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.
Chemical rockets are just not cost efficient enough.
also people are studying nuclear engineering all around the world . its better these people are kept busy designing power plants for on earth and off earth applications than nuclear bombs. Just my opinion.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Griffin sounds like a man with the kind of aggressive plans we need to make things like the shuttle replacement finally a reality and make US space efforts relevant and significant again.
Wonder who in the US bureaucratic nightmare pool is going to put a stop to his plans ?
Why does it matter? So you get to spend a week on a largely-US funded space station for $20mil? Humanity doesn't gain anything and most people can't afford it anyway. Hell the launch costs alone are probably around $300k+ per person, and that won't go down without either a space elevator, nuclear rocket or a lot more space travel (and I mean a lot). And the only reason Russia is even sending ordinary peopel into space is because they're broke.
Cost efficency has nothing to do with it.
The real reason we need to use something else to move about the solar system is that chemically fueled ships can't go fast enough.
We need to go from LEO to the Moon in well under a day, and to Mars in less than one month. Chemicals can't do that.
Chemicals are fine for launch to LEO, and there is no particular reason, I think, to launch nuclear ships from Earth's surface. Build and use them in space.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Because NASA is in the exploration business, not the charter bus business. My tax money should not be spent to figure out how to send fatcat millionaires on joy rides.
Meanwhile, don't forget the Russians are doing the tourist bit because they need the money, not because they're blazing a new trail for "ordinary people".
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Instead of building an International Black Hole (ISS), the world's space faring nations should join forces and build one common launch vehicle. The combined knowledge and experience of all of these space faring nations could build a new ship far superior to the space shuttle. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, national pride on both sides will prevent this from ever happening.
Having worked on half a dozen Space Shuttle Safety projects for the late great Rockwell International Space Transportation Division, and found each of them dysfunctional to the point of criminal fraud; and having given testimony to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board; and having spoken at length to the NASA Inspector General's office -- when the 3rd Space Shuttle disater strikes, what happens to all these objectives?
The CAIB gave clear direction on how to reform NASA. But their only Nobel Laureate Physicist (Feynman being long buried) gave a press conference to say that he does NOT believe that NASA can effectively change its "corporate culture."
I've praised Mike Griffin in slashdot, but he can no more change NASA's style than Eric Raymond can change Microsoft.
-- Professor Jonathan Vos Post
Technological issues. Unless and until someone can demonstrate carbon nanotube-based cables, even Congress won't buy into it.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
You need to supply a better business plan on the profit there bud. I think you are suffering from the "Field of Dreams" syndrome -- 'If you build it, they will come.' Doesn't work that way, unfortunately.
Actually as someone who has worked at JPL - NASA's unmanned missions are getting screwed (and along with it JPL) in order to make way for a mission to mars. When it comes down to it unmanned space missions produce A LOT more science and are cheaper than manned ones do, and thus it would make more sense to focus on those when the budget it tight. The opposite is happening though it seems and I really fear for the US space program because of it.
the world's space faring nations should join forces and build one common launch vehicle
I'm sorry, but that makes about as much sense as saying that the nations of the world should join together and build one common airplane. Design by committee generally doesn't work too well, especially if the design has to be made such that it siphons an appropriate amount of money into each of the involved countries.