Slashdot Mirror

That might be true if this was some sort of dispassionate commentary on the bill. But it's not, it's a ringing endorsement of a highly partisan bill. Surely you see the difference.

For those who are serious, here's the Planetary Society's commentary, with a link to an indepth but nonpartisan analysis at SpacePolicyOnline. The Planetary Society is very happy with the planetary science numbers, not happy with the earth science numbers, and couldn't seem to care less about the funding for SLS/Orion.

"If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Granted, this study is supposedly more than a one man's rant, but I'm afraid that the room for assumptions is too big to guarantee an unbiased conclusion.

It is now Mars One team's move to provide a good rebuttal. So far, Bas Lansdorp's response is inadequate:

...while he welcomed the students' analysis, his company does not have time to respond to all the questions it receives from students and "the lack of time for support from us combined with their limited experience results in incorrect conclusions."

Agreed. If we can't maintain our weather sat coverage we shouldn't even be talking about this stuff.

That quote was in the context of the entire mission, not this particular data point. He was saying that the Curiosity mission data, overall, is groundbreaking.

Naturally, NPR quoted him out of context, and then everyone else ran with it.

If he was, I think Ryan has decided to not being him back.

Paul Ryan proposed an additional 6% budget cut for NASA in the Ryan Budget so that he could increase DOD spending.

Sorry, it's more important that we kill each other than understand our place in the universe. Have a good day.

Good thing that the president, and especially the vice president don't allocate spending. That's the job of Congress, which happens to be where Ryan is today.

So, the obvious solution to save NASA's budget would be to get Ryan out of Congress and into a position where he can not vote on funding. The quickest and easiest way to do that would be to elect him as Vice President.

If he was, I think Ryan has decided to not being him back.

Paul Ryan proposed an additional 6% budget cut for NASA in the Ryan Budget so that he could increase DOD spending.

Sorry, it's more important that we kill each other than understand our place in the universe. Have a good day.

Confirmed now as down, exact location where it went down still unknown. See http://spacepolicyonline.com/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1960:rosat-is-down&catid=91:news&Itemid=84.

I can only speculate, but it's possible China couldn't work with ISS if they wanted to.

NASA is now prohibited by U.S. law from cooperating with China in any way shape or form.

ISS is not an entirely NASA program, but NASA is the lead agency. However I have to believe that China was planning this before this law was passed.

Let me try, using your timeline as a base (feel free to modify/copy/reuse):

2003: Space Shuttle Columbia accident

2004: Bush announces Vision for Space Exploration for sustainable human presence on the Moon starting in 2020 as testbed for Mars exploration and expansion into the solar system, calls for shuttle retirement in 2010 and replacement crew capability in operation by 2014, calls for commercial cargo/crew to ISS and no new launch vehicles developed unless absolutely necessary, NASA solicits plans from industry for best ways to achieve these goals

2005: Sean O'Keefe resigns as NASA administrator, Bush appoints Michael Griffin and gives him free reign with NASA, Michael Griffin throws out industry studies and NASA releases ESAS study which has NASA design two rockets in-house instead of utilizing commercial rockets (The Ares I and V, coincidentally based on old designs Michael Griffin came up with), ostensibly because they're "safe, simple, and soon" compared to alternatives

2005-present: Ares I development slips in schedule a year for every year that it exists, costs balloon from a few billion dollars to tens of billions of dollars, 2020 lunar date becomes increasingly unachievable

2009: NASA and White House appoint Augustine Committee, consisting of best and brightest from aerospace and astronaut community, to evaluate Constellation's progress and come up with options for future of
human spaceflight at NASA; they release a report presenting a number of viable options for NASA's beyond-Earth exploration plans

February 2010: White House calls for boost to NASA's budget (but not as large as Augustine Committee presented) releases plan similar to Augustine Report's option 5B, calling for investments in commercial crew and long-neglected space technology and cancellation of Ares I, delays building of heavy-lift launcher until 2015 since it won't be needed until then; a lot of congressmen in space states freak out

March-July 2010: lots of back and forth discussion and congressional hearings, Armstrong and Cernan come out against White House Plans, Buzz Aldrin comes out in favor; NASA scales back Ares/Constellation program without congressional approval, ostensibly to comply with termination liability laws

June-July 2010: NASA announces a bunch of new space technology initiatives (contingent on White House funding plans coming through), including new Centennial Challenge prize competitions (Nanosatellite launch, night rover, and sample return robot challenge) , revived NIAC to research experimental concepts, in-space technology demonstrations/missions utilizing in-space refueling, inflatable modules, electric propulsion, and inflatable reentry shields, all launched on existing commercial rockets

Today (July 15): Senate comes out with compromise bill, adding 1+ shuttle flight using existing equipment (no backup rescue shuttle if there's a problem, though); immediate development of 75mt shuttle-derived rocket quite similar to the one proposed by the DIRECT project, more commercial crew, robotic precursor mission, and space technology funding than 2010 but much less than Obama requested (over three years $1.6B vs. $3.3B for commercial crew, $244M vs. $1.33B exploration robotic precursor missions, $2.1B vs. $8B space technology development/missions); White House and Congress potentially both support the compromise, though

According to the RFI at http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=34056 nuclear propulsion is excluded unless it is used solely for heat generation or as a power source for electric propulsion. Thus, some of the most promising nuclear technologies for rocket propulsion such as micro pellet inertial confinement compression-induced fission are excluded.

Keep in mind that the ETDD program (the one mentioned in the summary) is specifically intended for tech which has already attained a mid-level TRL (Technology Readiness Level) and needs to be developed/tested to a higher-level TRL so it can be used in missions. Things like "micro pellet inertial confinement compression-induced fission," while they have a great potential benefit, are of a relatively low TRL and hence fall under the scope of the newly-announced Space Technology Program, particularly the Early-Stage Innovation and Game Changing Technology sub-programs.

2) Will NASA do the research on fundamentally new technologies? I suspect not here either, since that would require handing NASA money year after year with no real return. (when you're getting money to do research, you have a powerful incentive to never actually finish your research)

Robert Braun, the new NASA Chief Technologist (and well-regarded expert in aerospace and planetary exploration technologies) gave a talk last week which gives a good overview on how NASA's research on "fundamentally new technologies" will work out:

http://spacepolicyonline.com/pages/images/stories/Braun_-_NASA_OCT_March_9_ASEB.pdf

Addressing your concerns, the new plans are much more return-oriented in the immediate future than the old plans, with hundreds of "early stage innovation" projects with a 6 month-2 year duration starting in 2011, 10-20 "game changing technology" projects with 2 year duration, and 3-8 "crosscutting capability demonstrations" with 3 year project duration, and in-space demonstrations of technologies like in-orbit propellant depots and in-situ resource utilization by 2014.

Here's a list of the topics (not all-inclusive) the new technology programs are planning on researching and producing results on in the next few years (not including exploration tech demos, which make up an equally large part of the budget). It's also worth noting that almost all of these topics would have been ignored by NASA under Constellation:

Early Stage Innovation
-Computational Materials Design, Nanotube Based Structural Materials, High Bandwidth Communications, Lightweight Low Transit Volume Space Structures, Non- Chemical In-Space Propulsion, Coatings and Adhesives, Flexible Power Arrays, Microwave/Laser Power Transmission, Energy Storage Systems, Space Robotic Assembly and Fabrication, Formation Flying Spacecraft Systems (Swarm Operations), Nonconventional Access to Space, Print Manufacturing and Rapid 3D Prototyping, Extreme Environment (Temperature/Radiation) Sensors and Mechanisms, Climate Sensors, Planetary Entry Decelerators, Reliable and Affordable Exploration Systems, Advanced Radiation Shielding Materials (Techniques and Systems), Safe Despin/Detumble Approaches for Large Non-operational Spacecraft, Material/Structural Concepts to Mitigate Impact of Small Debris, and Precision Timing and Navigation Using Only Celestial Objects

Game Changing Technology
-Advanced lightweight structures and materials, advanced in-space propulsion, nano- propellants, lightweight large aperture antennas and telescopes, power generation/transmission, surface robotic construction, energy storage, high bandwidth communications, and small satellite subsystem technology

Crosscutting Capability Demonstrations
-Optical communications, aerocapture, supersonic and hypersonic inflatable aerodynamic decelerators, formation flying, advanced in-space propulsion

a new heavy lift launch vehicle would be built "to take astronauts to the moon, asteroids, and the moons of Mars" but it would not be Ares V: "the White House is convinced that scarce NASA funds would be better spent on a simpler heavy-lift vehicle that could be ready to fly as early as 2018";

So I guess the Ares V is not the new HLV, in case anyone was speculating that was the case.