Slashdot Mirror
NASA's Plans for the Future
FleaPlus writes "ABC News, Pasadena Star-News, and Space Politics report on a recent statement by NASA chief Michael Griffin on NASA's plans for the future and how it will be reflected in their annual budget. Griffin has ordered preparations for one last shuttle servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope. He also plans to greatly accelerate development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle to have it ready when the Space Shuttles retire in 2010, stating that the CEV 'needs to be safe, it needs to be simple, it needs to be soon.' Some other highlights include $34 million for the Centennial Challenges prize program and the possibility of completing the space station with unmanned rockets after the shuttles retire. However, due to budget limitations, the cost of returning the Space Shuttles to flight, and over $400 million in Congressional earmarks, a number of other areas will see delays, including space station, aeronautics, and exploration research. NASA also plans on restructuring Project Prometheus to focus on developing space-qualified nuclear power systems for use in human and robotic surface operations, instead of a probe to Jupiter's moons." The Washington Post has a look at NASA's future as well.
Griffin has directed NASA to consider how a Shuttle mission to Hubble might proceed. He has not actually directed that the mission take place.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
No particular reason? How about beeing able RIGHT NOW with our current technology to launch an object that weights at least 8000000 tonns? (wikipedia: project orion). How loung would it take to launch such mass on chemicals and assemble it on orbit (plus: needed connections between parts = waste of mass)
One that hath name thou can not otter
While I agree on general matter, I think the details about France are incorrect a little. Because, for example, where I live practically none electricity is generated from oil...but we still are dependant on it...
So I think they are still hostage... (who knows if opposing the war wasn't precisely part of it)
One that hath name thou can not otter
We want to get out of Low Earth Orbit but that can't be done until the CEV is operational and Shuttle is dead and Station declared completed. This is because Shuttle represents a 1/3 to 1/2 of NASAs bottom line budget and ISS another 1/5 or so. Short of a major budget increase, NASA cannot throw real money at a new program until Shuttle is axed and ISS is down to support mode rather than construction. Most every thing else in the budget is penny ante in comparison and the political fallout of axing them is not worth the gain of re-allocating the money.
Key points.
Shuttle Dead in 2010. Before if possible.
ISS final configuration from a shuttle launch standpoint is being re-considered. This is perahaps the biggest driver of a 2010 retirement date. Current requirements mandate that pretty much as a minimum. Robotic launches being considered for completing delivery of components.
CEV developement cycle drasticly reduced. Operational no later than shuttle retirement. Translation: Sounds like if they can get CEV ready Shuttle will die then if a new final config is confirmed for ISS.
Step up Space Nuclear Power. It is a must for manned sapce exploration beyond earth/moon and for any kind of permanent moon outpost of any real scale. If we don't have it ready by the time the CEV is we will have to wait on it before doing much more than flags and footprints again.
Re-evaluate the decision to not service Hubble after RTF missions so that a more informed opinion on the safety risks invovled can be made. Key here really is the decision not to kill budgeting for keeping the service mission an option. (ie the cost is mostly in the parts development and testing, not launch). Thus NASA can't re-appropriate that money for use elsewhere in the budget until the decision is re-afffirmed after return to flight... OR they decide it is a reasonable risk after all at which point all money for anything other than de-orbit will be re-apportioned in the budget. Smart move for money by Griffon. Regardless it keeps the money in for FY 06 as we will most likely not complete analysis of the two RTF missions till after the end of FY'05. So that means the money can't simply be axed off the NASA budget, it can go somewhere else. At 350 million it isn't chump change to a budget starved program.
Keep some other political programs on life support (education etc...) to keep some senetors happy.
Rob Peter to pay Paul. In order to do anything NASA has to cut somewhere. The only major areas of funding are space science, manned space operations and ISS. Already covered that two are pretty secure. Space science fundign is increasing but existing programs are largely getting the shaft for now with a promise to get picked up on the back end. IE thats what it means to delay some programs till after meeting exploration goals in the short term. So my guess is the telescopes are going to take a hit and that is why they are going to re-consider Keeping Huble limping along to possible keep a gap from happening or at least moving the gap already planned a few years farther along.
NASA will bug congress to allow purchasing more Russian launch capacity. Nasa paid for Soyuz missions are about spent and right now we can't give the RSA any more for launches. Not played very large in the statement but that is a big issue in current ISS operations and one that needs to be addressed.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
One area of NASA that didn't even get a mention in these stories is Earth science research. A whole bunch of the U.S. money going into research on climate change, oceanography, terrestrial hydrology, and atmospheric science is coming through NASA at the moment, but NASA's earth science budget is under serious threat. Virtually all future earth science missions now planned will face serious delays, and in the face of growing pressure to focus on manned missions, current satellites essential to understanding earth processes are recieving relatively little support. While they aren't as sexy as moon missions or manned flight to Mars, earth observing satellites are relatively inexpensive and are exceptionally useful in improving our understanding of Earth. In particular, deep cuts to NASA's earth science budget would hamstring efforts to understand climate change, a goal that even those sceptical of anthropogenic effects (ie the current administration) agree is reasonable (at least in public). For more info, check out recent editorials in Nature (April 29) and Science (April 22 and May 5). I would provide links, but they require paid subscriptions.
As far as the merits of the idea go, statistically each launch would give a few people cancer. You're not going to sell people on that idea unless there's an absolutely compelling need (the Big One is about to hit us, for instance).
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
There are "bus" designs for sattelites that are used primarily by the Military and they just hang different packages off them. However, science probes tend to be more specialized with one-of-a-kind instruments that need special treatment and are usually built scientists NOT engineers so conformance to standards (such as data bus, power, processors, etc) tends to not occur which make the idea of a cheap, mass produced "probe" practically impossible. The idea was tried in the 1990's by the then NASA Head Dan Goldin and it didn't work, in fact several of the missions just flat didn't work (google the Contour mission). Scientists put years of thier life into designing the experiments and their reputations on the results, and they don't want the type of vehicles you wish would happen. Ideally there is room for some compromise but with scientists running the development program that is kind of hard. But conversely we don't want the programs run by nothing but accountants either! It's a BIG challenge for NASA and it's going to take some changes in culture (read people) to make it happen.
If you have the tech to build a space elevator, dispersing the Van Allen radiation belts is a cinch.
Even dispersing just the inner belt would be helpful: the Space Station could be then pushed into a higher orbit so it needs less frequent reboosting.