Slashdot Mirror
Shuttle Retirement Costs Divert Science Funding
FleaPlus writes "Although overall NASA funding is expected to increase next year, NASA has announced plans to divert money from its science program to help pay for the expected cost overruns for flying the Space Shuttle safely until its retirement in 2010. A number of science projects are being canceled or delayed indefinitely."
Not really unexpected at all.
But I wonder what costs there are that we might not think of.
Beyond disposal if goods and keeping of secrets.
Pretty Pictures!
I suppose you have to expect this kind of thing when Christian Fundimentalists are in charge of the science purse strings. Just take a look at the recent issue with NASA Public Relations censoring a scientist on Global Warming. The last thing the Christian Fundimentalist Bush administration want is more money spent on science that continues to prove their dearest beliefs wrong. After all if you know "The Truth" by divine relalation why bother with science?
This might be classified as hindsight, but NASA has FORSEEABLY painted itself into a corner. The ISS is going to fail without the shuttle, yet NASA (or those that set policy for NASA) procrastinated with building a replacement for the shuttle for years and years. Now the Shuttle has been bleeding NASA dry, yet they can't abandon it without losing the ISS. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.
They really need to make some hard choices. One possibility would be the diverting of funds to find out how to assemble the ISS with existing hardware, mainly Russian, as they are the only ones with heavy lift vehicles, though this might be very difficult. Another might be to try to reconfigure the shuttle platform as a heavy lift vehicle, thought that would take time and the ISS would be on hold. Of course the ISS is on hold now too...
The problem with the shuttle is, that a tremendous amount of energy is used to lift not only the required ISS part, but also a heavy hunk of 70's junk covered in tiles. This is not a smart way of lifting things into orbit.
I'm sorry, but NASA really needs to find a way to ditch the shuttle real soon. Considering the fact that the new Federal budget gives no hope of fixing the huge deficit, NASA money might be harder to come by in the near future, even thought they did get their money this time around.
Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
Wow, so nasa is now like an airline I guess. Just trying to keep flying those pointless shuttle flights.
Kill the shuttle and keep the science, after all they are going to spend 100 billion dollars to get back to the moon and do nothing there AGAIN, no base, no telescope, no science, most likley just golf.
STUPID
This is bad! I mean how are they going to get the shadow angles right now!? ;-)
"I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
How are we going to get that moon station up and running? And what about sending a man to mars? All my dreams are gone to *"?!#
Million dollar sig.
Isn't it about time we start calling the shuttle the Albatross? It was a bad idea from day one. Heavy lift rockets are more efficent and more dependable. Now science is going to suffer while we continue to throw good money after bad. If the Russians can get astronauts in orbit for 20 mill a pop isn't it more cost effective to pay so they can hitch a ride and dump the shuttle? In truth the 20 mill was paying most of the flight costs, third world economy with first world technology. They may not be able to carry the payload but they still have heavy lift rockets so even that could be somewhat resolved until we could restart a heavy lift program. The shuttle's safty record makes them a massive risk. Isn't this more about the government trying to save face and not crawling to the Russians for help than about science and saving lives? Before the shuttle NASA had a perfect inflight record. Now the shuttle flights seem to be a ticking timebomb.
So we're spending billions of dollars to preserve old spaceships, when things like SpaceShipOne only cost tens or hundreds of millions for test flights?
This is kind of like my father's insistence on maintaining his 1972 Cadillac (at a ridiculous annual cost) instead of purchasing a newer vehicle (say, a Honda) that gets three times the mileage and has much lower support costs. Of course, it just isn't as big or masculine... that's probably what this is all about.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Mass... Driver...
/. as to why a mass driver would be economical is
IMO most economical if all you are doing is heavy lifting/cargo - thats all the Shuttle ever was in the first place - a glorified bus to take up people and supplies. Go ahead and try to argue that the shuttle was also used for science expirements, the only reason that happened is it has a decent amount of space inside to put shelves with expirements in the shuttle.
BTW: previous points I've made here on
One: no more buying million dollar per pound of thrust rocket fuel.
Two: If you make it an electromagnetic rail (a rail-gun) or a gauss gun system and power it with a nuclear reactor, you could sell the electricity being produced when you arent launching things, and so in the long run cutting costs and maybe even paying for the whole launching system (mass driver and reactor). If you are worried you might not get enough energy at once, do what that laser-fusion facility is supposed to use - basically a bunch of capacitators with a fast discharge rate - the fusion facility claims it only costs a few pennies (actual pennies, not just that it doesnt make a dent in their budget)
Science is important, but not as important as living and working in space. If the scientific discoveries wait 1 extra year or 100 it makes little difference in the scheme of things. Personally I'd rather increase manned exploration, which will have more immediate benefits.
There's more to it than just keeping a spaceship flying or maintaining the basic science. The space program plays an important role as the "carrot" to inspire young engineers and scientists. The thought of one day going into space or living on the moon drives a lot of 8 years olds down the path of math and science. Most never end up working in the space program, but if all future engineers think they have to look forward to is designing braking systems at Ford (not that there's anything wrong with that) even fewer students are going to head in that direction. Throwing a few dollars at hungry people isn't going to fix the problem (especially when the problem generally isn't lack of dollars but 3rd world corruption). It's the ranks of future engineers and scientists that will increase food production and find cures for diseases...
Note I'm not saying this is the way things should be, but if you want an actual space program instead of a white-elephant jobs program you have to address the real problem. The continued existance of the shuttle program is a symptom of a structural problem in Congress, and that has to get fixed before you can expect anything useful from NASA beyond the odd robotic probe.
Seriously; I hate Bush - and religious fanaticism - more than most people, but parent post is no more than a troll or flamebait! The current NASA situation is not a result of the current administration as it is a result of years and years of under-funding and beating the PR dead horse called Space Shuttle. Regretfully, NASA has no viable alternative but to keep the Shuttle in service, despite it being an old, inefficient, money-guzzling launch platform.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
A little gift from those folks who can't stand to see a pad program die.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
1. Talebans? bin Ladin? Terrorists? - all funded by US$
2. Fueled and blown up untill it burst by capitalits greed
3. Kyoto protocol anyone? Nah, why bother?..
4. Those are called "ricochetes": "... Ricochets are one of the main dangers of shooting because after bouncing off an object the bullet that ricochets poses an unpredictable and serious danger to bystanders, animals, objects, or even the person who fired the shot."
Going back to the moon is a technology testbed - to prove and test the technologies to get man to Mars (and beyond).
Just like the early rocket launches built up to Apollo, current projects test the technologies we will be using in the future. Ion drives and such.
Just having a quick browse through http://exploration.nasa.gov/ shows the stuff they want to develop - for unmanned and then manned flight.
The shuttle and space station have been sucking funding from other programs for years now. I recall reading an article in Aviation Week a couple years back talking about how NASA had eliminated all funding for rotorcraft (helicopter) research. Much aviation related research has gone the way of the dinosaur, needed to keep the space station and shuttle going. The first A in NASA used to stand for aeronautics, now I'm not sure what it stands for.
At least for those of us who have been asking NASA to rid itself of the shuttle for a decade, way back when Mike Griffin was doing really neat things at DoD. It was a neat experimental craft. Should have never been an operational one. Shouldn't ever fly again.
Reward failure, punish success: that's the way big government works... which is why it's always such a screwup and even when it does something useful it costs more and is less efficient than having private business do so. Well, unless it's a big business that's fallen into the same mindset.
No, this has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with the fact that NASA exists in the real world.
:)
That's the same world where you and I exist; even if you would happen to a billionaire (I'm certainly not one) there is always some level beyond which you have to prioritize, beyond which you can't have everything. Most people learn this as little toddlers however a lot of (or all) politicans love forgetting it if it can get them elected
In the system which NASA exists that power of priority is in the hands of Congress (mainly) & Senate, however in this case it is NASA itself which is rearranging and reprioritizing at their own discretion.
Yes, one can argue for more money to NASA (even if they've already gotten more). Yes, I support "pet" projects of my own (like the Dawn mission which is on hold, and that's just a start; if I started listing all the things I'd like to see it would keep me occupied for the rest of my life) and I would of course love to see them get a massive increase in support. But neither changes the fact of how the world works or that there are other things than NASA which needs funding and/or which a majority of the elected representatives across any boundary deem important enough to manage to agree upon.
Enter the current plethora of private space initiatives; it's the only solution because it strives and directly aims to be economically profitable (something which 1. simply isn't NASAs job and 2. for the most part wouldn't even be legal for NASA as they as part of the US government aren't allowed to for example hold patents).
To sum it up: if you don't expect "this kind of thing" from anyone and everyone, always, you're going to be constantly disappointed (and to no gain for anyone including yourself).
--
this additional sig includes a portrait of Mohammed in support of freedom of expression, feel free to reproduce it
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
Low level nuclear waste isn't much of a threat and doesn't have to be stored for very long. High-Level is, but there are alternatives to 'long term storage'.
I was so happy when the president showed support for reproccessing/recycling the waste. It's coming at a fairly good time as the older waste from the plants is getting cool enough that reproccessing it won't create as much ancillery nuclear waste. It's no longer radioactive enough to contaminate materials around it.
I don't read AC A human right
At the same time, I do think space programs are good things, and Science in general is great, but I was just saying that money is often used in vain things instead of doing something that might actually make a difference to a significant amount of people's lives.
I predict the shuttle will retire way before 2010. I just hope that astronauts will survive the process of early retirement of the shuttle, though this hope is bleak.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Might be valid to divert funds to keep people inside America alive also...
Wait. Let me guess. The scientific inquiry projects being canceled are those most likely to produce results that challenge the direction of the Bush administration.
The last paragraph of the story says that the science committee will have a hearing on the budget on February 16th. So, if you disagree with this decision, write your representative and air your concerns. IMHO, the action most likely to succeed is holding the shuttle program to its budget and leaving the science funding untouched, so suggest that.
I understand the ideals of pushing 8 year olds into the sciences, engineering and technology sectors, as these types of jobs do need fresh blood, but space exploration can be done much cheaper and better by robotic vehicles.
Witness Spirit and Opportunity; both these rovers are (relatively) simple in design, and yet both have far exceeded their original designs and goals. If you had the choice between spending (say) a billion to send a manned mission there, or a billions to send several remote vehicles, then I know where my money would go.
And there's also the sad fact of losses in the space program. If we lose a robot, it is only a robot. If we lose a man, sadly like we have done on too many occaisions, then that loss is felt much harder.
It costs about $1.3 billion to send the shuttle on a mission. As an example, the HST cost about $2.5billion to build (though with significantly higher operating costs). If/when it comes down for repairs, the repairs themselves would cost money, and then it would have to go back up. In short, it is a very infrequently used feature, and one that isn't practical; cost of replacement for anything but the most expensive thingies is always less then the transportation costs.
If SETI makes contact anytime soon, I could see the Shuttle becoming a pop-culture phenomenon in alien societies. Of course, it would be popular in the same way that the Jamaican Bobsled Team and William Hung are. The shuttle and the ISS might be the least efficient fleet of spacecraft that will ever exist in this universe, which might be good in the long run as the aliens will take pity on us and hand over the Warp Engines so we can stop going in circles.
8 70913-1427800?v=glance&n=283155
If we knew the shuttle would end up like this, I don't think we would have bothered. We've spent $145 billion on the shuttle for just over 1,000 days in orbit. This makes the math so depressingly simple even the president can do it in his head.
The lifetime cost of Voyager, Pathfinder, Spirit and Opportunity, Galileo, Cassini-Huygens, and the Hubble Space Telescope combined is about $10 billion, while the ISS alone has cost $35 billion so far. Why throw good money after bad, pull the plug already and rethink the strategy.
There's no point sending humans to the moon (or anywhere else for that matter) unless we plan to stay. There may be large deposits of Platinum-group metals (PGMs) on the moon, and PGMs will be a cornerstone of the hydrogen economy, since each fuel cell needs a few ounces. There isn't much on Earth, and mining/refining the quantity needed to run a full scale H2 economy might cancel out the environmental benefit of fuel cells.
Moonrush by Dennis Wingo is a great read on the subject - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1894959108/103-9
Our only saving grace is the work being done by small entrepreneurs like Burt Rutan. It looks like the X Prize actually did a good job of jump starting the space economy.
But it's about technologically one step beyond Chuck Yeager's Bell X-1, B-52 dropped Supersonic test flights. It's an important step, no question, but it's just a step small step on the long road to orbit.
I personally know ~30 people who got laid off last summer because of NASA's recent penchant for cutting science programs. And I know of another 50 who received the same fate. And that's just for one small payload project.
2 2)
But if you listen to the talking head that is Michael Griffin, "The science program has not--in our forward planning, we do not take one thin dime out of the science program in order to execute this architecture." (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=181
Yes, Mr. Griffin, but you take out a few thousand employees overall.
IWARS.
People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
This has been "postponed indefinitely".
A real shame. It was meant to explore the asteroid belt. I near neighbour area of space for which we have little high quality data, surprising as it could prove very useful for further exploration of the Solar System.
The probe was going to visit the major asteroids then end up in orbit around Ceres or Vesta. Now... it is nothing.
Whilst I understand it may be difficult for the public to comprehend why these sorts of missions are scientifically useful and whilst I also understand that these missions don't capture the public in the same way as man moon missions (hell, they "the great unwashed masses" even got bored of those eventually) they are scientifically useful.
We can not allow space exploration to be guided by TV ratings et al. The public had no interest in fibre optics until cable TV turned up at their front door!
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
You can't "Fix" those kinds of problems long-term without a total restructuring of lifestyle.
And to change their lifestyle means going against divirsity, and destroying culture, and a bunch of other feel-good crap that is contributing to the food problem.
It's similar to the concept of war v. total war. You can fight just the troops, and it will take longer and might not work- or you can raze every city, burn every field, and destroy everything you see. Tends to work faster.
NASA is studying commercial alternatives. A number of hungry alt.space companies will be in the hunt, like Space-X (first Falcon launch is planned for this Friday). In my view, this is a subtle end-run around the hugely expensive ESA.
Helium balloons want to be free.
Wouldn't an electromagnetic rail gun induce massive currents in any conductors in its payload? I'd assume that pretty much rules out putting anything electronic into space with it.
From what I had been reading, the American shuttle has been grounded for the next few years. Perhaps even until 2012...
And despite other comments I've read and the lack of coverage of this in the news, we WILL be depending on Russia during this period to get us to the ISS. We are buying Suyoz vehicles.
The sale of them WAS out of the question since NASA could not purchase any space equipment from Russia because of the Iran Nonproliferation Act. Only a U.S. President could "bypass" the legislation.
Read for yourself... http://www.spacedaily.com/news/NASA_Had_No_Choice_ But_To_Buy_Soyuz_Flights.html
NASA is scrapping the shuttle in less than 5 years. The replacement will be just as expensive, but FAR more capable and safe. It will get us to the moon with far greater capability for a much smaller cost. Not only that, but the lunar capability is designed to allow us to get to Mars.
NASA's plan:
Finish the obligation to the ISS and retire the shuttle fleet before 2011.
In the meantime, use shuttle propulsion technology to develop new launch vehicles (Crew Launch Vehicle CLV and the heavy lift Cargo Launch Vehicle CaLV) in a very short time frame with far greater economy, safety (over an order of magnitude), and capability than the shuttle.
Starting in 2011, use the new CLV (including perhaps cargo-only versions) to resupply and man the ISS (but rely heavily on commercial cargo launch vehicles to resupply the ISS throughout the ISS's lifetime, to reduce cost and increase flexiblity).
Start manned lunar sortie missions around 2015-2016 and by the 7th manned lunar mission (~2018), start building a permanent lunar base (likely at one of the lunar poles or maybe on the equator) to help study techniques of in situ resource utilization that will be used during the manned Mars missions.
Manned mission to Mars is perhaps a dozen years after the lunar base is started, so around 2030. The CEV capsule is being designed from the very beginning to serve all three missions: ISS crew transport (usually in a 3-crew configuration), lunar missions (with 4 crew members), and to transport astronauts (with the 6-crew configuration) from earth to orbit to dock with the craft that will go to Mars and back (the 6-seat CEV capsule will remain docked with the craft until the crew returns to Earth in the CEV after the 1.5-2.5 year mission).
The lunar mission will use "1.5 launches" (CLV launches to LEO to rendevzous with the CaLV which will then send the crew and cargo, a total of ~65 metric tons, to the moon) to maximize safety and cargo transport to the moon while minimizing cost and development time. Putting the crew on the CaLV and using only one launch will decrease safety and decrease cargo to the moon by over ten tons (which will still be about the same as the Apollo mission). The CaLV is designed to provide about 125 metric tons to low Earth orbit (LEO) in order to support the future mission to Mars.
The lunar missions will have the capability of landing anywhere on the moon (which is better than Apollo's equator-only). The CEV will remain in lunar orbit while all 4 crew members go down to the lunar surface. The lunar descent rockets will be liquod oxygen and hydrogen powered, while the lunar ascent rockets will use liquid oxygen and methane (This will allow the development of in-situ propulsion production first on the later lunar missions and ultimately on the Martian missions, where fuel will need to be produced on Mars to reduce mission mass. Lunar gravity is minimal, so in situ resource production is not needed, but Martian gravity is significant and will require large amounts of fuel to leave the planet's surface.). Even during the first sortie lunar missions, all four crew members will be able to explore the lunar surface and for a longer time than during Apollo. The later lunar missions that establish a permanent base will use either a dedicated lunar cargo craft or will slowly build up lunar base components brought the moon along with the crew.
This is where I got all this stuff.
This information is up to date.
Yes, it was--in 1969.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
They should bring back the Saturn V rocket. That could lift all the junk the ISS needs in one or two shots. It is the monster truck of rockets - so far at least.
Look we appreciate the PR blurb here, Mr. Deutsch. But like we told you this morning--YOU DO NOT WORK FOR US ANYMORE!
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
it stands a real chance of going beyond that. Once we have a true heavy lift capacity (that we lost with nixon killing Saturn V), we should be capable of building on the moon. I suspect that at that point, many companies will want to build small pieces that can be used. Consider what happens if L-Mart loses the CEV to Gru/Boe bidders. They will probably build the CEV that they wanted in the first place and offer it to private enterprise. Almost certainly, private enterprise will like the idea of going to the moon to explore mining (even though the legality still needs to be considered). The initial LMart design is superior to what NASA wants now. NASA is simply saying that they want something that is a known.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
My statement is true. Sure, it sounds like a PR blurb, but I'm basing it on the results of the study that I linked to. The study uses standard cost-estimate techniques and is based on sound data. Now, personally, I think that T/Space's plan is much more cost effective (and therefore more desireable, since it could allow for like 10 times as many missions for the same cost, but most likely would have same missions but less cost), but my statement was contrasting NASA's current plan with the Shuttle and Apollo missions.
Simply using a top-mounted capsule design with a launch abort system (the little rocket that you see atop the Apollo capsule during launch) provides at least ten times the launch safety of the shuttle. The overall cost of the lunar program will be much less than what the Apollo program cost (because of less need for new R&D and significant advances over the last three decades in productivity and technology), according to Figure 12-4 found in the Cost Evaluation section of the NASA report. The lunar program is designed to have greater capability than the Apollo program (for instance, longer lunar surface duration and larger crew, not to mention the moon base). All along the design process, the future Mars mission is in mind during the design of propulsion, the CEV capsule, the heavy lift (125 ton to LEO) CaLV rocket, and other system components. This allows the same infrastructure to be used for the Mars missions, thus reducing costs and increasing confidence and understanding of the Mars mission components. By ensuring that only minor changes are needed for the most important components of the different missions, safety is enhanced and R&D expense is reduced (i.e. you don't need to reinvent the wheel... or, say, a space wrench).
NASA is learning a lesson from the Russians here. Soyuz rides on mostly the same basic rocket design as the first ICBM and the artificial satellite (Sputnik), which is largely why the Soyuz is so cheap and reliable (it's the most mature launch system by far). (BTW, isn't that weird that the first stages of the only manned rocket system in regular service today is based on a rocket design that has been launched for almost 50 years?)
The HST!! When will they realize that this piece of crap is only good at taking useless nice-looking colourful pictures and throw this money hungry telescope in the Pacific.
And no, the next "See, the HST made us discover something that we couldn't have discovered without it" Slashdot article won't change my mind.
Dump the muthafucka in the Pacific ocean, now!
You just got troll'd!
http://www.fas.org/ has a good summary of various cannon launched concepts at http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/05/980500-bull.h tm
The most likely concepts are 2+ stage rockets, using the cannon (railgun, conventional, etc.) for primary acceleration. Yes, a large amount of energy is lost to frictional heating as soon as the rocket leaves the barrel, which is why it is essential to place the gun at a high altitude and appropriate launch angle.
The economic advantage of this method is it reduces the amount of fuel the vehicle has to carry by delegating the initial acceleration to ground-based resources. At the very least you could get rid of the SRB's, which weigh 589,000 Kg each, and possibly the EFT as well. That's over 1.9 million kg you do not need to launch.
That has nothing to do with this. The Shuttle has been sucking the wind out of NASA's sails for decades. It was designed by committee to please Congress.... so what would you expect? NASA will be much better off when the shuttle is finally scapped, assuming that they can avoid micromanagement by Congress, the President and the Military long enough to design something to replace it that will actually work. (I am not holding my breath.)
For every problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious and wrong.
I actually don't mind the space science is getting cut, if it means getting the CEV up in time for STS retirement. The problem I have is it's being cut to cover "overruns" in the CEV. Really, the Shuttle isn't at fault here... you have to do X number of Shuttle missions before retirement, any way you slice it, so it's not really something you can adjust much in terms of funding. I'm more annoyed that the CEV is costing too much, or perhaps, being forced out the door too quickly.
I also don't like WHERE the cuts are going in space science. I'm actually okay with Dawn getting canned (although not officially yet); it was costing too much and its more of a "nice to have" mission than something that you'd want to prioritize. But Space Interferometry Mission? Terrrestial Planet Finder? Europe Orbiter? Mars Telecommunications Orbiter? These are the top things that SHOULD be on the space sicence agenda, along with James Webb Telescope, Messenger, and New Horizons, as well as continued support for existing probes. If there's not enough money for that, then I think it's the CEV that should "give", not space science.
I hope the unfunded projects simply get delayed 2-5 years, rather than killed completely. They're all projects we NEED to do at some point.
Bruce
What chaps my hide the most is the loss of the Terrestrial Planet Finder. That's the one project with the biggest potential to change the whole way we look at the universe and our place in it. It could be the biggest thing since Galileo pointed his telescope at the planets and discovered they were worlds, they were places, not just specks of light.
Can you think of anything that would light up the public's imagination, and interest in space exploration, more than finding Earth-like planets? Even if we didn't have any clear idea how to reach them, just knowing they exist would be huge.
If I were calling the shots, we would fly one more mission with the existing shuttle -- to service Hubble -- and then pack the shuttles off to museums. This whole mad scramble to update the shuttle and make it safe to fly, just when we are on the verge of retiring it, is ridiculous.
As for ISS, I say let's put it in mothballs until the CEV is ready -- and then restart ISS only if we can figure out what we're really going to use it for. Yeah, I know we have international agreements involving the ISS. We can re-negotiate them. Our partners have to realize the old plan no longer makes sense, if it ever did.
The heatshield, however, is a minimal problem. Try designing accelerator armatures which can both provide thrust and withstand the repeated internal flexure, induction heating, shockwave, friction etc of multi-tonne loads whizzing past every few hours. And then design the generator and control systems to drive a set of them.
Big, fat, hairy deal. It's still an order of magnitude cheaper than the Shuttle.
Better yet, actually fund all of the small alternate-energy projects. Completely funding all of them, even including the complete whackoes, would cost less than one tenth of a Shuttle mission and if just one of them turns out to be right we can use the mother of all ion thrusters for the second and succeeding stages, at an efficiency level two orders of magnitude better than any chemical rocket ever invented.
There's an interesting post over on Clark Lindsay's RLV and Space Transport News, part of which I've pasted below:
d =894
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemi
* Florida Today points out that "In the past three years, Congress has given the [Shuttle] program $13 billion, and all that money has resulted in just two flights". Sword of Damocles: NASA must safely launch the space shuttles this year, or the program wont survive - Florida Today - Feb.5.06.
To put that into perspective:
* Elon Musk has spent about $100M so far on developing the line of SpaceX Falcon launchers. The first Falcon 9 launch is scheduled for 2007. He hasn't said how much more money it will take to reach that launch but I doubt it could be more than another $100M.
* Kistler says it needs a few hundred million dollars to finish its fully reusable two stage K-1 vehicle.
* T/Space said it can build a CEV system capable of taking crews and cargo to the ISS for around $500M.
* LockMart once promised to build the VentureStar for $6B. If they had a 100% overrun that would still be less than $13B.
My boss is such a child. :)
Back at ya dude.
((((DO SOMETHING!) SMALL) USEFUL)NOW!)
Yes, I agree, the Shuttle-C is a nice idea. I say go for Shuttle-C right now, or then just buy services from the Russians and re-succitate Energia. Buying from the Russians would be kind of a cultural embarrasament though.
Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
Whoa whoa whoa... we went BACK to the moon in 1969? I KNEW it! Lincoln had a secret space program! They all called me crazy, but I KNEW that talking milk shake came from SOMEWHERE!
Mars Direct could bootstrap colonization in the near term. Living & working in space is, yes, not very fruitful. Colonizing another planet is. But, as a glorious Langley Research Center paycheck has little to do with putting humans in space and on other planets, people like you will continue to argue against manned exploration, claiming it's not "real science". I am of the opinion that there comes a time to put information into action. That is to say... Science is good, but I think we have enough to really DO something with. And we can do it Now.