NASA

Heavy lift and space science

Yesterday’s New York Times had an op-ed by planetary scientist Carolyn Porco about space exploration. Unlike many planetary scientists, who are skeptical at best about the Vision for Space Exploration out of concerns that the program will suck up more money from science programs, Porco is supportive of the effort. Much of that support stems from the belief that the development of a Saturn 5-class launch vehicle, the Ares 5, could pay dividends for robotic space exploration as well, enabling larger spacecraft and/or shorter travel times. “The termination of the Saturn V program also had a stifling effect on the robotic exploration of other planets. In essence, we lost the ability to deliver larger, and in some cases faster, payloads elsewhere in the solar system.”

This argument isn’t used often, although it’s not completely novel: at the AAAS conference in San Francisco this past weekend, NASA Ames director Pete Worden noted that the Ares 5 would enable the development of much larger space telescopes than can be launched today on existing vehicles. One factor that isn’t discussed, though, is just how cost-effective such an approach is. The Ares 5 is unlikely to be a cheap vehicle: each launch is likely going to cost several hundred million dollars, and perhaps up to a billion dollars each, depending on its flight rate and final design. Will space science missions be able to afford that expensive a launcher. Porco, in her op-ed, notes that reduced flight times could save money: “In space, as on Earth, time is money, and the money saved could have been spent elsewhere.” However, mission operations, particularly in cruise modes when there is little going on, is only a small fraction of overall mission costs. And missions that are so big that they need an Ares 5-class launcher will likely also be very expensive, and therefore difficult to fund. Is there really that big of an opportunity for alternative uses for Ares 5?

26 comments to Heavy lift and space science

  • anonymous

    A repost of comments on the same topic from another thread. Expresses many of the same concerns as Mr. Foust’s post…

    As much as I like Dr. Porco and laud her team’s findings at Enceladus (now there’s an exciting space exploration target!), I found her editorial to be rather unrealistic when it comes to the cost, budget, and schedule issues that would be involved with the “superheavy” class of science missions she proposes to undertake using Ares V. The largest class of routine planetary missions currently fielded by NASA are the New Frontiers missions (currently New Horizons to Pluto and Juno to Jupiter) and they’re capped at $700 million (inclusive of launch costs). The cost of building and launching one Ares V is likely to be on that order (around $500 million), leaving little, if any, budget for the actual spacecraft, operations, and data analysis.

    So to effectively take advantage of Ares V, we’re talking about something at least as big as the multi-billion dollar class of missions represented by Cassini and Galileo. Cassini came in at $3.3 billion total, and I just don’t see where the dollars for that kind of planetary mission are going to come from in the foreseeable science budget at NASA. Griffin has almost flat-lined the science budget, put space telescopes (e.g., SIM) that are a fraction of that cost on permanent hold, and is getting excoriated for spending too little on Earth science. Heck, he even killed JIMO early in his tenure, which was the perfect planetary mission to take advantage of a heavy lifter like Ares V.

    Even if the post-Griffin budget pressures on planetary science lighten up next decade, the annual science budget will still be only a handful of billions of dollars and will still have to address a multiplicity of targets and disciplines. Just like during the 80s and early 90s, they will only be able to afford about one of these flagship-class missions each decade. And even then, the science community will wait to see Ares V actually flies towards the end of next decade before committing to develop such a mission. So what we’re really arguing about is one, maybe two at most, superheavy missions that might launch in the mid- to late-2020s and 2030s.

    No thank you, Dr. Porco. I’d rather not wait for retirement before the first Europa or Enceladus orbiter or Titan airship to get back to those interesting astrobiology targets in the outer solar system. I think we’re much better off with a series of less capable but smaller (although probably slightly larger than New Frontiers, maybe $1B+) and more frequent (e.g., every 5-years) flagship missions. The Mars program has proven the sustainability of such an approach in the face of the loss of the 2001 Mars missions and more recent Griffin cuts. We need develop a similar approach for the outer moons.

    My 2 cents… FWIW…

  • Ray

    I agree with anonymous’s comments. I could imagine (I’m not an engineer though) a new class of big science missions that aren’t so much more expensive than the big ones to date (using the extra mass just for propellant, for example, rather than more instruments). Even with that approach it still sounds unaffordable for the science missions.

    I would also note that if they actually start using Ares V for robotic missions, the commercial launch industry will again be competing with a government launch vehicle that will always win no matter how expensive it is. That doesn’t sound good in the long run for NASA, science, or everyone else. Although Griffin has also hinted about using Ares I/V for more than the lunar (and ISS backup) missions, hopefully that idea gets discouraged. Even having Griffin suggest it puts a damper on commercial launch vehicle progress/investment.

  • Is there really that big of an opportunity for alternative uses for Ares 5?

    JWST.

  • richardb

    A launcher like Ares V will be useful for the size of probes needed for exploration of the outer planets. Galileo and Cassini needed a shuttle class(ie Ares V) launcher and with what they’ve found, follow-on missions to orbit Jupiter & Saturn moons are already in debate. The costs for these missions are high but the world is increasingly rich and Nasa does co-operate with other countries. I suspect that follow-on missions to Titan or Europa would have a European, Indian, Japanese or even Russian flavor to it so the US wouldn’t have to bear the full cost. Dr. Porco shouldn’t be dismissed so quickly.

  • LetsGetReal

    Another application, which I’m sure will not receive universal agreement, is deployment of large habitats in LEO. A shortcoming of the Freedom/ISS program was its total reliance on Shuttle launches for assembly. A Shuttle-derived HL capability developed in the mid-80’s would have avoided the piecemeal approach and permited deployment of a much larger, more capable station, along the lines of Skylab.

    I’m not advocating that NASA consider building another station. However, large, integrable habitats may have great appeal to a fledgling space tourism industry.

    The big question is whether an infrequently launched, NASA developed HLV could ever be made affordable (note that I did not use the term “inexpensive”). Aye, there’s the rub.

  • Sorry folks, I’m with Anonymous.

    The last thing we need to do is torque our science programs around to create a false justification for Ares 5.

    Let’s try a real space innovation: honesty. Supporters of Ares 5 want a HLLV for human Mars exploration. Much of the rest of NASA’s new exploration architecture flows from that. Griffin is doing what he told the White House he would do: retire the Orbiter and put in place a transportation architecture to support lunar/mars exploration missions.

    Whether or not the architecture is sustainable or affordable in a budgetary future where entitlements crowd out discretionary spending is a debateable — but really important — question.

    Perhaps some of us will be able to use ISS — or more likely a Bigelow station — to do the basic engineering research on zero-g propellant transfer/storage and telerobotic assembly that would allow EELV-class vehicles to launch pieces of battlestar galactica science missions.

    Assuming, of course, that *scientists*, and not spacecraft engineers, really want those missions to occur. :-)

  • As a former JPL’er, Ares V could allow for better robotic exploration from both a mass and time point of view.

    If I want to really explore the Jovian system, or beyond, I could really use either a bigger spacecraft, so that I can stuff more sensors on it along with its fuel supply and perhaps an ion engine, or a few spacecraft but with different sensor suites and each having their own exploration mission. Any of these spacecraft could be built today, but not launched. Neither the top-rated version of the Atlas V (551) nor the Delta IV Heavy could do that since their GTO peak payload mass is about 8,000 kg. Remember that Cassini weighed 5600 kg at launch, without the booster to send it on a hyperbolic orbit to Jupiter.

    Another thing that Porco points out is the time to station. If we have a bigger booster, you could use a larger stage for exiting earth, and do so at a much velocity. Higher hyperbolic excess velocity means you get to where you want sooner. As Porco points out, the 7 year mission to Saturn could have been 3. While a spacecraft is in flight, you still need people monitoring it, which in the case for Cassini meant that for seven years, people sat around twiddling their thumbs waiting for Cassini to finally get to Saturn and begin its work. What a waste.

    Would Ares V help robotic exploration? Yes, any new lifter with a heavier payload capacity helps when it comes to space exploration, human or otherwise. Will the cost of robotic programs taking advantage of this new payload capability rise? Again, of course they would–bigger, more complicated and capable, or more numerous, spacecraft cost more. Just because robotic missions might increase in cost does not mean that Ares V’s connection to robotic space exploration is less tenable.

  • It seems to me that the application where an HLV (Ares-V or anything else) really makes sense is in large space telescopes. These are of undoubted scientific importance (no one today listens to all the astronomers who claimed that Hubble was useless and a complete waste of money). As the JWST is demonstrating, it is hard to break a light bucket up into segments, and this would be especially so if they are launched separately. Interferometers on earth have not replaced the need for light buckets, and I don’t expect that to happen in space. While radio telescopes on the lunar far side make a lot of sense, because of the dust issue, optical telescopes should probably stay in microgravity.

    — Donald

  • Since Anonymous re-posted his comment, I’ll re-post my reply!

    Anonymous, I fully agree with your analysis of the NYT piece, and the implications in your last paragraph that smaller is better anyway. That does not mean this should not be used to the political benefit of the VSE, which is what I was suggesting.

    That said, we used to launch planetary probes on the Titan-IV, with which development the Air Force managed the true miracle of coming up with an expendable rocket that cost more to launch than the Space Shuttle. While no one is likely to develop it for this purpose, if the vehicle is available, it may well get used, particularly for space telescopes.

    – Donald

  • anonymous

    “Will the cost of robotic programs taking advantage of this new payload capability rise? Again, of course they would–bigger, more complicated and capable, or more numerous, spacecraft cost more.”

    “It seems to me that the application where an HLV (Ares-V or anything else) really makes sense is in large space telescopes.”

    I don’t disagree that a heavier launcher enables bigger, more capable, and/or faster planetary missions and/or larger space telescopes. I, for one, would love to see such missions take place — and given their astrobiological potential, I would assign them higher priority than a human lunar return effort.

    The key question I think we have to ask is whether the budget will support such missions in a foreseeable timeframe? With the cancellation of JIMO and EO, SIM and TPF reduced to interminable technology projects, astrobiology research grants cut in half, and the science budget flat-funded through this decade and only projected to get inflation thereafter, I don’t see where the money would come from. This is why I think Dr. Porco’s argument, while valid from an engineering standpoint, is intellectually empty in the real-world.

    In the real-world, NASA can afford to build a heavy lift vehicle to return humans to the Moon over the next decade and a half, or NASA can afford to build and launch big robotic planetary missions and space telescopes over the next decade and a half. If NASA does the former, it won’t have the budgetary resources to do the latter, even if the former could help out the latter from an engineering standpoint.

    It’s a oversimplication of the situation, but an accurate one given what’s happened to JIMO, EO, SIM, TPF, astrobiology research grants, etc.

    Of course, this is another reason why I and other folks argue that NASA should avoid an expensive heavy lift infrastructure if at all possible and pursue in-space fueling alternatives. (And that’s where JIMO was headed anyway before Griffin and ESAS came along.)

    My 2 cents… FWIW.

  • and given their astrobiological potential, I would assign them higher priority than a human lunar return effort.

    Actually, there are substantial circumstancial reasons to believe that intelligent life is rare to nonexistant in the galaxy, not least because the sun is a very old star for its type and it took half the predicted life span of the sun to get life to cooperate enought for the Cambrian explosion only 600 million years ago. It is very hard (though certainly not impossible) to detect non-intelligent, non-radiating life remotely. A far better way to persue astrobiology is to send biologists to Earth’s moon to obtain samples of the early terrestrial continents and look for fossil evidence that could tell us how life actually started here; and to Mars and other accessible destinations where life might be extant. Or, if Mars et al prove sterile, to experiment with seeding it ourselves and see what happens. . . .

    In the real-world, NASA can afford to build a heavy lift vehicle to return humans to the Moon over the next decade and a half, or NASA can afford to build and launch big robotic planetary missions and space telescopes over the next decade and a half.

    Exactly. We’ve spent a couple decades funding ever more of the latter, while human spaceflight has been in funding decline. It is now the latter’s turn to face some truncation in order to fund the next generation of the former. The “balanced” space program that scientists are always claiming they support does not involve abandoning the next step in human spaceflight so that their projects can afford growth without end.

    — Donald

  • anonymous

    “Actually, there are substantial circumstancial reasons to believe that intelligent life is rare to nonexistant in the galaxy”

    Sorry, I wasn’t talking about intelligent life. My point is that if or when robotic missions or telescopes do find fossilized or living bacteria under Mars, organisms swimming in Europa/Ganymede/Callisto’s oceans, something living spewing out of Enceladus’s geysers, or a blue/green planet around a nearby star, the justification and rationale for expanding robotic and human space exploration will become a given. It will be a watershed event, transforming the study of biology and carrying major philosophical and theological implications. The need to know and understand more will be overwhelming and will justify any number of large robotic and human missions.

    Find bugs on Mars and we won’t be able to stop the human race to Phobos, even if humans are never allowed to walk on Mars. Print that image of an Earth circling another star, and we won’t be able to stop the establishment of a human-tended Lagrange telescope servicing facility, even if no one shows much interest in the Moon afterwards. Etc., etc.

    I’m being a little hyperbolic, but we human space flight cadets are so driven by engineering and what’s gone before in Apollo that we’ve forgotten to take notice of the quiet revolution taking place amongst our scientist brethren and how their work would finally provide a compelling and sustainable rationale for human space exploration and research that is independent of the nation’s political and foreign policy needs.

    To the extent that human space flight costs delay, curtail, and derail space science work, I’d argue that we human space flight advocates are cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

    “A far better way to persue astrobiology is to send biologists to Earth’s moon to obtain samples of the early terrestrial continents, and look for fossil evidence that could tell us how life actually started here;”

    Sorry, you may have lost me on that one, Mr. Robertson. If you mean that characteristics of early Earth lifeforms might be recorded in the lunar record, I could be wrong, but I think that’s a pretty remote possibility, even more so that human (or robotic) expeditions could find those fossils on or under the Moon’s surface. Not impossible given that some of us think we see nanobacterial fossils in Martian meteorites, but still very remote and not a good justification for an expensive lunar effort (human or robotic).

    “and to Mars and other accessible destinations where life might be extant.”

    If there is extant life under the surface of Mars, I don’t think we’re going to put humans on the surface, at least not without decades of study and/or one-way tickets.

    “We’ve spent a couple decades funding ever more of the latter, while human spaceflight has been in funding decline.”

    That’s actually not true. Space science funding only rose significantly during the latter years of the Clinton Administration, in the mid- to late-90s. It was actually declining in the early 90s, and all over the map (but essentially flat) during the 80s.

    Human space flight, however, rose three times during that period, once for Shuttle, again for Challenger (and back down), and again for ISS. It was only in the latter Clinton Administration that the human space flight budget was finally contained.

    “The “balanced” space program that scientists are always claiming they support does not involve abandoning the next step in human spaceflight so that their projects can afford growth without end.”

    I would make the counterargument that neither should the next step in human space flight require 50 percent cuts in science grants, the indefinite deferment of two out of the next three major optical space telescopes, an indefinite hold on all major high-energy astrophysics telescopes, a halving of the number robotic Mars missions and the indefinite deferment of a Mars sample return mission, the cancellation of all major missions to the outer moons, and gaps in key Earth science databases in the face of a realized global warming threat. To the extent that the next step in human space flight activity does require such dramatic sacrifices, it means that — de facto — the approach we’re taking to that next step is unsustainable and that we need to rethink our approach.

    As much as I would like to see human space flight break out of LEO, we should not gloss over the price being paid in science (or aeronautics) with generalities about science “growth on end”. A very high price is being paid by science, and the dramatic slowdown in discoveries in the coming couple of decades is likely to come back to haunt those still seeking a compelling and sustainable rationale for human space exploration.

    My 2 cents… your mileage may vary.

  • richardb

    All this back and forth over approx .6% of the federal budget. 6 tenths of 1 percent, its like splitting a bread crumb between starving scientists and starving engineers.
    I have no idea if HLV will get built over the next 20 years, but if Nasa wants it, they’ll figure out a way to get close to what they want. It might look ugly, but they will manage. Neither the space shuttle nor ISS was implemented the way Nasa wished, but when they got a funding line, they did the engineering to get into space. Same for CEV/CLV/HLV; whatever they end up looking like.

  • Anonymous: If you mean that characteristics of early Earth lifeforms might be recorded in the lunar record

    Yes. In the same way that Martian and lunar (and apparently Mercurian) samples have been splashed onto Earth, during the heavy bombardment early in Solar System history, bits of Earth’s crust undoubtedly hit the moon. They may have contained fossils of the earliest organisms. Yes, finding these samples will be difficult — requiring multiple long traverses capable of many deep drills, or detailed surveys of the steep central peaks and inner rims of many craters (where the deepest material is excavated) — but they almost certainly exist, and would revolutionize biology just as throughly as finding a fossil on Mars.

    Most probably, no automated endeavor could find these samples at all, and certaily not without spending far more on R&D and thousands of robots than sending a sufficiently well-equipped set of human expeditions that probably could.

    My understanding is that human spaceflight funding used to be about half of NASA’s budget, and now it is closer to a third. Am I wrong?. (I mean this as an honest question. . . .)

    My point is that if or when robotic missions or telescopes do find fossilized or living bacteria under Mars, organisms swimming in Europa/Ganymede/Callisto’s oceans, something living spewing out of Enceladus’s geysers, or a blue/green planet around a nearby star, the justification and rationale for expanding robotic and human space exploration will become a given.

    And my point is that there is close to zero chance that any conceivable robot could find a bug, or a fossil bug, on Mars or anywhere else, and there is zero chance that any real information could be obtained about that bug. That said, indirect detection is possible, if far more difficult than most people wish.

    I would make the counterargument that neither should the next step in human space flight require 50 percent cuts in science grants, the indefinite deferment of two out of the next three major optical space telescopes, [et cetera]

    If none of these endeavors can answer the questions — is there life elsewhere in the Universe and what’s it like — than if you want to achieve your “hyperbolic” vision, than yes, the “breakout” from LEO has to have priority. You can automate reconnaissance, but to get real detailed scientific answers, you need scientists.

    With our enthusiasm for remote observation and automation, we forget that observation is only part of science. Hands on manipulation and experimentation are equally important (and, I would argue that the history of science provides plenty of evidence that they are a lot more important). It’s just possible we can find evidence for extant life on Mars with remote observations and / or robots. However, we are not likely to find direct evidence for ancient life on Mars until we have been there ourselves, and we certainly will not understand that life — its distribution, history, and biology — until we’ve done a lot of survey geology and laboratory experimentation on many samples obtained over wide areas.

    That should be our priority in space science going forward.

    — Donald

  • anonymous

    “would revolutionize biology just as throughly as finding a fossil on Mars”

    No, not nearly to the same degree. All of biology is based on Earth life (a “sample size of one” to quote the late Carl Sagan). Finding more Earth life, even very early Earth life, on the Moon won’t change that. Finding extraterrestrial life, on Mars or elsewhere, will.

    “And my point is that there is close to zero chance that any conceivable robot could find a bug, or a fossil bug, on Mars or anywhere else, and there is zero chance that any real information could be obtained about that bug… Hands on manipulation and experimentation are equally important (and, I would argue that the history of science provides plenty of evidence that they are a lot more important).”

    If we believe strongly in the value of hands-on science, then I would argue that we shouldn’t support an approach to NASA’s human lunar return efforts that results in the termination of any the NASA Mars sample return mission for the foreseeable future.

    I’ll take hundreds of full-time Earth-based scientists looking for evidence of extraterrestrial life in Mars samples next decade (which is what was planned before ESAS and Bush budget requests cut the number of future Mars missions in half) over a handful of part-time scientists/astronauts looking for evidence of early Earth life on the Moon sometime in the 2030s (assuming we ever build up a substantial human lunar capability).

    Again, my 2 cents… your mileage may vary.

  • anonymous

    “My understanding is that human spaceflight funding used to be about half of NASA’s budget, and now it is closer to a third. Am I wrong?. (I mean this as an honest question. . . .)”

    Human space flight, including both “Exploration Systems” (Constellation and ISS research) and “Space Operations” (STS and ISS operations) comes to $10.7 billion in the White House’s 2008 budget request. That’s well over half of the $17.3 billion total for NASA in the White House’s 2008 budget request.

    See:

    http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html

    or

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/168653main_NASA_FY08_Budget_Summary.pdf

    Hope this helps.

  • Heavy lifters should not be justified by cost reduction. They are justified by the ability to lift large sized single payloads. Be it less costly or not. The skylab comparison to the international space station mentioned above is a good example of where heavy lifters excel. I doubt that robotic space exploration is a good example. To me heavy lift will be required to build a robust future deep space infrastructure. It has less to do with economics or flight rates its more of a size issue. Manned deep space exploration will require large structures and propulsion units, and heavy lift provides the capability.

  • Stephen Metschan

    I think the AresV with its inherently low launch rate is too big. The ELV’s on the other hand are two small. The Jupiter-1 being a “Direct” derivate of STS is just about right with a 10m Fairing Diameter and +70mT to LEO. It’s also interesting to run the STS numbers minus the expense of the shuttle while adding it dead weight to the payload. Cutting the $/LEO kg to half of what the best ELV can do is good start for VSE altogether. I think that’s why the ELV guys want it dead. In addition, using the current STS infrastructure and workforce 15 years earlier saving billions in development cost over the AresV is good as well.

    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/814/1

  • Anonymous: including both “Exploration Systems” (Constellation and ISS research) and “Space Operations” (STS and ISS operations) comes to $10.7 billion in the White House’s 2008 budget request

    I’m sorry, I meant before the current ramp-up in human spaceflight. That is, the situation that space scientists are pining for. . . .

    — Donald

  • anonymous

    “I’m sorry, I meant before the current ramp-up in human spaceflight. That is, the situation that space scientists are pining for. . . .’

    The lowest human space flight has been since the start of the Shuttle era is a little more than half of the total NASA budget. It’s never been close to one-third, and is now almost two-thirds, thanks to the reductions Griffin made to science and aeronautics to keep Constellation on schedule and to avoid any rampdown in the Shuttle workforce during his tenure.

  • Thanks for the correction.

    — Donald

  • Edward Wright

    > If I want to really explore the Jovian system, or beyond, I could really use either a bigger spacecraft, so that I
    > can stuff more sensors on it along with its fuel supply and perhaps an ion engine, or a few spacecraft but with
    > different sensor suites and each having their own exploration mission. Any of these spacecraft could be built
    > today, but not launched.

    Just because you want it doesn’t mean Congress will fund it, Jim.

    Let’s assume Congress would appropriate $5 billion for such a Death Star class mission. There are two ways to do it:

    1) You could support the development of low-cost commercial launch systems and on-orbit assembly. In that case, you could probably do it for a lot less than $5 billion and follow-on missions would be much cheaper, so you wouldn’t have to wipe out the entire NASA planetary sciences program for a decade every time you launch one. Or,

    2) You could saddle the taxpayers with the huge, expensive Apollo on Steroids, developed by Mike Griffin when he was with the Planetary Society. This means drastic cutbacks in the number of NASA astronauts that get to fly in coming decades, which doesn’t bother the Planetary Society. It also means “cuts” (actually, modest increases) in the planetary society budget, which the Planetary Society has screamed a great deal about.

    I realize that planetary scientists generally want human spaceflight to go away, except for a few Apollo-style flag-and-footprint missions, but does it really make sense to cut your own throats?

  • Item 1) is one of the few instances where I fully agree with Edward.

    — Donald

  • Adrasteia

    I think the AresV with its inherently low launch rate is too big. The ELV’s on the other hand are two small. The Jupiter-1 being a “Direct” derivate of STS is just about right with a 10m Fairing Diameter and +70mT to LEO.

    Oh, so about the same size as Atlas V Phase 2 then?

  • Fed up and disgusted

    Why bother at all with outer space? You have the “morally pure” scientists who argue for unmanned missions throughout the solar system for purposes to discover what? That water once flowed on Mars? So what? Who cares? You then have the politicians who, depending onthe political winds support space activities when speaking to one crowd and then will say “We need to pour more money down the rat holes of the ghettos instead of reaching for the stars.” Let’s be real folks, America doesn’t have the guts anymore to do anything truly visionary. We’ve become soft and timid. We’re a nation of computer geeks sitting on our large butts waiting for our government support checks. I cannot bleive people actually think we have the guts to launch a new Moon mission. It will be just a matter of time before the Democrats cancel the Vision for Space Exploration under the auspices of “fiscal responsibility”, so don’t worry about builidng the Ares V becasue it will never be built. We are seeing the last Amercian human missions into outer space right now with the space shuttle. Face it, we will never go back to the Moon let alone Mars or the stars. We will continue to deteriote into a socialistic, weak worn out country where the poor clamor for thier goverment checks and there is no national pride. In 2008 we will elect a woman president becasue she will present the image of a “nurturing” leader. Woman are not exploreres, Men are. This female president will gut NASA and the military and be lauded by the media for her strong position. And she will usher in the demise of America as a leader for scientific innovation.

  • Jeff Wright

    Carolyn Porco knows what she is talking about–people.

    Ares V will be a boon for science. The enemies of HLLV are just as wrongheaded as the dunces who thought R-7 was too big.

Leave a Reply to Donald F. Robertson Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>