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.

Comments

Nukes are the way to go

[ghoul]

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.

Re:Nukes are the way to go

[Richard_at_work]

Chemical rockets also have a limited practical top speed, research into nuclear propulsion is definately required if we are to make travel to the outer reaches of the solar system a regular occurance without waiting years for the results (how long did Cassini take to reach Saturn? How much more science can be done if we launch a probe a year and they get their within 6 months?)

Re:Nukes are the way to go

[sznupi]

My opinion is that the ones working on it should coin a name NOT including the word "nuclear". The public is so brainwashed on the matter that whenever they hear ir red lamp in their mind turns on :/

Re:Nukes are the way to go

[ghoul]

Thats true. The conventional bombing raids killed far more and destryed much more property than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki fircrackers(relatively speaking) Also a lot more people died in the Bhopal Gas leak in India from a fertilizer factory than from Chernobyl but people are shit scared of Nuclear plants. I think its a kind of hysteria created by the nuclear powers to scare the non nuclear powers. Frankly I think nuclear weapons are overrated. They are really useless for war as when used they irradiate the territory so you can make no use of the territory. Thats only marginally better than the enemy holding the territory. Wars will continue to be fought with conventional weapons. Only terrorists would ever think of using nukes (Hmm wonder what that says about Truman)
Nuclear power is on the other hand the road to freedom from oil dependence as well as the key to space. Take the example of a country like India which imports 70% of its oil. If even 40% which is used in power plants is replaced by nuclear power India would become a developed country instead of a developing one. Witness the French. As most of their electricity is nuclear generated they are not hostage to oil and dont need to get sucked into the middle-east. This gives them the advantage of taking the moral viewpoint on these issues instead of the national security viewpoint. People blame the neocons for starting the Iraq war but given the state of the US economy there really was no other option than to get control of some oil reserves. The same liberals who blast Bush about going to war in Iraq are the one shouting NAMBY when nuclear power is discussed

Man with a plan

[DARKFORCE123]

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 ?

Re:Let's get this straight.

[Rakishi]

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.

The Real Reason Chemical Ship Can't Cut It

[reallocate]

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.

Re:If America and Russia only would cooperate ...

[greypilgrim]

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.

Re:Going UP

[Martin Blank]

Technological issues. Unless and until someone can demonstrate carbon nanotube-based cables, even Congress won't buy into it.