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?

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

[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.