Slashdot Mirror

The MIB determined that one of the root causes of the mishap was an inadequate GN&C software development process. Changes to the flight code and simulation models were often incorporated without adequate documentation. In one case in particular, a change to the navigation system's reset logic was made that introduced the use of GPS velocity (as measured from the primary GPS receiver) as the new, estimated DART velocity whenever a reset occurred. This then, became the only instance in which this particular parameter was to be accepted directly into the navigation system's logic.

Most of the DART team was unaware that the GPS velocity output was to be used in this way by the navigation system's software. Because this was thought to be an "unused" parameter, personnel responsible for testing the receiver's performance and those using the mathematical models of the components never realized the need to correct the problem with the biased velocity measurement or include the bias in the receiver's simulation model. Because of this, the velocity output of the receiver hardware and that of the simulated receiver did not match. As a result, the pre-flight simulations failed to reveal the adverse effect of the inaccurate velocity measurement from the primary GPS receiver as seen during the mission.

...examination of raw test data and performance of independent tests of some flight components by the government insight team were defined by NASA project management to be "out-of-scope."
...
In DART's case, the lack of adequate risk management contributed to a zero- fault tolerant design and inadequate testing that resulted in an insufficient collision avoidance system, among other things....

To answer the question, they could boost it somewhat higher, but have chosen not to. Lower orbits give leave more payload for visiting craft, although that must be weighed against extra fuel for reboosts. Reboosts also affect the launch windows for visiting craft. You might look at the graph the GP posted and think "OMG it's falling out of control" but that is not the case. It's at the current altitude because thats where they decided they wanted it. Reboosts are normally done with Progress and Shuttle engines, not the SM engines that failed.

They can't put it too high or it would be out of reach of the spacecraft that are supposed to service it. Even if they could reach it, you reduce the payload they can get there. Also, if you go too much higher you start hitting the lower edges of the Van Allen belts, which is bad for both the equipment and crew.

BTW: another good description of the recent failure can be found at http://www.thespacereview.com/article/619/1

I thought one of the records set for sustained human Gs was on a rocket sled... Ah yes, Dr. John Paul Stapp.

Ejection seats are another area where people are exposed to high Gs. The Gemini seats were particularly infamous. Both rocket escape systems and ejection seats balance the chance of injury to the crew against the risks of not getting them away fast enough.

Good stuff, as long as I only have to read about it :D

What do you want them to do; mention every contractor who worked on Hubble in every press release, announcement, or mention of hubble?

They certainly aren't trying to hide the fact that Lockheed, Perkin-Elmer, and many other companies worked on Hubble:

A Brief History of the Hubble Space Telescope
The following year, design of the telescope began in earnest, with the award of contracts to the Perkin-Elmer Corporation to construct the mirror and optical assembly and the Lockheed Missiles and Space Company to construct the spacecraft and its support systems.

NASA history: Hubble Space Telescope:
Page 1, Paragraph 4:
Perkin-Elmer Corporation in Danbury, Connecticut, was chosen to develop the optical system and guidance sensors. Lockheed Missiles and Space Company of Sunnyvale, California, was selected to produce the protective outer shroud and the spacecraft systems for the telescope, as well as to assemble and test the finished product.

NASA Hubble Team Receives International Academy of Astronautics Award (2004)

LOCKHEED MARTIN HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE TEAMS RECEIVE NASA HONORS (2005)

A DECADE OF DISCOVERY: HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE -- THE DISCOVERIES AND THE PEOPLE (2000):
Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the Hubble Space Telescope, ...

NOTE TO EDITORS: MEDIA INVITED TO JOIN IN PUBLIC CELEBRATION OF TEN YEARS OF THE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE (2000):
Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the Hubble Space Telescope, ...

Google search for "site:nasa.gov lockheed hubble":
Results 1 - 10 of about 14,400 from nasa.gov

Actually, NASA has been doing "bed-rest studies" on the effectiveness of various exercise regimes for some time now: I remember an ad hanging in the cafeteria when I worked at NASA Ames ~ 2001, it said something like "help advance space science without leaving the comfort of a bed." I asked a friend who worked in life support about it, and she tactfully said "it's very uncomfortable" but the more complete description, for example of how your organs start to feel in a day or two after they start moving into different positions, sounded horrific. old NASA press release

As the first link mentions, the launch is scheduled for Thursday, 1PM PST (4PM EST). According to RLV News, here's a few good sources for real-time commentary and info about the launch:

* Mission Status Center - Falcon Launch Report - Justin Ray
* Out of the Cradle
* NASASpaceflight.com - LIVE: SpaceX/Falcon 1 - 23rd March: launch coverage thread

Also, it was recently revealed that SpaceX has been secretly developing their SpaceX Dragon orbital capsule, which will be able to carry up to 7 people to and from orbit. A full-size prototype of the capsule has already been constructed, and the capsule is expected to enter service by 2009 (several years before NASA's CEV).

Let's spend hundreds of billions of the dollars that we currently mostly waste on Pentagon corporate welfare that makes the US feared around the world instead spent on NASA investment in infrastructure to support private corporations.

Coincidentally, NASA recently announced plans to create Red Planet Capital, a venture capital fund for private spaceflight startups. Hopefully it won't be killed off by overzealous congresscritters.

A description from NASA's page:

In order for NASA to specifically focus on entrepreneurial innovation in support of its mission objectives, the Agency has laid the foundation for a private equity investment vehicle (working name "Red Planet Capital") aimed at early-stage companies.

Red Planet Capital (the "Fund") will be an investment vehicle used to support innovative, dual-use technologies which will help NASA achieve its mission, but will also help better position these technologies for future commercial use. Portfolio companies should not anticipate the government as the primary customer. However, NASA anticipates that this approach might help some of NASA's mission directorates in their future "make-versus-buy" decision-making processes.

Dang... I just saw this on slashdot a few minutes after I submitted it myself. For the curious, here's my version of the submission, which includes some different info and a link to a SpaceRef story which has more pictures of the capsule:

SpaceX has revealed that for the past few years they've been secretly developing the Dragon space capsule, which will be the first privately-built manned orbital spacecraft. The company has already built a full-scale working prototype and thoroughly tested its life support system, with the capsule development using 'only a small part of the $100 million [CEO/founder Elon Musk] has invested in SpaceX to-date building the Falcon 1 [orbital rocket] and getting started on the larger and more powerful Falcon 9.' According to Musk, 'I feel very confident about being able to offer NASA an ISS-servicing capability by 2009 and am prepared to back that up with my own funding.' It's believed that Musk will also compete for crew/cargo delivery contracts to private space station modules built by Bigelow Aerospace.

All in all, I'm very excited about this announcement. I'm sure SpaceX wishes that they could have gotten their Falcon I rocket off the ground before announcing the capsule, but the deadline for NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems (COTS) program was a few days ago. The COTS program is the means by which NASA hopes to award competitive contracts to delivery crew and cargo to the International Space Station, in order to reduce reliance on the Russians and promote the development of private spaceflight. Since the capsule is a critical part of their COTS proposal, SpaceX pretty much had to let the secret out.

Coincidentally, this news about the USAF's secret vehicle comes out on the same day as news that SpaceX has spent some of their money during the past few years secretly developing the first private manned orbital spacecraft. There's coverage on both SpaceRef and Space.com. The capsule will be reusable and is targetted at NASA's recently-announced COTS program for commercial deliveries of crew and cargo to the International Space Station. It's also likely that they'll be using the capsule to compete for Bigelow Aerospace's prize for a privately-built manned vehicle capable of docking with their private space station modules.

A quote from the Space.com article:

Musk said he thinks Dragon can be ready to enter service in 2009 - a full year before the shuttle is expected to conduct its last flight.

"I feel very confident about being able to offer NASA an ISS-servicing capability by 2009 and am prepared to back that up with my own funding," Musk said.

Dragon's initial test flights would be conducted from SpaceX's island launch facility in the Kwajalein Atoll, Musk said, with operational flights to be conducted from Cape Canaveral, Fla.

Musk said SpaceX proposed several different configurations of Dragon in order to meet NASA's needs to deliver both pressurized and unpressurized cargo loads to the station and bring some materials back. He also proposed a crewed version capable of carrying up to seven astronauts to and from the station.


From the SpaceRef article:

Visitors to SpaceX's El Segundo facility over the past several years have noticed an area which is roped off - one they cannot get close to - with some large hardware covered up. Underneath those covers are a variety of Dragon protoypes and developmental items produced over the past several years.

Initial designs for Dragon were somewhat similar to a blunt nose version of the DC-X - complete with landing legs. Driven by additional thinking - and the emerging demands of a cargo and human transport business for the ISS - the design of Dragon has been modified and the crew capsule portion of the spacecraft now sports a more conventional blunt conical, capsule-like design with a 15-degree slope angle.

But frankly, there's little incentive.

I really doubt that ... if something can be done, and there is a trace of hope it might pay off, somebody will try it ... For an example, check the SpaceRef article where they say something about what motivated Elon Musk to get into rocket building ...

Want more incentives ? Drop the lame "Outer Space" treaty and set up a system for allowing enterprising people stake claims on useful resources they discover in the "Outer Space" as long as they prove they can and want to exploit them, or set prizes for discovering exploitable resources out there ... sooner rather than later some insane billionare will start putting money into space exploration, and he might just get lucky, the same way Christopher Columbus got lucky.

US got the space program running because they got scared by Sputnik ... if the entrepreneus get some guarantees that they could make money in space (and not the only certainty they have now, which is that if anybody is stupid enough to risk their money and acctualy finds something valuable, the UN freeloaders will gang them instantly), you'll see the IRS forking money to NASA in order to be able to send tax inspectors to LEO ...

In the past, great exploration programs were based on some need or desire. The New World was discovered (for the last time) by someone who wanted to get to the resources of the Far East.

The point here is that as long as space development continues to wallow along with out goals, it'll continue to be a toy program.

To hear complaints of "cost overruns" for this mission, knowing well the role that the upper NASA management played in adding to those costs is grating on the ear, I must say. I suggest to read these links for details of the Dawn mission from Mark Sykes, the director of the Planetary Science Institute, writing to the House Science Committee Chair on Friday: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19838 and his interview with the Planetary Society: http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00000475/ As for technical problems, yes there were things that were critical to address, but the Dawn Independent Assessment Team, who gave their report to NASA in late January, stated that the Dawn mission was no different in their mission development from any other successful space mission in their late stage of development and they gave a recommendation to finish the project and launch. Another example of the misinformation of the Dawn problems are the much-talked about xenon tanks, which were, in fact, tested at twice their designed conditions when they failed, and on the day of the cancellation, NASA had a letter from the project (at JPL) stating that all xenon tank problems were solved. Please remember that all Dawn instruments were built and more than halfway through the spacecraft integration at the time of the cancellation, so the Dawn spacecraft was ~95% constructed. And not only dollars were spent, but significant amount of euros too, because two of the three Dawn instruments were European, instruments paid for by NASA's international partners: the German Aerospace Agency and Italian Space Agency.

The Terrestrial Planet Finder has been cancelled:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1092
So this list seems redundant. To bad, as it was NASA's most exciting project IMO.

But there is still ESA's Darwin, an essentially identical project, which is still scheduled for a 2015 launch as far as I am aware.

My statement is true. Sure, it sounds like a PR blurb, but I'm basing it on the results of the study that I linked to. The study uses standard cost-estimate techniques and is based on sound data. Now, personally, I think that T/Space's plan is much more cost effective (and therefore more desireable, since it could allow for like 10 times as many missions for the same cost, but most likely would have same missions but less cost), but my statement was contrasting NASA's current plan with the Shuttle and Apollo missions.

Simply using a top-mounted capsule design with a launch abort system (the little rocket that you see atop the Apollo capsule during launch) provides at least ten times the launch safety of the shuttle. The overall cost of the lunar program will be much less than what the Apollo program cost (because of less need for new R&D and significant advances over the last three decades in productivity and technology), according to Figure 12-4 found in the Cost Evaluation section of the NASA report. The lunar program is designed to have greater capability than the Apollo program (for instance, longer lunar surface duration and larger crew, not to mention the moon base). All along the design process, the future Mars mission is in mind during the design of propulsion, the CEV capsule, the heavy lift (125 ton to LEO) CaLV rocket, and other system components. This allows the same infrastructure to be used for the Mars missions, thus reducing costs and increasing confidence and understanding of the Mars mission components. By ensuring that only minor changes are needed for the most important components of the different missions, safety is enhanced and R&D expense is reduced (i.e. you don't need to reinvent the wheel... or, say, a space wrench).

NASA is learning a lesson from the Russians here. Soyuz rides on mostly the same basic rocket design as the first ICBM and the artificial satellite (Sputnik), which is largely why the Soyuz is so cheap and reliable (it's the most mature launch system by far). (BTW, isn't that weird that the first stages of the only manned rocket system in regular service today is based on a rocket design that has been launched for almost 50 years?)

NASA is scrapping the shuttle in less than 5 years. The replacement will be just as expensive, but FAR more capable and safe. It will get us to the moon with far greater capability for a much smaller cost. Not only that, but the lunar capability is designed to allow us to get to Mars.

NASA's plan:

Finish the obligation to the ISS and retire the shuttle fleet before 2011.
In the meantime, use shuttle propulsion technology to develop new launch vehicles (Crew Launch Vehicle CLV and the heavy lift Cargo Launch Vehicle CaLV) in a very short time frame with far greater economy, safety (over an order of magnitude), and capability than the shuttle.

Starting in 2011, use the new CLV (including perhaps cargo-only versions) to resupply and man the ISS (but rely heavily on commercial cargo launch vehicles to resupply the ISS throughout the ISS's lifetime, to reduce cost and increase flexiblity).

Start manned lunar sortie missions around 2015-2016 and by the 7th manned lunar mission (~2018), start building a permanent lunar base (likely at one of the lunar poles or maybe on the equator) to help study techniques of in situ resource utilization that will be used during the manned Mars missions.

Manned mission to Mars is perhaps a dozen years after the lunar base is started, so around 2030. The CEV capsule is being designed from the very beginning to serve all three missions: ISS crew transport (usually in a 3-crew configuration), lunar missions (with 4 crew members), and to transport astronauts (with the 6-crew configuration) from earth to orbit to dock with the craft that will go to Mars and back (the 6-seat CEV capsule will remain docked with the craft until the crew returns to Earth in the CEV after the 1.5-2.5 year mission).

The lunar mission will use "1.5 launches" (CLV launches to LEO to rendevzous with the CaLV which will then send the crew and cargo, a total of ~65 metric tons, to the moon) to maximize safety and cargo transport to the moon while minimizing cost and development time. Putting the crew on the CaLV and using only one launch will decrease safety and decrease cargo to the moon by over ten tons (which will still be about the same as the Apollo mission). The CaLV is designed to provide about 125 metric tons to low Earth orbit (LEO) in order to support the future mission to Mars.

The lunar missions will have the capability of landing anywhere on the moon (which is better than Apollo's equator-only). The CEV will remain in lunar orbit while all 4 crew members go down to the lunar surface. The lunar descent rockets will be liquod oxygen and hydrogen powered, while the lunar ascent rockets will use liquid oxygen and methane (This will allow the development of in-situ propulsion production first on the later lunar missions and ultimately on the Martian missions, where fuel will need to be produced on Mars to reduce mission mass. Lunar gravity is minimal, so in situ resource production is not needed, but Martian gravity is significant and will require large amounts of fuel to leave the planet's surface.). Even during the first sortie lunar missions, all four crew members will be able to explore the lunar surface and for a longer time than during Apollo. The later lunar missions that establish a permanent base will use either a dedicated lunar cargo craft or will slowly build up lunar base components brought the moon along with the crew.

This is where I got all this stuff.
This information is up to date.

I personally know ~30 people who got laid off last summer because of NASA's recent penchant for cutting science programs. And I know of another 50 who received the same fate. And that's just for one small payload project.

But if you listen to the talking head that is Michael Griffin, "The science program has not--in our forward planning, we do not take one thin dime out of the science program in order to execute this architecture." (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=1812 2)

Yes, Mr. Griffin, but you take out a few thousand employees overall.

What you describe won't work. Your satellite would orbit Earth once a day, backwards.

What you are looking for is to position your satellite at the Earth-Sun Lagrange point (hard-core space geeks will gripe that it should be orbiting L1, but let's keep it simple). That's much further away than geo-sync, so you won't get very good views of specific targets on Earth.

However you'll get one heck of a good view of the whole Earth. That's what Triana was suposed to do. A webcam for our planet, streaming live 24h/day. Unfortunately Triana was Al Gore's pet project. The spacecraft was designed, built and tested when the Democrats were in power. Then George Bush 'won' the election. Out of spite, Triana was ordered removed from the launch schedule. Due to politics, it is quietly rusting in a storage container.

BTW, the launch which Triana was scheduled to ride was STS 107, Columbia's final flight.

Damnit... smart ass comment made me do my own darn Google search. Genesis was the mission and the parachutes didn't deploy so it smashed into the ground and the helicopters obviously couldn't catch it. Note the photos of the helicopters catching probes on training missions. I believe there was a sensor installed upside down. I read recently that the mission is considered a success though because the collectors were recoverable. There was some more recent news on this this week, I just can't find the link.

Oh well, so there I go, answering my own question.

I thought the interest in Chinese launches ended after they had a few costly explosions:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=643

Also, the US got tighter on technology transfer after the Loral case. Hasn't that made it difficult for them, as now they have to do it without the USA's help?

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19129

I dont think it was a joke. And even if it was, there are many people who honestly believe this. The problem is that few of them understand the actual politics, etc behind the progress of science. There are actually research projects involve Zero-G bases in new areas of cancer research (quick digging came up with this article, I've heard of others). The truth is that the development of any new technologies will provide new avenues in this research.

This Zero-G Sports League is awesome because if there is one seemingly pointless thing that people love to spend money on, it's sports. If you don't believe me look at statistics about the money spent on beer for the celebration of the Super Bowl and other such events. If we can get a successful space based sport then other things such as advertising will move to put money into space based work, which will motivate the market and give a major boost to research in that direction.

The moral of the story: this type of work really is indirectly contributing to research that could one day cure cancer.

This case has been bolstered by the conclusion that the seas of liquid methane on Titan are not of biological origin:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18410

"We have determined that Titan's methane is not of biological origin, so it must be replenished by geologic processes on Titan, perhaps venting from a supply in the interior that could have been trapped there as the moon formed," said Dr. Hasso Niemann of Goddard, principal investigator for the GCMS and lead author of a paper on this research to appear in Nature on Dec. 8.

Other publications on this topic include:

Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil
Authors: Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. and Craig R. Smith

The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels
Author: Thomas Gold - Copernicus Books, 1998

Some more details of the theory to peruse at:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=47650

It will be interesting to see how the peer review process works on December 8th or whether the notion that petroleum and natural gas are "fossil fuels" will just be accepted as a matter of scientific "faith".

Griffin said it answering a question during the NASA news conference announcing the Exploration Systems Architecture Study results. Transcript. Do a find for Berger. He's the one who asked the question. Humans can withstand up around 9 or 10g's and remain conscience. The reason the Space Shuttle only does 3 is to make the engineering easier. We don't have much experience building giant structures with God only knows how many moving parts designed to withstand that kind of acceleration. The reason the CLV only pulls 4g's (source Crew Launch Vehicle Details picture) is probably that it is Shuttle-derived, and they wanted to change as little as possible. Mercury and Gemini pulled many more g's if I recall correctly. The option to put humans on the heavy lifter does exist in the ESAS results though I can't imagine why they would decide to go that way. Like I said before I can't find a source for how many g's the heavy lifter pulls. It could be more, it could be less. Whatever makes the engineering easiest. While humans are more comfortable the closer to 1g they are, they don't go squash until up beyond 10g's.

Griffin said it answering a question during the NASA news conference announcing the Exploration Systems Architecture Study results. Transcript. Do a find for Berger. He's the one who asked the question. Humans can withstand up around 9 or 10g's and remain conscience. The reason the Space Shuttle only does 3 is to make the engineering easier. We don't have much experience building giant structures with God only knows how many moving parts designed to withstand that kind of acceleration. The reason the CLV only pulls 4g's (source Crew Launch Vehicle Details picture) is probably that it is Shuttle-derived, and they wanted to change as little as possible. Mercury and Gemini pulled many more g's if I recall correctly. The option to put humans on the heavy lifter does exist in the ESAS results though I can't imagine why they would decide to go that way. Like I said before I can't find a source for how many g's the heavy lifter pulls. It could be more, it could be less. Whatever makes the engineering easiest. While humans are more comfortable the closer to 1g they are, they don't go squash until up beyond 10g's.

"If, as our new Hubble images indicate, Pluto has not one, but two or three moons, it will become the first body in the Kuiper Belt known to have more than one satellite," said Hal Weaver of the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, Md. He is co-leader of the team that made the discovery.

"This is an action by Space Exploration Technologies Corporation ("SpaceX") against the Boeing Company and Lockheed Martin Corporation for violations of antitrust, unfair competition and racketeering laws."

Maybe we'll see cheap rockets soon ... otherwise there will be some ugly "negociations" between US and China on who can say what the next New World Order will be ...

If Boeing and Lockheed Martin do merge like they want, one of these rockets is most likely going to bite the dust without even getting to prove itself.

The first successful Ariane 5 ECA launch was in February 12.

Saturn V and Energia would have more payload, but neither are in production right now. So sorry to burst your bubble, but what I said was the truth. Ariane 5 ECA is heaviest lift vehicle you can buy on the market right now if you actually wanted your payload to be delivered ASAP. If we are going to count paper rockets, might as well add Falcon 9 to the list.

From an story in Defense Industry Daily [defenseindustrydaily.com], mentioned on slashdot a few days ago:
 
  SpaceX initially intended to follow its first vehicle development, Falcon 1, with the intermediate class Falcon 5 launch vehicle. However, in response to customer requirements for low cost enhanced launch capability, SpaceX accelerated development of an EELV-class vehicle, upgrading Falcon 5 to Falcon 9. SpaceX has sold a Falcon 9 launch to a US government customer, and still plans to make Falcon 5 available in late 2007. Their efforts are worth watching, and could affect the military satellite launch market.
 
With up to a 17 ft (5.2 m) diameter fairing, Falcon 9 is capable of launching approximately 21,000 lbs (9,500 kg) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in its medium configuration and 55,000 lbs (25,000 kg) to LEO in its heavy configuration, a lift capacity greater than any other launch vehicle. In the medium configuration, Falcon 9 is priced at $27 million per flight with a 12 ft (3.6 m) fairing and $35 million with a 17 ft fairing. Prices include all launch range and third party insurance costs, and SpaceX claims that this makes Falcon 9 the most cost efficient vehicle in its class worldwide.
 
So, Boeing's Delta IV Heavy lifts 25,000 kg for $254 million. The SpaceX Falcon 9 S9 will be able to lift the same amount for a starting price of $78 million. Wow.
 
Since it's based on the Falcon 5, the Falcon 9 will probably also be man-rated.
 
From here [spaceref.com]:
 
  A recent study performed by the Futron Corporation, concluded that Falcon 5 was superior in design reliability to other vehicles in its class, due to engine redundancy. Falcon 9, by extension, has even higher reliability with increased propulsion redundancy.
 
Falcon 5 and Falcon 9 will be the world's first launch vehicles where all stages are designed for reuse. The Falcon 1 has a reusable first stage, but an expendable upper stage. Reuse is not factored into launch prices. When the economics of stage recovery and checkout are fully understood, SpaceX will make further reductions in launch prices.
 
Meanwhile, in the parent article, NASA has announced that it will be spending $5.5 billion on developing the Crew Exploration Vehicle, $4.5 billion on the Crew Launch Vehicle, and between $5 and $10 billion on a new heavy-lift vehicle. Who wants to bet that by the time NASA's new rockets are ready, SpaceX will already have a similar rocket available at a tiny fraction of the price?
 
Granted, SpaceX still needs to pull off a successful launch of the Falcon I, scheduled for later this year. I wish them the best of luck.

According to this site
Saturn C-5 max payload: 127 metric tons
New Booster may payload: 100+ metric tons

May be less payload, but last time I checked we weren't building Saturn 5 components.

For crew capacity, technology has changed. We can take out a lot of mass and replace it with new technology compared to the apollo era. Remember, we were still using vacum tubes then and no solar panels. Adding solar panels (which is in the plans) means fewer batteries are needed. Replacing vacume tubes with solid state decreases power and mass and space.

The good news is that NASA are finally picking up where they left off 30 years ago. The bad news is that NASA are picking up where they left off 30 years ago. . . and we have precious little to show for the decades, lives, and many billions of dollars sacrificed to the Shuttle.

We got some info out of it, just not as much as we could have since we got sidetracked with the original moon missions. I've heard that JFK set the space program back (or held it back) 50 years. However, that does not mean we haven't gotten anything out of the shuttle. Otherwise we wouldn't be using shuttle components in these new lifters.

Because they still have to use the Shuttle until 2010. In 2005 the Space Shuttle's operational budget was $5 billion or 30% of Nasa's budget. The Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) is expected to cost $5.5 billion to develop. The Crew Launch Vehicle, which is a Space Shuttle 4-segment Solid Rocket Boster (SRB) with the addition of an upper stage composed of a modified Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME), is expected to cost another $4.5 billion. Why the development of something which is a reconfiguration of parts we mostly already have is expected to cost $4.5 billion I'm not quite sure. Probably to be able to eject at any time, a redesign of the nose cone so the SRB can have an upper stage and still not sink in the ocean, and recertification of the new system as man rated. The combined CEV and launch vehicle is expected to be first launched in 2011.

2011 also begins the development of the heavy-lift launcher, lunar lander, and Earth departure stage. The development of the heavy-lift launcher is expected to cost between $5 to $10 billion. The heavy-lift launcher is composed of 5 modified SSME's and 2 5-segment SRB's and should be able to lift 125 metric tons of payload to an unspecified orbit. The article doesn't say if this is an in-line vehicle (ILV) or side mounted cargo (SMC) vehicle . It does appear to match the description of the ILV-2 design in a spaceref article. Also of interest is a previous spaceref article on the topic. An ILV would require extensive changes to existing shuttle and launch facilities. A SMC vehicle requires less changes to existing shuttle facilites and could be used to launch previously designed (ISS component) cargoes in a near identical manner to the shuttle. The advantage to the ILV is that once the changes to existing facilites are made the ability to upgrade into larger more powerful ILV's is much more easily obtained. These larger more powerful ILV's would allow a manned mission to Mars for which the mission to the moon is a dress rehearsal.

Because they still have to use the Shuttle until 2010. In 2005 the Space Shuttle's operational budget was $5 billion or 30% of Nasa's budget. The Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) is expected to cost $5.5 billion to develop. The Crew Launch Vehicle, which is a Space Shuttle 4-segment Solid Rocket Boster (SRB) with the addition of an upper stage composed of a modified Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME), is expected to cost another $4.5 billion. Why the development of something which is a reconfiguration of parts we mostly already have is expected to cost $4.5 billion I'm not quite sure. Probably to be able to eject at any time, a redesign of the nose cone so the SRB can have an upper stage and still not sink in the ocean, and recertification of the new system as man rated. The combined CEV and launch vehicle is expected to be first launched in 2011.

2011 also begins the development of the heavy-lift launcher, lunar lander, and Earth departure stage. The development of the heavy-lift launcher is expected to cost between $5 to $10 billion. The heavy-lift launcher is composed of 5 modified SSME's and 2 5-segment SRB's and should be able to lift 125 metric tons of payload to an unspecified orbit. The article doesn't say if this is an in-line vehicle (ILV) or side mounted cargo (SMC) vehicle . It does appear to match the description of the ILV-2 design in a spaceref article. Also of interest is a previous spaceref article on the topic. An ILV would require extensive changes to existing shuttle and launch facilities. A SMC vehicle requires less changes to existing shuttle facilites and could be used to launch previously designed (ISS component) cargoes in a near identical manner to the shuttle. The advantage to the ILV is that once the changes to existing facilites are made the ability to upgrade into larger more powerful ILV's is much more easily obtained. These larger more powerful ILV's would allow a manned mission to Mars for which the mission to the moon is a dress rehearsal.

Because they still have to use the Shuttle until 2010. In 2005 the Space Shuttle's operational budget was $5 billion or 30% of Nasa's budget. The Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) is expected to cost $5.5 billion to develop. The Crew Launch Vehicle, which is a Space Shuttle 4-segment Solid Rocket Boster (SRB) with the addition of an upper stage composed of a modified Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME), is expected to cost another $4.5 billion. Why the development of something which is a reconfiguration of parts we mostly already have is expected to cost $4.5 billion I'm not quite sure. Probably to be able to eject at any time, a redesign of the nose cone so the SRB can have an upper stage and still not sink in the ocean, and recertification of the new system as man rated. The combined CEV and launch vehicle is expected to be first launched in 2011.

2011 also begins the development of the heavy-lift launcher, lunar lander, and Earth departure stage. The development of the heavy-lift launcher is expected to cost between $5 to $10 billion. The heavy-lift launcher is composed of 5 modified SSME's and 2 5-segment SRB's and should be able to lift 125 metric tons of payload to an unspecified orbit. The article doesn't say if this is an in-line vehicle (ILV) or side mounted cargo (SMC) vehicle . It does appear to match the description of the ILV-2 design in a spaceref article. Also of interest is a previous spaceref article on the topic. An ILV would require extensive changes to existing shuttle and launch facilities. A SMC vehicle requires less changes to existing shuttle facilites and could be used to launch previously designed (ISS component) cargoes in a near identical manner to the shuttle. The advantage to the ILV is that once the changes to existing facilites are made the ability to upgrade into larger more powerful ILV's is much more easily obtained. These larger more powerful ILV's would allow a manned mission to Mars for which the mission to the moon is a dress rehearsal.

From an story in Defense Industry Daily, mentioned on slashdot a few days ago:

SpaceX initially intended to follow its first vehicle development, Falcon 1, with the intermediate class Falcon 5 launch vehicle. However, in response to customer requirements for low cost enhanced launch capability, SpaceX accelerated development of an EELV-class vehicle, upgrading Falcon 5 to Falcon 9. SpaceX has sold a Falcon 9 launch to a US government customer, and still plans to make Falcon 5 available in late 2007. Their efforts are worth watching, and could affect the military satellite launch market.

With up to a 17 ft (5.2 m) diameter fairing, Falcon 9 is capable of launching approximately 21,000 lbs (9,500 kg) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in its medium configuration and 55,000 lbs (25,000 kg) to LEO in its heavy configuration, a lift capacity greater than any other launch vehicle. In the medium configuration, Falcon 9 is priced at $27 million per flight with a 12 ft (3.6 m) fairing and $35 million with a 17 ft fairing. Prices include all launch range and third party insurance costs, and SpaceX claims that this makes Falcon 9 the most cost efficient vehicle in its class worldwide.

So, Boeing's Delta IV Heavy lifts 25,000 kg for $254 million. The SpaceX Falcon 9 S9 will be able to lift the same amount for a starting price of $78 million. Wow.

Since it's based on the Falcon 5, the Falcon 9 will probably also be man-rated.

From here:

A recent study performed by the Futron Corporation, concluded that Falcon 5 was superior in design reliability to other vehicles in its class, due to engine redundancy. Falcon 9, by extension, has even higher reliability with increased propulsion redundancy.

Falcon 5 and Falcon 9 will be the world's first launch vehicles where all stages are designed for reuse. The Falcon 1 has a reusable first stage, but an expendable upper stage. Reuse is not factored into launch prices. When the economics of stage recovery and checkout are fully understood, SpaceX will make further reductions in launch prices.

Meanwhile, in the parent article, NASA has announced that it will be spending $5.5 billion on developing the Crew Exploration Vehicle, $4.5 billion on the Crew Launch Vehicle, and between $5 and $10 billion on a new heavy-lift vehicle. Who wants to bet that by the time NASA's new rockets are ready, SpaceX will already have a similar rocket available at a tiny fraction of the price?

Granted, SpaceX still needs to pull off a successful launch of the Falcon I, scheduled for later this year. I wish them the best of luck.

Not only are they not lost, they were considered (search for J2S) for the new CEV and the upper stage of it's launcher. They seem to be rejected because the SSME's are more efficient and currently in production.

Multi-Billion dollar spelunking expeditions in outer space. What could we all POSSIBLY do with billions of dollars right here on Earth to benefit us all right now? Hmmm... alternative energy research? Nah. Cures for debilitating and deadly diseases? Nah. Improving the infrastructures of impovershed nations? Nah. Teaching people how to farm and improving their ability to do so to help keep them from satrving to death? Nah.

Yeah. Stupid NASA.

Here's a good link to the story...quite a bit of detail not present in either article cited in the submission.

Interesting that the sources that hold that the hole is gtting worse are European, while the sources that state everything's OK are American.....hmm....

I read this story this morning on SpaceRef, and I was struck with the absurdity of the concept of "astronaut wings", since wings are less than useful in a vacuum. Still, I suppose that there's a great deal of precedent for the "wings" decoration...it's interesting to speculate on whether or not the nomenclature will eventually be shifted to more accurately reflect the current level of technological development (the 'order of the silver booster', or some such). It's equally possible that the nomenclature will never be altered, out of a respect for tradition and a nostalgia for the good old days...it's conceiveable that in the future, an astronaut living on a space station could be award "wings" for some accomplishment of other, having never travelled in an atmosphere himself.

Good to see these pilots get their props for their contributions, though, even if it is posthumously in the cases of John McKay and Joseph Walker, and even if surviving pilot Bill Dana seems unimpressed by the whole affair.

And also hopefully, the handsets will use low enough power that it doesn't result in the equivalent of a 35000-foot cell tower.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17017

Mike Griffin summed this up pretty well in his congressional testimony before he became administrator. Back then he only really supported Shuttle and ISS if Congress would give NASA buckets of money to do it and fast track CEV, and unless they redirect all the money being squandered on Iraq, its unlikely NASA will get buckets of money to do both. Maybe now that he is administrator he has to be more diplomatic and support the Shuttle and ISS more.

"But the more important question is whether the return to be obtained from the use of ISS to support exploration objectives is worth the money yet to be invested in its completion. The nation, through the NASA budget, plans to allocate $32 B to ISS (including ISS transport) through 2016, and another $28 B to shuttle operations through 2011. This total of $60 B is significantly higher than NASA's current allocation for human lunar return. It is beyond reason to believe that ISS can help to fulfill any objective, or set of objectives, for space exploration that would be worth the $60 B remaining to be invested in the program."

"Equally important is the delay in pursuing the President's vision. Respecting present budget constraints, we return to the moon in 2020, thus accomplishing in 16 years what it required eight years to achieve in the 1960s. This is not because the task is so much more difficult, or because we are today so much less capable than our predecessors, but because we do not actually begin work on the task until 2011. I do not need to point out to this body the political pitfalls endemic to such a plan."

"I, and others, have elsewhere advocated that the shuttle should be returned to flight and the ISS brought to completion, if only because the program's two-decade advocacy by the United States and commitment to its international partners should not be cavalierly abandoned. But, if there is no additional money to be allocated to space exploration, this position becomes increasingly difficult to justify. It is worth asking whether our international partners might judge the issue similarly."

"A lavish budget is not."

The CAIB report is not gospel. It is just another bureaucratic committee coming from a different angle.

It glosses over the fact NASA has spent over a $100 billion on the ISS due to both political interference and just plain bad management. The price tag just to keep the ISS and Shuttle going until 2010 and maybe finish ISS if they are lucky is $60 billion according to Mike Griffin's congressional testimony before he became administrator.

By comparison he cites the total cost for the entire Apollo program as $130 billion in today's dollars. Apollo started from scratch and actually did something, versus the $160 billion or so for the baby steps it took to build the ISS and it does nothing.

Griffin's optimistic assessment for return to the moon is $25 billion. The amount allocated for CEV, return to moon and other new launch vehicles through 2010 is less than that allocated just to keep the ISS and Shuttle jobs program going.

Another thing about NASA's budget problem is they are a job's program and everyone knows it. Its how they get their congressional support, by putting high quality jobs in the districts of their congressional backers especially in Florida, Texas, Utah and Mississippi. It takes at least 6,000 people to keep the Shuttle program going, whether it flies or not, not counting all the contractors that build parts. If Griffin tries to cut back the Shuttle/ISS jobs program to rein in costs he is going to run in to serious fricition from Congress. As a result he may be forced to maintain the employment levels of the status quo so he can never rein in costs.

I think I can just as easily say NASA, the agency that does to little with to much, at least as far as their manned space program goes. The Russians are the ones who do a lot with very little.

All that said when you see George W. squandering hundreds of billions on the misguided war in Iraq then yes NASA's budget is chicken feed by comparison. But, I'm very afraid if you gave NASA a budget of $50-100 billion a year the ways they would find to squander it would sicken. I suspect Mike Griffin might be a good manager, though it remains to be seen, but the entrenched career bureaucrats and contractors at NASA have a proven track record for squandering money to no good end.

A capsule-return spacecraft would not necessarily need to be the cramped Mercury-Gemini-Apollo style spacecraft. The ascent/return capsule would probably be conservatively designed, but could be more spacious than what was used 35 years ago.

But the real key is that there is no reason that there could not be other habitable (pressurized) sections of a launch craft. In fact, one could imagine a continuously growing space station, put together from a steady supply of hab modules from capsule launches.

There have been designs of capsules that would hold a dozen astronauts. The shuttle is a nice system, and a nice concept, but perhaps it simply isn't the right direction for the future of practical space travel.

For instance, look at some of the concepts pictured here.

Jim

One question I haven't seen answered about the proposals for post-shuttle spacecraft is whether or not there will be the capability to return significant amounts of equipment for orbit? And not just trash from the space station, but also completed experiments, things like that. One of the big advantages of the shuttle system is that it can return large payloads to earth without particularly strong G forces during the de-orbit. What's the station going to do without the shuttle, even if we can send people up there, if it can't bring stuff back?

The View from Here: Lily-Livered Pansies

Elliot G. Pulham
President & Chief Executive Officer

No country ever built an airplane by running for the hills and abandoning the program the first time a bolt sheared or a rivet popped during test flight. Our effort to conquer the seas was not cast on the trash heap of history the first time some ship sprung a leak.

These points seem to be lost on our current generation of lily-livered commentators and pundits, and even a few faint-hearted friends in Congress. In the wake of the successful launch of Discovery, a chorus of these "timid souls" seem willing to abandon human space flight at the first sign of evidence confirming that which we all know - putting humans in space is a tricky, difficult, unforgiving and risky business that is nonetheless worth it all.

I shudder to think where our country would be if this "do nothing, risk nothing" attitude had prevailed throughout our history. Our territories west of the Mississippi would likely fly the French and Mexican flags, railways would never have crossed the continent, and heaven knows the defense department never would have been allowed to fund the Wright Brothers and that risky, dangerous, flying machine contraption.

A test flight is a test flight. It is designed to ferret out problems and flaws. If you understand this, then you understand that, thus far, mission STS-114 has been a fabulous success that has generated a treasure trove of knowledge that will make future human space flights - not only of the space shuttle but of any spacecraft - better.

I normally balk at over reacting to anything that happens at NASA. In speeches around the country, I usually start by debunking the notion that NASA "is" space - pointing out that the largest space agency in the world is the U.S. Air Force, that NASA accounts for less than 10 percent of space activity world wide, and that, since 1996, commercial space activities have comprised the largest sector of the market.

But it matters what NASA does. The fact that hundreds of millions of people watched the launch of Discovery on television, a half-million showed up in person in Florida for the launch, and another half-million more had it streamed to their desktops should tell us all we need to know. Human space flight and space exploration is what captivates the minds and hearts of our people, especially our youth, and propels us forward.

Warts and all, foam shedding and all, the fact that virtually every newspaper in America (and most around the globe) has had space exploration on its front page for nearly every day of the past week should tell us something. We know it is dangerous. We know it will probably always be dangerous. And still we want to go, for in going lies all our hopes, dreams and aspirations.

For all those cranks, sots, killjoys and ignoramuses who think the launch of Discovery was a failure - sit down, shut up, and listen:

Spectacular Success No. 1 - Discovery is safely on orbit, docked to the International Space Station, and all indications are that she has suffered far less launch damage than any shuttle launched before. Human space exploration is proceeding. It is only the schedule of this exploration that will vary.

Spectacular Success No. 2 - Thanks to the efforts of thousands of NASA, contractor, and Dept. of Defense personnel (let's not forget that the Air Force plays numerous critical roles in every shuttle launch, and that U.S. Strategic Command is also heavily involved), the new launch observation and monitoring measures performed brilliantly. We've collected more data and imagery on this shuttle launch than on any human space flight in history. The systems worked. Because of that, we know we still have things to fix on the external tank.

Spectacular Success No. 3 - The NASA culture. Within moments of understanding that foam shedding is still a problem, NASA managers immediately and unequivocally decided th

"If we go on any ambitious space exploration project we will probably need the ISS to do testing and/or in space assembly."

It is unlikely the ISS will ever do any "in space assembly". The only in space assembly I've seen in any recent proposals are simple dockings of modules as has been done for 40+ years. Space is still a hard and expensive place to build things. You are going to do it if you have to and chances are you don't have to when you know how to dock things.

As for doing experiments, especially on zero g physiology it is great. The problem with it and its a question Mike Griffin raised in congressional testimony before he became administrator, is the knowledge you gain from the experiments worth the price tag? The cost for the remaining ISS assembly missions, ISS support and Shuttle budget when he testified was still a whopping $60 billion. That is $60 billion that would be far better spend on a heavy lift launcher, CEV, and a moon base. Going to the moon is something of a waste in itself but its a lot more useful place to do things than the ISS, especially to prove systems for an eventual long duration base on Mars. The Moon has radiation issues, ISS in LEO is useless for dealing with radiation issues and that is one of the BIGGEST problems to solve in real space exploration. The Moon has resources. ISS has nothing you dont fly to it from Earth. We need to learn to exploit resources on the Moon and Mars to live there for long duration at a reasonable cost.

From Mike Griffin:

"Given that ISS is to be completed, there are specific tasks associated with going to Mars for which it can be useful. Certainly, it can be useful in carrying out controlled experiments to study the effects of microgravity, and proposed countermeasures, on humans, provided of course that it is equipped with a habitat module or modules. It can serve as an aid to crew training, acclimating a proposed Mars crew, or extended-duration lunar crew, to the regimen of spaceflight in company with each other. It can serve as a testbed for the space qualification of specific systems, or even vehicles, prior to their use on extended voyages far from home. In a word, ISS can help us learn to live and work in space."

"But the more important question is whether the return to be obtained from the use of ISS to support exploration objectives is worth the money yet to be invested in its completion. The nation, through the NASA budget, plans to allocate $32 B to ISS (including ISS transport) through 2016, and another $28 B to shuttle operations through 2011. This total of $60 B is significantly higher than NASA's current allocation for human lunar return. It is beyond reason to believe that ISS can help to fulfill any objective, or set of objectives, for space exploration that would be worth the $60 B remaining to be invested in the program."

"Equally important is the delay in pursuing the President's vision. Respecting present budget constraints, we return to the moon in 2020, thus accomplishing in 16 years what it required eight years to achieve in the 1960s. This is not because the task is so much more difficult, or because we are today so much less capable than our predecessors, but because we do not actually begin work on the task until 2011. I do not need to point out to this body the political pitfalls endemic to such a plan."

"I, and others, have elsewhere advocated that the shuttle should be returned to flight and the ISS brought to completion, if only because the program's two-decade advocacy by the United States and commitment to its international partners should not be cavalierly abandoned. But, if there is no additional money to be allocated to space exploration, this position becomes increasingly difficult to justify. It is worth asking whether our international partners might judge the issue similarly."

Given that the shuttle fleet is nearing obsolescence and that it is a 30+ year old design, it's a good idea to move on. And why not use components that have been proven to work already? It simplifies the engineering needed to construct the new vehicle.

Then there is the private option, one that includes efforts from Burt Rutan, lately of SpaceShip One: Crew Transfer Vehicle (CXV). These guys say that they can fill in the gap during the time it takes for NASA to design/contract/construct a new vehicle.

Interesting choices lay ahead.

"But they don't have a mind for policy and no one chose them to choose it."

I assure you very few politicians have a "mind for policy" either especially when it comes to space, science and engineering.

How about let Mike Griffin make the decisions since he is in charge of the agency, he should be held responsibile for success and failure, and that means he should have the power and money so that he has a chance to succeed. From the stuff I've read he seems to have a pretty good head on his shoulders, and is a VAST improvement over O'Keefe who was both gutless and clueless. NASA desperately needs one person with some smarts, guts and vision setting one direction and also someone will to make some deep and painful cuts to get NASA on a course that isn't broken, which the current one surely is, and get rid of all the dead wood and dead weight.

If you let Congressman set the policy their #1 priority is to turn NASA in to a jobs program to create jobs in their districts. Costs balloon, nothing gets done, reference Shuttle and ISS. That is all our government does anymore, churn out pork to create jobs and line pockets.

At one point there were 6,000 people directly employed full time just on the Shuttle not counting contractors making parts. The Shuttle has over its life averaged $1.3 billion per launch far in excess of what was advertized.

Congressman with big shuttle and ISS pork, especially Florida and Texas, are already making threats Griffin's way if he tries to cut back jobs on the the shuttle and ISS to free money for CEV and beyond.

Politicians need maybe need to set the target, and insure adequate funds for the long haul and then get completely out of the way for the execution.

"Even the ISS program, which has been criticized extensively for poor science, has provided invaluable engineering experience on how (and maybe how not) to build a vehicle to go to the moon/mars. For example, we've had serious problems with the gyroscopes on ISS"

Who says you need to use gyros on a Martian spacecraft in the first place. Rockets work just as well for attitude control and are a lot more reliable at this point. I think I would rather carry the fuel than the thousands of pounds of spare gyros. Rockets are KISS, gyros are gold plated NASA, complex and unreliable.

Also hate to point this out but you could have learned the same lesson on gyro reliability from Hubble at a fraction of the price.

Problem with NASA is every lesson learned costs more than its weight in gold.

From Mike Griffin's congressional testimony before he became administrator. I hope he keeps such a level head now that he is adminsistrator and a political and bureaucratic punching bag. Here he is talking here only about the remaining ISS cost not the 100+ billion already squandered to learn about bad gyros and the fact that our spacesuits still suck after 40+ years:

"But the more important question is whether the return to be obtained from the use of ISS to support exploration objectives is worth the money yet to be invested in its completion. The nation, through the NASA budget, plans to allocate $32 B to ISS (including ISS transport) through 2016, and another $28 B to shuttle operations through 2011. This total of $60 B is significantly higher than NASA's current allocation for human lunar return. It is beyond reason to believe that ISS can help to fulfill any objective, or set of objectives, for space exploration that would be worth the $60 B remaining to be invested in the program."

"If we do Exploration right, we're going to leverage an aerospace workforce that has learned lessons from Shuttle and ISS, and use the moon as a proving ground. That experience is going to allow us to tackle the greater challenge of going to Mars."

Unfortunately it is a workforce that has learned to the point that its ingrained, to do things inefficiently, uneconomicly and which is consistently failing to succeed or deliver promised results. If you take that same workforce, that has been runined by decades of excessive spending and underperformance, and just transfer it wholesale to CEV, return to the Moon or on to Mars what assurance does anyone have that it wont fail as badly as it has on the ISS and Shuttle.

The important thing about teams is not so much the years of experience as it is their proven ability to succeed when faced with challenges, and overcome adversity. The Shuttle team has, in the face of adversity, just become ever more cautious and less capable to the point that now it is nearly useless. The only lesson the ISS team has learned well is how to spend money year after year and never deliver a working space station. Those aren't characteristics you want to carry forward in a team if you want to succeed on the next challenges.

Most well-respected mission designs came to the conclusion a long time ago that the Moon wasn't a "stepping stone" to Mars, it was an unnecessary detour.

It's not supposed to be a stepping stone in the literal sense, but a stepping stone in the sense of gained experience. I thought NASA head Michael Griffin stated things quite well in his recent Congressional testimony:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=12151

With regard to the moon, I believe the experience to be gained by living on and exploring another planetary surface only a few days away from home will be invaluable to the successful conduct of a future Mars expedition. Certainly such experience is not essential; one can readily envision a Mars expedition architecture which does not employ any further lunar experience as a stepping stone. But because it can be envisioned does not make it wise. I personally consider it an act of technological hubris to proceed directly to Mars, with no human experience beyond Earth orbit having been incurred since 1972. It can be done, and it will be cheaper, but the risk to both the mission goals and to human life will be significantly higher.

If the goal of the United States is solely to mount an expedition to Mars, then I can at least understand, if not credit, the concern that returning to the moon is a distraction. But if the goal of the United States is to be truly a spacefaring nation, then bypassing the moon is silly.

What I, however, would most like to see, is a collaborative effort between NASA and the fledgeling private sector space initiatives.

It's called the Centennial Challenges Program:

http://exploration.nasa.gov/centennialchallenge/cc _index.html

Basically, NASA's been partnering up with private organizations to offer cash prizes for space-related achievements. Congress has unfortunately put a limit on how much of their budget they're allowed to devote to competitive prizes, but they've still been able to offer prizes for space tethers, beam power, and extracting oxygen from lunar regolith.

A while back I also tried submitting an article about NASA and its plans for commercial delivery of cargo and passengers to the ISS, but the story was rejected. Here's the text of it:

At a recent talk, Michael Griffin outlined NASA's plans for helping to generate a robust and competitive commercial market in orbital spaceflight. The speech and Q&A transcripts from the talk are available. In a move reminiscent of the US government kickstarting the early airline industry by purchasing airmail services, NASA plans on supplementing government-derived transport by purchasing cargo delivery services to the International Space Station from commercial providers, followed by crew transportation after the systems have proven themselves. Unlike traditional government contracts, sellers wouldn't see a profit before the services are delivered and the emphasis will be on actual performance instead of process and specifications. Aviation Week has some commentary on the announcement.

What I, however, would most like to see, is a collaborative effort between NASA and the fledgeling private sector space initiatives.

It's called the Centennial Challenges Program:

http://exploration.nasa.gov/centennialchallenge/cc _index.html

Basically, NASA's been partnering up with private organizations to offer cash prizes for space-related achievements. Congress has unfortunately put a limit on how much of their budget they're allowed to devote to competitive prizes, but they've still been able to offer prizes for space tethers, beam power, and extracting oxygen from lunar regolith.

A while back I also tried submitting an article about NASA and its plans for commercial delivery of cargo and passengers to the ISS, but the story was rejected. Here's the text of it:

At a recent talk, Michael Griffin outlined NASA's plans for helping to generate a robust and competitive commercial market in orbital spaceflight. The speech and Q&A transcripts from the talk are available. In a move reminiscent of the US government kickstarting the early airline industry by purchasing airmail services, NASA plans on supplementing government-derived transport by purchasing cargo delivery services to the International Space Station from commercial providers, followed by crew transportation after the systems have proven themselves. Unlike traditional government contracts, sellers wouldn't see a profit before the services are delivered and the emphasis will be on actual performance instead of process and specifications. Aviation Week has some commentary on the announcement.