Slashdot Mirror
Astronaut Group Endorses Commercial Spaceflight
FleaPlus writes "Buzz Aldrin and twelve other astronauts have published a joint endorsement of commercial human spaceflight, stating that 'while it's completely appropriate for NASA to continue developing systems and the new technologies necessary to take crews farther out into our solar system, [the astronauts] believe that the commercial sector is fully capable of safely handling the critical task of low-Earth-orbit human transportation.' They are confident that commercial systems (which NASA already relies on for launching multibillion-dollar science payloads) can provide a level of safety equal to the Russian Soyuz and higher than the Space Shuttle, while strengthening US economic competitiveness. They also support the expected endorsement of the White House's Augustine Commission regarding NASA's use of commercial spaceflight — the Commission's final report will be released today." And here's the Augustine report itself (PDF).
Is the link to the Augustine report expected to be a joke ? It appears to be a link to Windows 7 from here.
"the commercial sector is fully capable of safely handling the critical task of low-Earth-orbit human transportation"
Well it's not rocket science, is it?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Perhaps Buzz hopes that the people shot into space will take pictures of the aliens with their camera phones?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This will not go over well in Huntsville. In fact, it already hasn't.
"Republican Senator Richard Shelby launched a preemptive strike on President Barack Obama's blue ribbon space panel ther day before its due to release its final report, calling the committee's findings "worthless." Shelby, a staunch defender of NASA's Marshal Space Flight Center In Huntsville, Alabama, said in a Senate floor speech that the committee failed to consider safety when it ranked various rocket options for the White House to consider. "Without an honest and thorough examination of the safety and reliability aspects of the various designs and options for manned space flight, the findings of this report are worthless," said Shelby."
Senator Shelby, obviously a noted rocket expert, contradicts former Shuttle astronauts Sally Ride and Leroy Chiao. Undoubtedly he astronaut safety at every step of the process with little regard to politics while they as former astronauts were completely unconcerned with it.
Speaking of unconcerned, apparently President Obama is exactly that in regards to NASA. New NASA Administrator Charles Bolden hopes to meet with Obama before end of year on agency future.
On top of all of that, it seems that Altair, the lunar lander from the Constellation project has been defunded.
In polls, a huge percent of the American people support the space program. It costs each of us around 7 cents a day. I think most people would be willing to pay that, to have a human space flight program.
Way off...bear with me here U.S. population appx 300,000,000 x Percentage of population who pay taxes 55 /day.
gives us 165,000,000 taxpayers
the NASA budget is $17,600,000,000 / yr, divided between those taxpayers yeilds roughly %106/yr, or roughly 30 cents
Did I miss something?
0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
They don't want their rockets to go *BOOM* any more than NASA does. Perhaps even less so, since they may be financially liable.
ol dick would NEVER put jobs ahead of NASA lives. Nah. Never. hehehehehehehe
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Commercial spaceflights ? Call me old fashioned (and it won't be the first time) but I'll take a ultracapacitor-powered bus, thank you.
For some reason the link for the Augustine Report seems to be going to a download for Windows 7 (Huh?!?), so here's the actual link (mirror).
Here's the main report findings from the PDF:
Summary of Principal Findings
The Committee summarizes its principal findings below. Additional findings are included in the body of the report.
The right mission and the right size: NASA's budget should match its mission and goals. Further, NASA should be given the ability to shape its organization and infrastructure accordingly, while maintaining facilities deemed to be of national importance.
International partnerships: The U.S. can lead a bold new international effort in the human exploration of space. If international partners are actively engaged, including on the "critical path" to success, there could be substantial benefits to foreign relations and more overall resources could become available to the human spaceflight program.
Short-term Space Shuttle planning: The remaining Shuttle manifest should be flown in a safe and prudent manner without undue schedule pressure. This manifest will likely extend operation into the second quarter of FY 2011. It is important to budget for this likelihood.
The human-spaceflight gap: Under current conditions, the gap in U.S. ability to launch astronauts into space will stretch to at least seven years. The Committee did not identify any credible approach employing new capabilities that could shorten the gap to less than six years. The only way to significantly close the gap is to extend the life of the Shuttle Program.
Extending the International Space Station: The return on investment to both the United States and our international partners would be significantly enhanced by an extension of the life of the ISS. A decision not to extend its operation would significantly impair U.S. ability to develop and lead future international spaceflight partnerships.
Heavy lift: A heavy-lift launch capability to low-Earth orbit, combined with the ability to inject heavy payloads away from the Earth, is beneficial to exploration. It will also be useful to the national security space and scientific communities. The Committee reviewed: the Ares family of launchers; Shuttle-derived vehicles; and launchers derived from the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle family. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, trading capability, life-cycle costs, maturity, operational complexity and the "way of doing business" within the program and NASA.
Commercial launch of crew to low-Earth orbit: Commercial services to deliver crew to low-Earth orbit are within reach. While this presents some risk, it could provide an earlier capability at lower initial and life-cycle costs than government could achieve. A new competition with adequate incentives to perform this service should be open to all U.S. aerospace companies. This would allow NASA to focus on more challenging roles, including human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit based on the continued development of the current or modified Orion spacecraft.
Technology development for exploration and commercial space: Investment in a well-designed and adequately funded space technology program is critical to enable progress in exploration. Exploration strategies can proceed more readily and economically if the requisite technology has been developed in advance. This investment will also benefit robotic exploration, the U.S. commercial space industry, the academic community and other U.S. government users.
Pathways to Mars: Mars is the ultimate destination for human exploration of the inner solar system; but it is not the best first destination. Visiting the "Moon First" and following the "Flexible Path" are both viable exploration strategies. The two are not necessarily mutual
...commercial spaceflight sector can provide a level of safety equal to that offered by the venerable Russian Soyuz system, which has flown safely for the last 38 years, and exceeding that of the Space Shuttle.
So the astronauts are saying that Soyuz is safer than the shuttle. Interesting.
... to a door opening.
Look at the bright side. If space debris becomes such a big problem someone is bound to start a company to try making money cleaning it. A kind of space janitor if you will.
Mada mada dane.
Yeah, it's going to be just like how some people today are making significant amounts of money cleaning the Great Pacific Garbage Patch...
Oh if only I had mod points. Larson hit the nail on the head with this one. Chemical rockets really do have a law of diminishing returns when it comes to cost vs. payload size. If we don't start moving to smaller, mass production type launch capability America's space program is going to stagnate more so than it already has (40 year moon anniversary anyone?).
That being said, let's hope some of the decision makers make a point to read slashdot and comments like this one...
Also, three cheers for the commercial space programs. SpaceX, I think you should lead the industry in a group hug =)
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
I agree. The claim that heavy-lift is truly necessary is somewhat hard for me to buy, although my suspicion is that suggesting otherwise would just be too big of a mindset change for NASA to handle. If they do have a heavy-lift system, I do hope they pick the EELV-derived heavy-lift, even if it'll be nigh-impossible politically -- congressmen have already started defensive maneuvers to try to protect the status quo. The main benefit of an EELV-derived system is that it minimizes the amount of specialized infrastructure you'd have to maintain, and since the EELV infrastructure is used for many medium-lift commercial launches you also wouldn't have to maintain a standing army of personnel specifically for the heavy-lift launcher. If it does indeed turn out that heavy-lift is unnecessary, you can simply scale back the number of heavy-lift launches; with the shuttle-derived heavy-lift, you have the pay the standing support army (the biggest part of the lifecycle cost) no matter how many launches you actually have.
My understanding is that debris in LEO isn't so much of an issue because it's orbit will decay relatively quickly and it will then burn up on reentry. It is also much easier to track.
If we get a major debris problem in GEO though then afaict that would be a huge problem.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
The US is obligated by treaty to minimize space debris, so yes - private industry has been concerned about launch debris and has been for years, lest they not get a launch permit.
You do know that less than half of the launches in the US annually are government launches, and less than half of those are NASA launches?
A kind of space janitor if you will.
This can only be a good thing. We're going to need all the space janitors we can get in case the Sariens attack.
Pilots endorse commercial flights, surgeons endorse non-scientific surgeries, taxi drivers endorse commercial transportation by car.
What's the big deal?
A profitable industry to set up would be profitable because capturing the debris would enable reuse of rocket engines that would normally have to be fished out of the oceans, or be destroyed upon reentry.
Plus this industry could lead technology to cheaper means that stop asteroids and comets from damaging the earth.
Keeping the orbits clear would be high priority for any long term company
They could be liable for damages caused by their derbies, which would offer extra incentive to the industry.
And I am sure some of us hope that a "Cash for Space Clunkers" would be absent from the industries, since NASA is reluctant to take responsibility.
The idea is for NASA to have a heavy launch and then do it at least once every 2 months, but better would be once a month. As to light to medium, that is what EELV, SpaceX, SS3, etc are doing. What is needed is for NASA to stimulate the space business so that commercial flights take off, which would ultimately lead to needing heavy launch needs. Obama/Dems/NASA HAVE the ability to do this stimulus with relatively LITTLE money. We will see if they will the right thing.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Interesting post in that we're going to have some data come in soon. Not only will rocket choice be a factor but the impacter on the moon may reveal whether "Destination Moon" is worth it or whether it's as dry as a bone up there.
And since space is basically a public area - that is, not owned by anyone - guess who's going to be paying that company? Monopoly rates with no requirements for results, of course.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Companies don't want their air and water polluted any more than anyone else. And yet they still pollute whenever they can get away with it. If someone can make a quick buck by externalising environmental costs (that's marketese for ignoring their responsibilities), they will. They will even pay for laws to better enable this externalisation.
Remember that many big CEOs aren't looking further than a few quarters into the future. If they can make a huge killing (pun intended) and then get the hell out with their bonuses and stock options and golden parachutes and whatever the hell else before the shit hits the fan, they will. The financial crisis is evidence of that. How many of the people responsible for that mess paid the price for their greed and incompetence? And how many of them are still getting huge salaries and bonuses, and government bailouts, and stock options, and the pick of high-paid directorships, and cushy jobs in QANGOes? They can get away with it, so they will do it, and those few of them in possession of a functioning conscience will dream up some twisted, Rayndian justification that allows them to sleep soundly at night.
How much do you think they care, or even acknowledge, that they fucked over millions of others, causing homelessness and poverty and misery and suicide?
Do you really think some big-shot new CEO couldn't waltz into the top job at Launch-U-Like and cut out all the Kessler-syndrome-costs (ignoring the objections of their engineers) and enjoy massive profits for 18 months, and then fuck off to screw up some other company in an unrelated industry, while LEO turns into a giant pinball-multiball arena? They won't care about the spacecraft falling out of the sky because they will be able to afford gold-plated, diamond-encrusted concrete umbrellas to hide beneath.
I'm all angry now. Sometimes I wish I was ignorant enough to not know or care about things I cannot change.
Do you really think some big-shot new CEO couldn't waltz into the top job at Launch-U-Like and cut out all the Kessler-syndrome-costs (ignoring the objections of their engineers) and enjoy massive profits for 18 months, and then fuck off to screw up some other company in an unrelated industry, while LEO turns into a giant pinball-multiball arena? They won't care about the spacecraft falling out of the sky because they will be able to afford gold-plated, diamond-encrusted concrete umbrellas to hide beneath.
There's no money for that kind of game. The people in space launch right now either launch mostly at the behest of the US government or they are losing money. This big shot CEO wouldn't be interested.
Heh, there are approximately 19,000 bits of junk *larger* than 10cm in orbit at present, with most of that being in LEO. I don't see all that "burning up" all that quickly.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40173
I don't think they can track things smaller than 10cm (about 4 inches). Even something 1 inch across is going to hurt when travelling at 17,000 mph. This is already a massive problem despite the vast scale of space.
The people in space launch right now
You win the prize for Biggest Failure to Think Ahead.
Who cares about what the situation is right now, when commerical launch is a small business with solely government clients. Look forward 25 years, when commerical launch is a big business catering primarily to rich tourists.
"Higher profits today at the cost of abject failure tomorrow" is business as usual for human beings. Governments--being made out of human beings, just like corporations--are subject to this phenomenon as well, but with a different definition of "profit." Since things like prestige loom larger for the human beings in government, poluting the orbital commons is a bit of a big deal for them. For the virtually identical human beings who run companies... not so much.
Your claim is like someone saying, "There's no way banks would ever loan hundreds of billions to bad creditors." That's true, until some clever dick figured out how to secuitize all that junk paper based on bogus statistical models that weren't scrutinized too closely because,hey, we're getting rich off it!
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
My view is that we already know how to do this. Law and enforcement of law. Plus, even if the government agencies and CEOs acted properly, you'd still need a means for cleaning up orbits since collisions would still occur. Rather than obsessing over the actions of future CEOs (who we already know how to deal with), we should consider how to remove debris from orbit now since that is the real unsolved problem in this particular dilemma.
I'd love to have a checkbox on my tax return that said: "I hereby direct that ( ) 5% ( ) 10% ( ) 100% of my taxes be used for NASA."
If you could guarantee that it would be added to the NASA budget and not just be used to shuffle money around, I'd even let them keep my refund.
I void warranties.
Private space launch companies would like to treat space debris as an externality, and they will if given a chance.
While it could be true that Orrin Hatch forced construction in Utah, I tend to doubt it. I think it's much more likely that the infrastructure to produce huge rocket motors is mostly concentrated with Thiokol, and their plant happens to be in Utah. You could build such motors in Florida... but you'd have to build a new rocket motor factory there first, which would be a pretty big cost.
... and I think it supports my theory as well as it does yours. The Mississippi facility isn't built yet, so you'd have all the costs associated with building a new factory. The Thiokol facility is already more or less paid for. Sure, Orrin Hatch probably went to some effort to retain the work, but don't forget that Mississippi has senators too.
Space Debris was not created by humans exiting the atmosphere. Volcanic eruptions, meteors, and other natural phenomena have launched 'space debris' for eons. Really, private industry has a larger business incentive to avoid creating space garbage than government institutions. While the government/bureaucracy has to deal with the political price of not running into exta-planetary shit, private space companies will spend money learning to avoid said shit because they have a bottom line. Will there be an Exxon-Mobile of private space exploration? Yes. Will the 'public', government run space programs make the technological advancements to ship oil across the north atlantic, or launch profitable payloads to low orbit without incident? No. Private industry, with all of its ethical and social sufferings, will probably do it more efficiently than public industry, with all of its ethical and social sufferings, add on growing bureaucracy.
Koalas. They're telepathic. Plus, they control the weather. -Margaret