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 ?
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?
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"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"
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"
Weren't slashdotters recently getting huffy-puffy over the Hubble not getting it's last servicing mission...?
You mean we trolled for no reason!?
Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
... 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
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.
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.
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
MYSTERY