Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL) issued a press release Monday about the letter that she and Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) sent last week to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), chairman of the House Budget Committee. As reported last week, Adams and Olson asked Ryan to spare human spaceflight programs from any budget cuts, suggesting that Earth sciences programs could instead be cut. “I strongly encourage Chairman Paul Ryan and the rest of my colleagues to make human space exploration a top priority as we continue our discussion on our Republican budget for the 2012 fiscal year,” Adams said in the release. “While I believe there are ways we can trim NASA’s budget – specifically within the Earth Science account – we mustn’t do so at the expense of human spaceflight, which is a proven economic driver and job creator.”
The release includes a copy of the letter to Rep. Ryan. In it, Adams and Olson extol the virtues of spaceflight and space exploration, from the development of new technologies to inspiring youth to pursue education in science and engineering fields. However, the Obama Administration, they claim, “willingly cedes that leadership” in human spaceflight to China, Russia, and even India: “We cannot continue to accept this administration’s assault on American exceptionalism and world leadership.” Because of that, they ask Ryan, as he crafts budget guidelines for FY2012, that he ensure that “any substantial reductions in programs or budget lines within the NASA budget would spare human spaceflight.” They offer to “extend our hands to work with you and your staff to identify other areas within the NASA budget that will reduce unnecessary spending and get our nation’s debt under control.”
As noted last week, this letter is a different approach than earlier this year, when members like Reps. Adams and Olson suggested that funding from Earth sciences programs be redirected to human spaceflight. This letter makes no such explicit request, instead arguing that while NASA’s budget may need to be reduced as part of broader efforts to reduce federal spending, those cuts should come from Earth sciences and not human spaceflight. That exposes a potential logical flaw in their argument: by suggesting that some NASA programs be cut without also calling for increases in spending for human spaceflight, it does nothing to address their concern about the “assault on American exceptionalism” posed by the administration’s budget request for human spaceflight.
Obama’s assault on American exceptionalism with regard to HSF was beaten back last December with the Senate compromise. Congress won’t be broadsided as easily by this president again.
Make no mistake. NASA spaceflight won’t be rebuilt by sacrificing NASA earth sciences research alone. NASA’s entire activity portfolio should be reviewed with the goal of reallocating 50% of the current budget. Like any business that has rotted from the inside, NASA needs a fundamental restructuring and re-dedication to HSF.
From the letter: “Throughout history, scientific exploration has been a hallmark of great nations–the ones that led.” That’s an curious foundation on which to suggest cutting scientific exploration.
“Like any business that has rotted from the inside, NASA needs a fundamental restructuring and re-dedication to HSF.”
NASA is not now and has never been solely an HSF organization. Nor is it strictly an outward-looking organization. Much of what we know about our planet on a global scale was achieved by NASA, and there is much left to learn. I’ve heard the argument that it should instead be the purvue of the USGS or NOAA. That’s all fine and good, but they, too, are seeing cuts. You may be willing to happily set cutting-edge research on our own planet back a few years and let Russia, China, India, the EU, etc lead on it, but it is as much a loss as HSF. Earth Science is an easy account to hit because it doesn’t produce high-profile launches to ISS or missions like Cassini and the MER rovers. But we are the leaders there, too.
And to clarify, Earth Sciences isn’t just hippy dippy global warming satellites, though that is a component. A hit to Earth Sciences would have a wider impact on programs than just cancelling a carbon observatory or two.
“While I believe there are ways we can trim NASA’s budget – specifically within the Earth Science account – we mustn’t do so at the expense of human spaceflight, which is a proven economic driver and job creator.â€
So … for example spending $ 200 million on human spaceflight employs ~ 1000 civil servants and contractors, but a $ 200 million Earth science mission is somehow accomplished without employing the same sized workforce … ?
How stupid do they think their constituents are?
The bottom line: Ares 1 isn’t viable.
If Ares 1 was viable, then ATK would have entered the medium launch market long ago on its own dime. They didn’t.
Instead, we have $10 billion wasted on a non-viable rocket, and the Utah delegation is holding NASA hostage for more. The current myth ATK is promoting is that increasing CO2 levels have no effect on climate, and that if the tax money/printed money for research into “climate change†were spent on Ares 1, Ares 1 would be viable.
While I do not know the effects of increasing CO2 on climate, it is important generally to determine if there are any, and if so what those effects are, so that any appropriate steps might be taken. In any case, long range and very long range weather forecasts need to be improved.
Also in any case, the amount of cash from canceling “climate research†will not be enough to make the Ares 1 a viable rocket..
The compromise struck last year was for DIRECT. Now the window for DIRECT is rapidly closing, and ATK hopes that it will close, leaving Ares 5 as the only HLV alternative.
It’s not.
It is also apparent that the rest of the US space industry is pretty fed up with ATK’s actions.
By the way, the National Geographic special Sunday night showed the effects of an impact mega-tsunami. If you think the Japanese tsunami is bad, take a minute to consider a tsunami 10-20 times higher, moving 10-20 times faster.
And NASA space science is not addressing a clear and present hazard, but doing its best to avoid dealing with it.
Losing HSF expertise will cost lives to relearn; losing scientific probe expertise will not. Not a hard decision for me. The HSF expertise I am talking about is the HLV infrastructure, which required to go BEO. The excuse to shut down this infrastructure is ridiculous when compared to the DOD budget. You guys just want your hobby rocket and are afraid, and rightly so, that an HLV will put the cheap and nasty LEO taxi’s out of business.
LEO is endless, useless circles. It should not even be called spaceflight anymore; round and round at very high altitude is more accurate. If human beings ever want to really travel somewhere it will not happen with fuel depots and unshielded tin cans crawling for years through deep space. It will take HLV’s and nuclear energy- the very tools that our out of reach of the hobby rocketeers.
“How stupid do they think their constituents are?”
The probes get launched on non-human rated inferior lift vehicles.How stupid are the people that do not understand that once the HLV infrastructure is gone it will cost several times as much to get it back- thus stranding us in LEO for the foreseeable future. That would be stupid.
I find the words “The establishment of, and commitment to, human space exploration is critical to our country’s national security” quite odd.
Who says? One would like to believe that if it were, the Defense Department would be doing it. They aren’t. Do national leaders who have responsibility for our security endorse this statement? In fact, what Mr. Gates statement on the release of the new US space policy last year never referred to or even implied human space flight.
Re “Throughout history, scientific exploration has been a hallmark of great nations–the ones that led.†Yep. That’s where HSF is being confused with science. Very typical in Congress. Let’s take money away from science, they say, so we can do human exploration to, um, sorta do science. In fact, as we all know, HSF is an extraordinarily inefficient way to do most science.
The letter also confuses NASA human space flight with other NASA efforts. It’s hard to believe that those other space efforts aren’t also inspirational, and contribute as much to technology development.
Of course, Paul Ryan is no dummy. The letter is signed by by precisely two people, whose districts monetarily benefit most from HSF. That’s what makes a letter like this next to worthless. So, if it weren’t for this letter, Ryan would be assuming that 24-FL and 22-TX didn’t care about HSF?
“NASA needs a fundamental restructuring and re-dedication to HSF.”
That’s not a matter of throwing more money at HSF. That’s a matter of rechartering the whole agency. One might wonder why there is absolutely no Congressional effort to do that.
Human space flight is a “proven economic driver”??? I wonder in what sense? Most of the benefits from HSF are in the spin off variety like UV sunblock protection in sunglasses, or foam mattresses, or composite sports equipment, and most are difficult even to put your finger on. Earth science and earth observations in general is directly applicable to farming, land-use, industry, weather….much more directly tied to the economy.
But the real thing that throws me is that HSF has been getting, is getting, and is slated to continue getting about half of the NASA budget. Everything else which includes earth science, space science, planetary science, technology, aeronautics, shares the remainder. And yet, in most of these areas I see new hardware being designed, built, constructed, flown, new observations being made, new discoveries…and yet from HSF we’ve mainly seen one vehicle designed in the middle of the last century, reflown time after time mainly to assemble the space station. The Space Station, the value of which has been questionable and really has few ‘customers’ doing anything NASA isn’t paying for, took 27 years and was mainly designed and built well over a decade ago. HSF continued to get a lot of money, $12 billion, over the last 5 years for Orion and Constellation, but Orion is still 5 or more years and probably 20-30 billion dollars from flight. So the real question is, where does all that HSF money go? If that activity occupies the time of so many people on the HSF payroll, why isn’t there more to see? Why did all of those “US” modules get built in Russia and Italy? Was our money being spent on Russian and Italian staffs rather than here in the US? Are the American HSF people that unproductive?
“Adams and Olson extol the virtues of spaceflight and space exploration, from the development of new technologies to inspiring youth to pursue education in science and engineering fields.”
As long as it’s not life or physical sciences, and oh, as long as it only involves sending people into space. To do what? Don’t ask silly questions, and don’t look for any budget items that actually fund what the SLS (Senate Launch System and MPCV (Multi-Pork-Congressional-Vessel) will be used for.
This is Congress – we don’t have to make sense!
“This is Congress – we don’t have to make sense!”
It might not make sense to you and your hobby rocketeers but it makes perfect sense to the people who actually want to see human beings travel in space instead of on a space station vacation with Elon.
My Congresswoman is a dingbat.
I don’t think she even knows what “American exceptionalism” is. The phrase most certainly is not a compliment.
In fact, according to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
… the phrase was originated by the American Communist Party!
Building a heavy lift rocket without funding payloads or a mission for said rocket doesn’t make any sense, Virgil. NASA shouldn’t be in the business of making rockets just for the sake of making rockets.
The bottom line: Ares 1 isn’t viable.
It seemed to work excellently. The problem with Ares I was that George Bush’s administrator proposed it. Obama’s Bolsheviks systematically discredit the work of their predecessor. I’d like to see the democrat alternative, but there isn’t one, unless you dote on the childish experiments of SpaceX. How are those ‘game changers’ workin’ for ya?
By the way, the National Geographic special Sunday night showed the effects of an impact mega-tsunami. If you think the Japanese tsunami is bad, take a minute to consider a tsunami 10-20 times higher, moving 10-20 times faster.
Leftist eco-hysteria makes for good television, but a poor guide to future events. How many times will you be deceived by the hysterics before you realize this?
VirgilSamms wrote @ March 22nd, 2011 at 1:07 pm
people who actually want to see human beings travel in space
That’s a fallacy. Everyone here wants to see the US leave LEO but many have accepted that a Constellation like program will not get us there anytime soon. The main problem with SLS/MPCV besides ROI is it is substantially underfunded. We would like a NASA on budget but Congress just sets them up for failure which makes a lot of people look bad.
No, it wasn’t.
A plea for Pork:
Human space flight is not dependent upon the costly heavy lift this Congress still wants for political purposes. NASA has proven we can build large things in orbit. The next step then is to build long range mission craft in orbit. A modular approach to building the BEO mission craft is a practical approach this Congress, Rep or Demo, seems willing to even consider. It is they, Congress, who would cede American leadership in space by demanding fantastic things on one thin dime and then flailing madly when confronted with the flaws in such a plan.
“a Constellation like program will not get us there anytime soon”
This was not the chief problem with Constellation. Though, at the rate it was going, it would not have gotten us anywhere for 2 or 3 decades, the real problem was that once we got there Constellation was no better than Apollo. It wasn’t going to do any more than an Apollo. Every mission would cost $$billions. We would have been back to the mode of not being able to afford to build or fly the rockets and spaceships. Orion as it is being designed now does not get us around that problem. The Constellation plan was, and is, unsustainable for the long run.
“However, the Obama Administration, they claim, “willingly cedes that leadership†in human spaceflight to China, Russia, and even India:”
I just had an article published by Yahoo! that makes the point that it is really the SLS that will cause us to cede the aforesaid leadership.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7858828/senators_crippling_nasa.html?cat=9
NASA shouldn’t be in the business of making rockets just for the sake of making rockets.
But NASA is in the business of launching human beings just for the sake of launching human beings. So really, it fits pretty well.
NASA-ESA endangered joint missions:
1.) International X-ray Observatory
2.) Laser Interferometer Space Antenna
3.) Orbiter for Jupiter’s moon Europa
4.) 2018 rovers to Mars with ESA
HSF could be done cheaper without sacrificing all this if certain members pf Congress would stop demanding the most expensive solutions!
guest wrote @ March 22nd, 2011 at 2:40 pm
“the real problem was that once we got there Constellation was no better than Apollo. ”
Agreed. And this is one of the things that baffles me.
Is it that promoters of Constellation-like programs lack the ability to see that a “program” that leaves no reusable hardware in space, and doesn’t lower the cost to access space, has a short-term effect on what we do in space, but not a long term one.
Constellation wasn’t going to create a permanent and expanding presence in space – it was just a program to visit the Moon again. Sure, it would have left us an HLV, but who knows if it would have ever been used again, and it would have also left us with the most expensive 22,500 kg to LEO launcher in the world (Ares I). And both of these relied on the largesse of Congress in order to fly, since they were government assets.
I know I share a similar vision of the future where space commerce will be expanding outside of satellites and into LEO destinations. Those LEO destinations are most likely to be government or corporate funded, and will be supported by a number of crew and cargo transportation companies.
Though exploration can be exciting for some, it can’t be the sole purpose for our expansion into space. There has to be some sort of commerce that supports the growing infrastructure we all want to be built and occupied. NASA also benefits from expanded services in space, as this will lower their overall costs for doing anything in space.
So a question to all:
What do you want us to be doing in space in 10 years? In 20 years? And why?
Doug Lassiter wrote:
“HSF is an extraordinarily inefficient way to do most science”
Great… Let’s stop boosting ISS and let it fall to the ground?
Constellation wasn’t going to create a permanent and expanding presence in space – it was just a program to visit the Moon again.
As I recall the Vision for Space Exploration directed that NASA construct a lunar outpost. Congress even gave it a name: Neil A. Armstrong Lunar Outpost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_outpost_(NASA)
Similarly extensive plans have been made for a NEO rendezvous mission. All we need as a nation is an Ares V class booster and Orion-like spacecraft to accomplish the mission.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/ssc/Orion/Toolkit/OrionAsteroidMissionWhitePaperAug2010.pdf
Think of how much better a mission this would be with a proper heavy lift launcher.
@ Coastal Ron wrote @ March 22nd, 2011 at 3:41 pm
“What do you want us to be doing in space in 10 years? In 20 years? And why?”
I assume you mean as human beings in space and for civilian activities. I would like to see first a well funded and robust sub-orbital and LEO activities. They will include science and tourism. I want that be done within the coming decade.
I want that we leverage our experience with the ISS to build more space stations. I want to see the development of a B-LEO infrastructure, and we can start with the Moon. There I said it. We can prototype cycler type vehicles with the Moon. Possibly establish stations at L points. We can start developing a series of technology on the Moon that may/will be applicable to NEOs and other moons such as Phobos. I want to see the development of telerobotic technology that will be applicable to the exploration of Mars from orbit (space station) or from a moon.
I want to see our great NASA reboot to actually help commercials get on their feet quickly for LEO and suborbital and all the while looking at B-LEO. I want them to explore Nautilus like concept and finally get new propulsion tech go forward. I am not so much in a hurry to actually land on Mars, I mean humans on Mars. There is plenty of time.
I want to see commercials explore B-LE tourism but also possible exploitation of the resources of the Moon, NEO or wherever as technology develops.
I want incremental steps, not bound to failure for lack of resources or vision.
I want HSF to become self sustainable and therefore come out of the government altogether. If there is cash to be made it will not need the government. If there is no cash to be made then I would like to take all those billions and redirect them to more useful endeavor such as global warming.
I would love to see a synergistic approach between commercial and government but I would love to see the same between HSF and say Earth sciences or cosmology or whatever.
I would love to see some people coming up with a grand plan not for technologies but for human expansion into space that would include the “why” of our ELE friends for example.
I want a VISION for Space Exploration. A real one.
In ten years I want to see a Sidemount derived vehicle launching commercial satellites a 6 or 8 at a time. Which the shuttle was supposed to do instead of being a 737 in orbit. Wings and landing gear in a vacuum are idiotic- but the boosters and engines that put those wings up there- and the infrastructure- is the best in the world; a unique asset that must not be lost.
8 to 10 launches a year for less than what the shuttle flights cost per year now that the most problematic winged element is gone. A certain number of those launches, I don’t know how many, dedicated to early warning satellites to detect Asteroid and Comet impact threats, and robotic water machines for the north lunar pole.
In 20 years a block II sidemount sending fissionables to lunar orbit for nuclear propulsion and water coming up from the lunar surface to fill up radiation shields.
Then we go where ever we want in the solar system. I suggest Ceres with a small thorium reactor to establish a permanent outpost. Not Mars.
With nuclear weapons in orbit around the moon and full coverage with early warning satellites, we can intercept any size threat while it is far enough away that it can be deflected. DOD money.
You asked.
And space X and whoever can keep their hobby rocket.
Stephen C Smith…Perhaps it is time for you to break out of that little false constuct liberal shell of yours, start listening to sources other than MSLSD, and reading for context instead of isolated quotes. The term “American Exceptionalism” is a distinct high compliment to those who believe in it, mainly conservatives who believe in other concepts like personal responsibility and limited government. The CONCEPT has its roots in Paine’s “Common Sense” and The Federalist Papers and evolved along side and was assimilated into the concept of Jasksonian Democracy. The term was used by the American Communist Party in the 1920s in a derogatory sense upset that communism was not taking hold in America. That problem seems to been rectified by the Democrat Party
Coastal Ron wrote @ March 22nd, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Not easy to answer and stay realistic, but I’ll try.
10 years:
I expect to see the scope of commercial microgravity research greatly expanded, especially in the fields of medicine/biotech, semiconductors and materials science. This is a fairly realistic expectation I think.
If we’re lucky we’ll see the first few GEO spacecraft designed for on-orbit refueling and maintenance by space tugs and propellant depots.
As far as exploration goes, I want to see ISS’ orbital construction capabilities (which are likely still unique by this point) used to start component testing and assembly of the type of “exploration vehicle” that makes sense: modular, reconfigurable, reusable.
20 years
I’ll be disappointed if we haven’t managed to lower the cost of manned access to space to something manageable by corporations and moderately wealthy individuals. We might see some amount of microgravity manufacturing of semiconductors, optical or medical products, which would pave the way for exploitation of space resources in later decades, as well as for the general idea of having significant numbers of people living and working in space. I think I’d like to see ISS replaced with a new multipurpose complex at one of the Earth-Moon Lagrangian points.
amightywind wrote @ March 22nd, 2011 at 8:33 am
“Obama’s assault on American exceptionalism…”
FYI, as late as 2004 Nancy Pelosi was on record opposing President Bush’s plans for moonbases and such so the vaporous support has deep roots And, of course, conservatives have opposed NASA since its inception. But you’re tilting at windmills. There’s no such thing as ‘American exceptionalism’.
common sense wrote @ March 22nd, 2011 at 4:39 pm
“I assume you mean as human beings in space and for civilian activities.”
Yes, sorry if it wasn’t explicit.
“I want to see the development of a B-LEO infrastructure, and we can start with the Moon. There I said it.”
One of the fallacies of those that supported Constellation, was that they perceived that didn’t like the Constellation program as against anything Moon related. Or the same with those that didn’t like Obama’s preference for an NEO mission before a lunar one. I for one want us to occupy as much of space as possible, so it’s more a matter of sequence than “if”.
“I want a VISION for Space Exploration. A real one.”
So 10 years out, what is your vision? And 20 years out? Narrow it down to a couple of examples for each.
amightywind wrote @ March 22nd, 2011 at 4:20 pm
“As I recall the Vision for Space Exploration directed that NASA construct a lunar outpost.”
Congress has lots of grand plans, but that doesn’t mean they fund them. The SLS and MPCV are current examples of that.
Besides, Constellation, which was a partial implementation of the VSE, was not on track for arriving at the Moon until the mid-2030’s, and no development of equipment for a colony had been funded.
The same general question I posed is valid for you too:
10 years out, what is your vision? And 20 years out? Narrow it down to a couple of examples for each.
@ Coastal Ron wrote @ March 22nd, 2011 at 5:27 pm
I believe I expressed what I want to see. However you have to bear in mind it will require technological advances that are not funded as we speak. So 10 or 20 years to me does not make much difference. Again I want to see an infrastructure for sub-orbital and orbital commerce first. It may take 5 years or 10 or more I don’t care.
Please do not reduce my point to the lunar landing I suggested. It is not the point.
10 Years Out:
Commercially enabled cheap payload deliveries to space open up NASA’s exploration budget to focus on in-space exploration hardware like refueling depots and modular exploration vehicles (like the NAUTILUS-X concept). As suggested by many, we should be gearing up for a manned mission to an asteroid at this point. This manned mission should have a focus on demonstrating capabilities needed to mine asteroids for resources, although return to Earth of any significant amount need not be made a priority. A prior unmanned mission to scout out suitable asteroids with high likelihoods of useful materials would be prudent. With the exception of any resources the moon has to offer, the dawn of space commerce relies heavily on the resources that asteroids have to offer and demonstrating technologies that will make that industry viable is an important first step.
20 years out:
With commercial beginning to take a serious interest in near Earth space commerce, and infrastructure elements already in place, an expedition to Mars should be in the cards.
Requests for a super heavy lifter and orion capsule are really very simple to analyze.
Keeping just those two programs running is going to take about $2.5B/year.
Fixed costs of NASA HSF establishment is about $5-6B/year. Suppose we cut it to $5B.
Keeping ISS up takes about $2B/year
Doing actual research on ISS takes about $0.5B/year
Thats $10B/year, which is already more than NASA’s HSF budget, and is likely to go down rather than up.
If you wish to lobby for a multi-billion dollar increase to NASA’s annual budget, go right ahead and do so, but don’t claim you’re asking for anything other than that.
“…we mustn’t do so at the expense of human spaceflight, which is a proven economic driver and job creator.—
HSF should be done to maximize developmental, commercial and economic goals, not to maximize employment. Like anything else, ‘job creation’ should follow as needed, not as the goal. If it were possible and practical to conduct a Moon/Mars/Asteroid mission with a ground-support team of only five people, that’s what you do, not create jobs just because you can. Among other things, it would help insure that you could afford to do it more than seven (Apollo) times…
“It might not make sense to you and your hobby rocketeers but it makes perfect sense to the people who actually want to see human beings travel in space…”
Define ‘travel in space.’ Without qualifiers, ‘space’ is the entire Universe, except the first 100km above this planet.
“…instead of on a space station vacation with Elon.”
‘Instead of.’ Gee, I guess LEO isn’t ‘space.’ then.
That very assertion, derisive though it’s meant to be, implies commercial viability, not just of the space station in question, but the transportation to reach it. (‘Vacations’ happen only where people can afford to take them) God forbid that NASA might also use that same technology to reach LEO, in order to put together the things to go beyond…
JR wrote @ March 22nd, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Doug Lassiter wrote:
“HSF is an extraordinarily inefficient way to do most scienceâ€
“Great… Let’s stop boosting ISS and let it fall to the ground?”
As I said earlier. Human space flight isn’t about science. It’s about a lot of other important things that are perhaps not well enough recognized.
So your point is?
Rick Boozer wrote @ March 22nd, 2011 at 3:11 pm
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7858828/senators_crippling_nasa.html?cat=9
Thank you Rick, there’s a great link buried in that article wherein David Akin does a paper on getting to the moon without any new heavy lift launch system using only the Delta IV-Heavy and a human rated Delta IV:
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/publications/2010/SpaceOps2010inspacex.pdf
Virgill Samms WROTE: You guys just want your hobby rocket and are afraid, and rightly so, that an HLV will put the cheap and nasty LEO taxi’s out of business.
You got it backward and rather obviously; Those nasty LEO taxis’ are so nasty because they’re so much cheaper than any heavy-lift on the drawing boards. Space fans are rightly elated to think they’d be getting so much more for their NASA-tax-dollar with well developed cheap access to Earth’s doorstep in LEO.
ATK is running scared not Elon, not General Bolden, not Republican Rep Dana Rohrabacher! I’m running scared of space-pork and the way it short changes all Americans and threaten the hopes of great accomplishments in space.
HSF is a waste of taxpayers money. It’s fine if people want to fund joyrides into space on their own nickel, but this isn’t something that should be funded by the government. It’s only a small fraction of senate and congressional districts with parochial interests that keep the squandering “Dream Alive.”
Ask yourself, would you want the government to fund the 150 or so people who climb Mt. Everest every year? It’s inspirational and gets people enthused, but it is certainly nothing that deserves support by the government.
And please don’t start with the overly used arguments about technology spinoffs, Chinese planetary domination, and preservation of American Exceptionalism. These are all a bunch of hooey and the American taxpayers know it.
Good bye HSF. You’re a ball and chain that needs to move into the private sector.
“…an Orion-like spacecraft to accomplish the NEO rendezvous mission…”
This is a joke.
Orion is not a proper interplanetary space vehicle useful for anything very much more than an Apollo capsule was – a few days in reasonably close proximity for return. The only way we will ever do the solar system missions is with modular, assemble-able, maintainable space vehicles that are not thrown away every time you take a trip. Otherwise the NEO mission is no more affordable than Apollo-style lunar missions or the Constellation plan.
http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/publications/2010/SpaceOps2010inspacex.pdf
This is an excellent paper. Whether it is fully correct and whether it represents the ultimate way to do the job, it certainly shows the kind of analysis that should have gone into the ESAS.
NASA’s budget is fixed or shrinking for the forseeable future.
Our best hope is commercial. People making money in space and wanting to expand their activities there so they can make more.
That’s what Musk and Bigelow are all about.
10 years from now Bigelow will have 2, maybe more commercial space stations on orbit supporting 18, maybe more people.
SpaceX, Boeing and maybe others will be flying to and from LEO delivering crew and cargo to Bigelow and ISS and getting payed for it.
These are all paying honest to god businesses.
And it’s a sustainable business.
Space Adventures (or somebody) else will be booking paying customers on lunar voyages. The spacecraft these tourists will be using is a Sundancer module from Bigelow pushed along by a modified SpaceX or Centaur upper stage. Bigelow will be planning to drop one or two BA330 modules in Lunar orbit to make a permanent base for these tourists to visit.
NASA will still be developing a HLV.
20 years from now a host of new businesses will be established in LEO. All based in Bigelow modules there will be satellite servicing and refurbishing companies, tourist destinations (hotels), tug workshop services, fuel depots and dozens of other businesses fueled by regular space access and gradually declining launch prices.
More and more these businesses will be reaching out beyond LEO for business opportunities.
NASA will be…
The point is, of course, that to have sustainable space it’s got to be commercial. Something that NASA can never be.
Oh well.
Ten years from now, I would like to see American astronauts LEAVE low earth orbit, at long last, and depart for the Moon! The Moon is the new Antarctic! It is a grandiose, exciting, & dynamic destination to send astronauts! And I am sick & tired of the Flexible Path people telling us otherwise! Asteroids are quite Moonlike anyway: airless, rocky, crater-ladened worldlets; beyond the Earthian ionosphere & van allen belts. Whatever modules that could maintain a crew on the Moon for an extended surface stay, could be extrapolated for use at NEO’s later on. It’s just wiser & prudent to deal with the Moon first, and to NOT be obsessed with reaching 100% virgin territory. Why are space-flights repeatedly to LEO, over & over again, hundreds of times, never an issue with the anti-Moon people?!?! It’s very ridiculous, their attitude of avoiding the Moon like a plague! We will learn SO much about the mastery of space-faring by dealing with the Moon first. Far more so, than by avoiding it. Asteroids can wait! Let’s get out of LEO as soon as possible! If it takes till 2030—-fine, let’s just get a game plan that involves astronauts bravely reaching Luna again! Let’s build upon what was started forty years ago! More extensive, & longer surface stays, and intermittently occupied bases!
Keep knocking down those strawmen, Castro.
Chris Castro wrote:
Ten years from now, I would like to see American astronauts LEAVE low earth orbit, at long last, and depart for the Moon!
Go to Google and look up “Apollo.” We did that over 40 years ago.
It looks presently like Orion is a go. It is now in testing and Lockheeds new facility, and is moving on from there to VA. It looks like she will fly. Presently a test flight is still schedualed for 2013, not that far away, and I guess still on a Delta heavy. What the final launch vehicle for Orion will be remains to be seen. Also parts of Orion will be reused, according to latest postings at different sights. We are moving, just a a slow pace. I think Orion will fly and not be cancelled, even if Dragon and or the CST fly, and Im sure they will also. Orion will be a step above the others however and built for deep space. Way to go!
Hate to be caught quoting Fox News; but from their article yesterday:
“Many of Orion’s components can be re-used in subsequent flights, including some electronic systems, Bray said. The spaceship itself won’t be reused because of the tremendous forces it endures on liftoff and re-entry, he said.”
Too bad these deeper exploration vessels weren’t designed to remain in space, be serviced there, and then reused for other missions?
Well the thing is, many here who have posted, kept saying that Orion will never fly and become an abandoned program. They also said it was not reusable. It does appear so far they are wrong, plain and simple. I do agree an orbiting vehicle that could make many runs to the outer planets would be the way to go, however, it seems Orion is the choice for deep space. So many people here think they know what is going to happen, when they clearly do not. Next will come those hot 5 segment SRBs, just watch! Delta IV may launch the test version of Orion in a year or two, but what will be the actual launch vehicle for the future? A heavy lift with 5 seg. SRBs?
So a Delta IV Heavy could put the Orion capsule (weight 8,913 kg) in Lunar Transfer Orbit, but wouldn’t have the umph to put the service module there-even if they could be sent separately. (assuming a Delta IV capability of putting 9,984 Kg in LTO versus a Service module weighing 12,337 kg)
So the moon must wait for a heavy lift unless commercial, Bigelow for instance, gets there first with smaller cheaper on the Delta IV.
> Bray said. The spaceship itself won’t be reused because of the tremendous forces it endures on liftoff and re-entry, he
saidlied.James Bray is Lockheed’s crew and service module director
I’d think he’d know and be predisposed to not lie bout such things.
Thanks to those that provided their vision for what they would like to see 10 & 20 years out.
I didn’t mean it to coincide with the Congressionally mandated “INDEPENDENT STUDY ON HUMAN EXPLORATION OF SPACE” blog post that Jeff put up, but I think part of challenges of debating HSF issues is that we don’t have a common framework to start from.
For instance, it’s fun to imagine a future where there are rotating space stations and exploration vehicles in transit to many planets, but what are the steps that allow us to get from here to there? Where will the money come from, and who will be doing it – governments, industry, individuals, or a combination of all?
It’s a great debate to have, and if the history of this blog is any indication, there is no single consensus. And that’s just the space community, which largely wants us to do more in space, but the general population is not enamored with space (yet), so that tends to limit government funding, and as everyone knows, there’s not much industry money outside of satellites, so again, where is the money coming from to fund our space dreams?
I don’t think there is one overriding solution for the money issue, so I think we will continue to rely on some government funding, and watch a slowly expanding commercial industry effort add on and expand that. It’s going to be a slow expansion into space, and I think we should recalibrate our expectations accordingly.
If you disagree, great, but as Jerry McGuire once said, “Show me the money!”
> James Bray is Lockheed’s crew and service module director.
I’d think he’d know and be predisposed to not lie bout such things.
One would think. Maybe the capsule really is more fragile than the crew, which is expected to survive the “tremendous forces [of] liftoff and re-entry” or so I understand.
So the moon must wait for a heavy lift unless commercial, Bigelow for instance, gets there first with smaller cheaper on the Delta IV.
No, one obvious alternative would be to use EOR like Constellation and use two launches to get an Orion to L1/L2, one for the capsule and one for its EDS. You don’t need a larger launch vehicle than an EELV Heavy for that.
“For instance, it’s fun to imagine a future where there are rotating space stations and exploration vehicles in transit to many planets, but what are the steps that allow us to get from here to there? Where will the money come from, and who will be doing it –”
“I would love to see some people coming up with a grand plan not for technologies but for human expansion into space that would include the “why†of our ELE friends for example.
I want a VISION for Space Exploration. A real one.”
I gave it all to you and you don’t want it. You can lead a horse to water…..
I gave it all to you and you don’t want it.
No, you gave us a nightmare, that will cost billions per flight.
No, actually, you didn’t give anything
You pontificated, but you haven’t ever been prepared to fight for your idea.
If you are so sure its right, why don’t you go to Congress & lobby them, instead of complaining here? That would actually have a practical purpose.
@Stephen C. Smith wrote @ March 23rd, 2011 at 8:33 am
Chris Castro wrote:
Ten years from now, I would like to see American astronauts LEAVE low earth orbit, at long last, and depart for the Moon!
Go to Google and look up “Apollo.†We did that over 40 years ago.”
So? Go to Google and look up ‘Wright Brothers.’ ‘We’ did that over a century ago. The goal for this century (and there’s just 89 years left in it already) is to go back to the moon to stay, establish a permanent base- then press on outward. The clock is tickin’. Oh yes, and as the first quarer of 2011 comes to a close, still no commerical firm has launched, orbited and returned a crew safely. Google that… Tick-tock.
“So a Delta IV Heavy could put the Orion capsule (weight 8,913 kg) in Lunar Transfer Orbit, but wouldn’t have the umph to put the service module there-even if they could be sent separately. (assuming a Delta IV capability of putting 9,984 Kg in LTO versus a Service module weighing 12,337 kg)
So the moon must wait for a heavy lift unless commercial, Bigelow for instance, gets there first with smaller cheaper on the Delta IV.”
Or, wait for the means to refuel the thing in LEO, previously supplied by any number of existing launchers.. There’s your additional delta-v without developing a new HLV…
Apollo did entire missions in one launch, so as to reach the Moon ‘before the decade is out,’ and before the Soviets, whichever came first. EOR was judged to take too long to develop to met that constraint.
Today, we can afford to be patient. Good and cheap, rather than good and fast.
Egad
No the Ares 1 problems(under powered rocket) combined with the lunar problems have rendered Orion non reusable. They think they may be able to reuse parts like Apollo and Soyuz but the capsule as a whole is not reusable.
sftomy
Or just send Orion to L1/L2 and exchange into a lander there. Note Apollo’s lander massed 14MT. 14MT is a little more than what Delta can throw to L1/L2 in a single shot so a either 2 flights or a slight upgrade to delta could help here. There could also be a cost savings as Atlas could lift 14MT to LEO instead of the more expensive delta.
Another point was ULA idea of using a crogenic service module. This could reduce the mass of Orion greatly since Crygenic propellants have more ISP than hypergolic ones and can result in lower mass spacecraft. CXP was going to try to do it with LOX /Methane but decided to drop it early on.
@Stephen C. Smith;….THAT IS JUST ANOTHER IGNORANT STATEMENT from the “Anywhere-but-the-Moon” types! True exploration is NOT about reaching a destination once and then abandoning it forever, as the Planetary Society, Buzz Aldrin, and other ignoramuses appear to believe. There would be No bases in the Antarctic, to this day, if the goal was only to get a team of explorers there, just for the one-time bragging rights & photo ops, then to declare that there’s nothing further to ever be done down there ever again; so let’s never go back, folks! There are bases, more extensive scientific investigation, and mineral exploitation that still should be done, in a second round of manned missions there—to the Moon. And to get this “repeating-the-past” protest into perspective: I say, SO WHAT, if Commercial Space should happen to succeed at “repeating” John Glenn’s 1962 spaceflight, using one of their entrepreneur capsules! SO WHAT if the Dragon successfully orbits a one or two man crew, in this decade!—-They will “only” be repeating the acheivements of the Mercury and/or the Gemini Programs!!
Florida Today published a blunt editorial this morning which seems to be an implicit rebuke to the false claims in Rep. Adams’ March 17 letter. The editorial states:
In the hyper-partisan climate in Congress, the announcement brought familiar criticism from Republicans that the Obama administration is ceding U.S. human spaceflight to Russia.
That’s far from the truth.
President Bush made the call to fly U.S. astronauts aboard Russian rockets as part of his decision in 2004 to end the shuttle program in 2010 without having a new American rocket ready to replace the orbiters.
The move was supported by Republicans who then controlled Congress and Democrats backed it, too, when they took over in 2006. When President Obama entered the White House in 2009, the shuttle’s shutdown was well under way and the Russian policy long set.
The rhetoric accomplishes nothing, further poisoning the atmosphere when level-headed bipartisan leadership is necessary to steer NASA through the post-shuttle transition.
pathfinder_01 wrote
> No the Ares 1 problems(under powered rocket) combined with the lunar problems have rendered Orion non reusable. They think they may be able to reuse parts like Apollo and Soyuz but the capsule as a whole is not reusable.
Thanks. Do you happen to know what specific features now render it non-reusable? Googling shows that in 2008 reusability was still under review, with exposure to “salt fog” during water landing (not the “tremendous forces [of] lift-off and reentry”) being a concern.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/06/23/224757/orion-reusability-remains-elusive-for-nasa.html
Or, wait for the means to refuel the thing in LEO, previously supplied by any number of existing launchers.. There’s your additional delta-v without developing a new HLV…
An excellent idea, but with EOR you can also do it without refueling, which could be a useful capability long before we have refueling of EDSs.
Today, we can afford to be patient. Good and cheap, rather than good and fast.
We certainly could and that would be one good option. But we don’t have to wait, we can have good, cheap and fast too. There’s a widespread belief that the choice is between the combination of rapid exploration with a government HLV on the one hand and lots of research and development and delayed exploration if you go commercial. This is a misperception.
First of all it is unclear the government HLV would actually be faster (or whether it will even fly), but secondly use of commercial launch vehicles does not require lots of R&D even if you did want to do exploration soon. In fact the soonest way to do exploration that I know of does not require lots of R&D and would be faster than both a government HLV and a program that starts with years of R&D. The fastest way to both commercial development of space and exploration does not lead through HLVs nor does it require lots of R&D up front.
It is only when you want to serve certain economic or political special interests that HLVs and large R&D programs emerge. Unfortunately politics is inevitable, but it is still harmful and reduces what can be accomplished. An HLV would be much, much more harmful than an R&D program and some good could even come from the latter, but it would still lead to inefficiencies and delays, both of which ought to be minimised.
You really have to walk the SRB refurb line to understand what it takes to refly an aerospace vehicle that has landed in salt water. The SRBs are disassembled to the component level, each part has to have the plating removed with abrasive blasting, then each part is magnafluxed, replated, and reassembled. When the recovery costs are included, I do not know of any analysis showing that reuse is cost effective. Even for target drones, which were once recovered at sea by parachute, re-use was extremely expensive and this approach has pretty much been abandoned in favor of drones like the QF-102 that can land on a runway. That may be why SpaceX is moving to land recovery as soon as they can, with controlled deceleration with liquid-fueled braking rockets.