe anything the propaganda machine tells them. Try actually viewing verifiable facts, that can be confirmed: ie CLINTON signing more deregulation into law than any other president, and signing a bill into law that forced banks to lend money to people who couldnt afford to pay them back. (hello housing crises)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthank you sundora. Congress controlled by Dems FORCED banks to lend money for house buying to people who could not afford it. If a bank refused, Janet Reno would come investigate them for being racist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeorge W. Bush was not without sin when it came to over-spending, but he was a pale shadow of Obama's lust for deficit spending. Dubya also favored much stricter regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The latter two banks are noted today for three things (1) they, along with AIG, have paid back none of the TARP money which bailed them out, (2) they are still lustily making high risk housing loans to unqualified buyers because Congress is still ordering to, and (3) they are still never meaningfully audited since the honest auditor went to Congress in 2005 predicting they were about to fail and was humiliated, insulted, and defied by Barnie Frank and other Dems.
I fear this will also turn into another paper rocket project. In the past 20-years NASA has canceled the X-33, X-38, OrbitalSpacePlane, Space Station Freedom, Ares I & V rockets, Orion and Antares spacecraft. Also canceled was George Bush Sr late 1980's proposal for a return to the moon. It seems that NASA is unable to see a human spaceflight project through to completion without massive delays, cost overruns and ultimate cancellation of the project.I fear this will also turn into another paper rocket project. In the past 20-years NASA has canceled the X-33, X-38, OrbitalSpacePlane, Space Station Freedom, Ares I & V rockets, Orion and Antares spacecraft. Also canceled was George Bush Sr late 1980's proposal for a return to the moon. It seems that NASA is unable to see a human spaceflight project through to completion without massive delays, cost overruns and ultimate cancellation of the project. <strong><a href="http://www.eluxuryc-mall.com/">gucci</a></strong>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this