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

Let's get this straight.

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Best part of a century after the rocket was invented by Goddard, and NASA still have no plans to send up any significant numbers of ordinary people?

Atleast the Russians will send you up if you're fit enough and loaded, NASA doesn't even do that.

So why would this plan be a good one?

Re:Let's get this straight.

[WolfWithoutAClause]

So you get to spend a week on a largely-US funded space station for $20mil?

Yup. Everyone that has gone thinks zero-g is a blast; and the Earth looks pretty whizzing past at 8km/s. Facile? Maybe. Unique- definitely.

The more people that launch to there, the more facilities are needed, and the cheaper it becomes to use lunar resources than launch everthing from the Earth- it turns out that that is cheaper, but the startup costs are high.

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).

Actually, the space elevator probably doesn't work for humans because of the Van Allen belts, (but it might be good for cargo); but simply launching a LOT probably does.

Why does it matter?

Cheap energy (Solar Power Satellites), colonisation of other planets, reduction of CO2 production, exploration of the solar system. Basically launching a lot reduces the costs, and opens up space so that we can actually use it and go places other than the Earth. Is that bad or wrong?

And the only reason Russia is even sending ordinary peopel into space is because they're broke.

So what you're saying is that Russia is doing it to make money, and there is a market. And this is a problem because?

Re:Let's get this straight.

[Rakishi]

The more people that launch to there, the more facilities are needed, and the cheaper it becomes to use lunar resources than launch everthing from the Earth- it turns out that that is cheaper, but the startup costs are high.

"high" is an understatement. The ISS is around $100 billion in cost and has a weight of 1mil pounds. Quick calculations put the cost of sending the ISS into orbit at $10billion (and probably less), which is only 10% of the cost. Consider that for a second, launch costs aren't the biggest thing we have to worry about right now and the other costs will not go down on the moon. It'll be a long time before lunar based construction can match what is possible on Earth, and until it comes close the lower launch costs may not mean much.

Actually, the space elevator probably doesn't work for humans because of the Van Allen belts, (but it might be good for cargo); but simply launching a LOT probably does.

Yeah, we'd still need rocket for people as shielding against radiation would probably raise the costs too much.

Cheap energy (Solar Power Satellites), colonisation of other planets, reduction of CO2 production, exploration of the solar system. Basically launching a lot reduces the costs, and opens up space so that we can actually use it and go places other than the Earth. Is that bad or wrong?

Yes, launching a few people won't lower costs however the costs are still high. If lucky we can get down to $1k per pound which is still very high. I'd prefer for NASA to research new technology than to deal with this sort of crap, which right now won't accomplish much.

So what you're saying is that Russia is doing it to make money, and there is a market. And this is a problem because?

A small one all things considered and one that is very limited, as it relies of massive initial costs which cannot be paid of by the market (ie: the currently underused Russian space program). Trying to make it anything larger makes you suddenly slam straight into those limits (ie: you need to build your own space station or add extra launch facilities, training facilities, etc.). Also it's in Russia; it's questionable if such a venture would even be profitable in the US.

Re:Man with a plan

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I think that another shuttle crash is more likely to get that job done. Griffin is more like a brown-nosing CEO, which is very strange. He can't decide whether to abscond with the money or suck up to his superiors.

If America and Russia only would cooperate ...

[sqar]

... they could have a new type of spacecraft much earlier. Russian engineers are pretty advanced in their plannings for a soyuz replacement: Kliper

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kliper.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliper

the maiden flight was originally planned for 2007-2008 if I remember that correctly (read it in a German aviation magazine (Fliegerrevue) some time ago), but as usual with such projects and russia: sadly they have no more money to complete it. Relatively little american money could have a huge effect here. But I guess national pride on both sides will prevent this from coming true.

regards, sqar

Re:Nukes are the way to go

[L0C0loco]

How about antimatter - as in positron/electron or other more interesting positron-based fission reactions?

Funding is a Joke

[mysterystevenson]

Current funding for space exploration is a joke. We should be talking in Trillions of current US dollars. I know that sounds like an incredible amount but if it was spent now the return in profit would soon exceed the entire value of all the world's economies put together. New research needs to be done in all arenas of space; propulsion, energy, and environmental. Space offers the last potential for humanity. The Earth is running into a log jam of population and industrial production / food production. If money is not spent for the expansion into space now, we will melt down. Industry can be moved to space, but it won't come cheap, still the profit potential is quite literally astronomical. Environmental restrictions for industry on Earth are soon going to skyrocket, and that is needed if we want to survive. If new technologies are developed to increase efficiency for space travel, then industrial costs in space may actually turn out to be cheaper there in space than here on Earth. MYSTERY

Re:Nukes are the way to go

[AKAImBatman]

Forget the Ramjet, I think you meant Scramjet ala the X-43.

I'm still not so sure about the Scramjet. The engine itself is a great idea, but the structural requirements are terrible. Even a minor flaw in the surface of the vessel would lead to catastrophe.

The grandparent probably has it right. If you use Jet engines to get to a higher altitude, the efficiency of nuclear thermal engines can take you the rest of the distance without having to go hypersonic in thick atmosphere.

Interestingly, the "best" solution may even be a ramjet engine. Since a nuclear engine can run on any fluid, what more efficient method exists than pulling oxygen from the atomosphere? And if you afterburn with hydrogen, you're going to get one hellva kick in the pants. (Alternatively, you can turn it around and heat the hydrogen while "burning" the oxygen")

Amazingly, we already have the engine to do this. Pratt & Whitney's TRITON engine is the perfect solution. As a "tri-modal" engine, it's capable of three modes of operation:

1. Low atmosphere afterburning for high powered launches.
2. Upper atmosphere and orbital transfer propulsion using pure hydrogen fuel.
3. Low fission rate "idle" mode which produces ~200 kW of power. (More than enough for onboard systems.)

The implications of this engine are staggering. Thanks to the tungsten clad design, it can be used anywhere without polution. Which means that we can have a single engine type that can not only produce massive thrust on takeoff, perhaps even produce the much covettd and highly efficient ramjet. (Rocket scientists love the idea of taking oxygen from the atmosphere, but don't normally want their rockets spending enough time in the lower atmosphere to make it worthwhile). But also an engine type that is highly efficient in upper-atmosphere and "space" areas. Plus, the craft can ditch heavy batteries and fuel cells in favor of drawing all its power from the engines. That power would even be available for electrical manuvering thrusters so that the amount of propellant carried can be reduced. Thus some of the weight you pay for in heavier engines can be regained in reducing redudant systems.

If we're going to get a bird in the air in the near future that can get people to orbit cheaply and safely, nuclear is where my money is.

Re:Nukes are the way to go

[AKAImBatman]

His point is that more powerful engines built and launched in space would drive the price down while simultaneously decreasing travel time. And he's right. If we had probes coming off of a moon or asteroid-based assembly line with standard science packages and engines, they would be WAY cheaper to launch. Right now we're wasting some ungodly amount of money on fragile little devices that could be whipped together by any half-competent engineer for a few thousand bucks. But the fact that the probe *must* absolutely work right the first time and *must* meet very light weight specifications and *must* be designed by scientists (not engineers) drives the price astronomically high.

As someone pointed out, the primary issue to deal with on assembly line craft is the tremendous amount of customization done by scientists. What we need is a few crack engineers to talk with scientists and figure out a few expandable designs that can have all the necessary sensors mounted onto the post-assembly line vehicle. The only trick is that you MUST have powerful enough engines to accomidate the extra mass of the generic design. (A bit like how software had to be very streamlined back in the DOS days, but can be very generic and reusable on today's modern hardware.) The way I figure it, a 900+ Isp engine with a 1 G or greater thrust ability should do the job nicely. :)

Re:Nukes are the way to go

[Anonymous Coward]

ok I am a mechanicle engineer and some of the things you said definetly show that you have no experience and are not qualified to make those comments. Sure having an assembly line in space would be nice but we still have to launch the materials to produce these things from earth. Unless you plan on haivng a mining colony too. Plus I don't think you understand the amount of fuel and the size of the engine required to send something from earths orbit to Saturn in 6 months. The engines and gas tank would have to be friggin huge. Thats expensive no matter how you put it. In addition, it is engineers designing these things with scientists so your point is mute. Plus, you don't understand the requirements for some of these things. The electronics all have to be specially designed and treated to withstand the radiaiton in space. There is also not enough demand to mass produce satalites so no one would ever do it. Your suggestion are either not economical or can not be technically backed. I know you think it can be but it can't. Sure NASA does have some ridiculus rules and sure it could be done cheaper but not with the same success rate that NASA has had. Maybe one day in furutre when demand has gone up and we have come up with a cheap way to get into space will your suggestions become doable. However at the current time they are not.

Re:Nukes are the way to go

[wft_rtfa]

Only terrorists would ever think of using nukes (Hmm wonder what that says about Truman)

Truman used the Nuclear bomb not so that the US could occupy Japan, but because he wanted to end the war with fewer US casualties. But, nowadays a country using nukes like that will make the rest of the world very angry.

Nuclear power is on the other hand the road to freedom from oil dependence as well as the key to space.

While Nuclear power definately helps reduce oil consumption, oil is not burned in power plants as much as fuels like coal and natural gas. Most plants that do burn oil also burn gas. Probably one of the best ways to reduce our dependency on foreign oil is to build more Nuclear power plants and buy more electric cars, and don't charge your electric car during on-peak hours, as most gas and oil plants are off line during the night.