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

Re:Nukes are the way to go

[sznupi]

While I agree on general matter, I think the details about France are incorrect a little. Because, for example, where I live practically none electricity is generated from oil...but we still are dependant on it...
So I think they are still hostage... (who knows if opposing the war wasn't precisely part of it)

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.

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 ?

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.

[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.

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?

No Hubble Mission Decision

[reallocate]

Griffin has directed NASA to consider how a Shuttle mission to Hubble might proceed. He has not actually directed that the mission take place.

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.

Wait one darn minute...

[xeon4life]

Weren't slashdotters recently getting huffy-puffy over the Hubble not getting it's last servicing mission...?

You mean we trolled for no reason!?

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: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.

Cliff Notes for TFA

[tmortn]

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.

Re:Err..

[Nilmat]

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.

Re:Going UP

[Martin Blank]

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