Slashdot Mirror


Cool NASA Tech That Will Never See Space

coondoggie writes to tell us that with the "new and improved" NASA budget on the way it looks like many of the cool projects NASA has in the works will never see the light of day, let alone space. The biggest cut looks to be the Ares heavy lift rocket but other cuts include a new composite spacecraft, deep space network, inflatable lunar habitat, and an electric moon-buggie.

38 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. NASA needs more budget. by hayd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget. It's the idiotic short-sighted quick-profit thinking again. We are draining Earth resources and should try to expand to space. If it wasn't for NASA we wouldn't ever have visited or learned so much more about Earth. This way we never get intergalactic flights nor can live on other planets.

    1. Re:NASA needs more budget. by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe NASA could sell or license some of this "cool tech" to private industry. The private sector would have more to work with and the space agency would get more money for the projects they are left to focus on. And maybe some of the specialists at NASA could fork their own companies with the technology, keeping more people employed.

      Maybe they already do this. But the tone of the post makes it sound like they don't.

    2. Re:NASA needs more budget. by sznupi · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...If it wasn't for NASA we wouldn't ever have visited or learned so much more about Earth....

      Hmmm...
      1st object in space - Germany
      1st Earth satellite - Soviet Union
      1st human in orbit - Soviet Union
      1st photograph of far side of the Moon - Soviet Union
      1st landing on the Moon - Soviet Union
      1st rover on another body - Soviet Union
      1st large biological specimens outside LEO (around the Moon, in a Zond version of Soyuz...turtles ;p ) and brought back safely - Soviet Union
      1st landing on Venus - Soviet Union
      1st landing on Mars - Soviet Union
      1st space station - Soviet Union (BTW, the Russian part of ISS was supposed to be called "Mir 2")

      And so on. In the meantime Europe could afford to play the game and they ended up being the biggest, I think, commercial launch operator(?). Or of the biggest anyway. With their ATV they are a small step from having manned spaceflight capability. China has one already, India is working on it, Japan has some plans too, and all are quite active in Solar System exploration. Plus you have private companies.

      I think we'll be fine

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    3. Re:NASA needs more budget. by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Are you sure that if it wasn't for NASA, we wouldn't ever have visited Earth?

    4. Re:NASA needs more budget. by Tumbleweed · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm kinda concerned about Weyland-Yutani's business practices though

      I dunno, their motto isn't all bad: "Do no evil. On Earth."

    5. Re:NASA needs more budget. by qmetaball · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's all well and good you see, but it was the competition with the US that drove them to do those things, it was called the "space race" for a reason.

      --
      Everything is porn to somebody.
    6. Re:NASA needs more budget. by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, Mr Checkov, you are mistaken. The Soviets neither landed on nor put a rover on the moon before the US (we landed manned moon buggies), and the Germans weren't the first to put an object in space, that was in fact the Soviets. The US went to the edge of space with the X-15 plane, but the Soviets beat us (and the Germans) to space proper.

      The Soviets also put the first satellite in space.

      "Interesting" would have been an accurate mod, but informative it was not. More like misinformative.

    7. Re:NASA needs more budget. by confused+one · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The German V-2 was capable of reaching space in a vertical launch with a light payload. Whether any ever did or not is not clear. The many thousands that were launched were generally not vertically launched.

    8. Re:NASA needs more budget. by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >It's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget. It's the idiotic short-sighted quick-profit thinking again.

      How come Bush's promises of massive explorations with no funding backing isnt stupid, but when Obama has to clean up Bush's mistakes and bring Bush's BS promises to a real budget, then suddenly he's the bad guy?

    9. Re:NASA needs more budget. by jbezorg · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Soviets also put the first satellite in space.

      But they didn't put "the first object in space". The first "Man made object in space" by all official records is the German V2 Rocket test number V-4 made on 3 October 1942.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_V-2_test_launches

      As for the rest of your facts, I would suggest you check them. They may or may not be correct but I'm short on time to fact check them all.

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    10. Re:NASA needs more budget. by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People often forget that there are other history books being written in other languages and in other countries, and they emphasize slightly different achievements.

      In North America, you've got to be a history or space buff to know this stuff. Or a commie!

    11. Re:NASA needs more budget. by Morty · · Score: 3, Informative

      Technology transfer of NASA tech to private industry already happens. Google "NASA commercialization" and "NASA technology transfer" for more info. For example, here is the NASA spinoff homepage.

    12. Re:NASA needs more budget. by Keebler71 · · Score: 3, Informative
      1st landing on Mars - Soviet Union

      Hmm... if you count operating for 20 seconds a successful landing... then maybe... not very useful though.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    13. Re:NASA needs more budget. by blueturffan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Russians put Luna 2 on the moon 10 years before Apollo 11

      True, but highly misleading. You're comparing a high speed impact of an unmanned object (Luna 2), with a soft landing of a manned ship that later took off and returned to Earth (Apollo 11).

      That the Russians were ahead of the USA in space exploration in the late 50's and early 60's is a matter of historical record. Luna 2 predated the USA's Ranger 4 impact by ~3 years. The USA made great strides to catch up and both countries first soft-landed a ship in 1966, (Luna 13 / Surveyor 1).

      In the history of the world, only 12 humans have ever walked on the moon and all were Americans.

    14. Re:NASA needs more budget. by Keebler71 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because the original Exploration plan *did* close within the current budget. Cost growth and schedule delays made it grow beyond the budget. Also, Obama isn't cancelling the program to save money... he is cancelling the program so that those funds can be used for *other* things closer to his core agenda (namely earth observation and climate science missions).

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    15. Re:NASA needs more budget. by hey! · · Score: 3, Informative

      So? You still can't argue that NASA is not an enormous contributor to planetary science and remote sensing.

      Consider the Soviet Mars program. They sent three landers there over three years, and Russia is just getting around to following up on those. NASA has sent seven missions there over thirty years, very elaborate and sophisticated ones. The Viking lander was a scientific tour de force, and the US Mars Rover mission alone is a record breaker for sheer number of days in operation.

      On the other hand, the Soviet space program practically owned Venus, spent decades in a serious, extended effort to gather data there. That's a huge contribution to science, because Venus is hard, but very, very interesting due to its similarities and differences with/to Earth.

      As far as the Earth is concerned, I don't think there is any contest, science-wise. Not to denigrate Soviet contributions in engineering, but I don't think we can even begin to calculate the value of something like Landsat, or the other Earth Science oriented missions undertaken by NASA or with NASA playing a key part.

      A "punch list of firsts" approach is not a very good way to gauge the importance of a nation's space exploration program.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    16. Re:NASA needs more budget. by tezzer · · Score: 3, Informative

      NASA's budget is being increased by 6 billion dollars. They're canceling the Constellation program because it wasn't originally funded enough to ever work. The schedule has slipped so much there wasn't going to be a replacement for the Space Shuttle until 2038 or beyond. The director's statement is here: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420994main_2011_Budget_Administrator_Remarks.pdf

      --
      (Celui que tient la peur de devinir nuage)
    17. Re:NASA needs more budget. by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Informative

      >Because the original Exploration plan *did* close within the current budget. Cost growth and schedule delays made it grow beyond the budget.

      Those two statements contradict each other. NASA cant deliver this thing without an extra 3 billion a year for the next 8 or 9 years. The path to the moon is not sustainable and would only relive 1950s era achievements. Better off with robotics and earth science and building a role for private enterprise.

    18. Re:NASA needs more budget. by Stuntmonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's sad really and NASA is definitely who should get more budget.

      To be clear, NASA *is* getting more budget in the proposed plan. It's a matter of what the money will be spent on. This latest move is consistent with the findings of the Augustine commission last fall, which was that the program of returning to the moon had little chance of success by 2020 at current funding levels. If you accept that judgment and are actually looking for forward progress, then either you (a) increase the budget for manned spaceflight, or (b) change your goals. Political forces and the current economy make (a) impossible, so they're going with (b).

      A problem with NASA's manned spaceflight program is that the footprint is spread across some very influential states (e.g., TX and FL) and companies (Boeing etc.). All of the complaining in Congress about this proposal is simply about saving jobs and govt subsidy of their local economies. Truthfully a big part of why the Shuttle is such an expensive way to get stuff into orbit is the thousands of ground support personnel needed. The Congressional representatives from these states love expensive spaceflight, and will do what they can to protect it.

  2. Philosophically inclined geeks by aussersterne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    reflecting on how this kind of tragedy can happen, and how it relates to our very rational, ends-oriented world, should read Horkheimer and Adorno's (in)famous Dialectic of Enlightenment and its much heralded account of how the very nature of rational Enlightenment thinking carries the danger that we'll fail to enter into "a truly human state" as a world, instead descending into "a new age of barbarism" marked by things like anti-intellectual mass culture, multiplying high-tech wars, short-sighted exploitation, and other modern ills that appear to destroy society and the planet.

    It was written back during the Nazi+Emerging Cold War era, but it remains as relevant a warning today as ever.

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    1. Re:Philosophically inclined geeks by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Informative

      >The entire point of NASA is to get people in Space.

      That is not the organizations mission statement. You can make up crowd pleasing shit all your want, but that doesnt make it true. Here's the real mission statement, please note these are all doable without shoving meatbags on top of a rocket and having them play golf on the moon:

      " To improve life here, To extend life to there, To find life beyond.[10] "

      --NASA Mission Statement
      " NASA's mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.[11] "

      --NASA Mission
      " To understand and protect our home planet, To explore the Universe and search for life, and To inspire the next generation of explorers... as only NASA can.[10] "

      --NASA Vision

      In fact, I would argue that finding life beyond the solar system can only be done with robotics. Your meatbag body isnt going to handle a 100 year journey too well and even if it was possible it wouldnt be worth the cost.

  3. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With the cut of Ares and other international status seeking nonsense, NASA can concentrate on their roots of science, exploration, and aeronautics.

    1. Re:Good! by hazydave · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not quite. NASA's getting more money, not less. But they're not going to be spending it on things that will be served by free market resources in the near future. Thus, they will have more money for other projects, particularly actual research. Rather than building another 1960's style heavy lift rocket.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    2. Re:Good! by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 3, Informative

      Have you read the budget documents? They don't say that at all. Privatization only applies to LEO transport -- a well-known, well-defined task with clear profit potential and well-understood risks.

      The budget specifically states that its renewing a focus on developing fundamental technologies, something that was lacking in the past decades and the main reason Constellation was a dinosaur. The budget specifically lists some things like enabling technologies for heavy lift vehicles, improving RTGs for planetary exploration (we're about to run out of P238), in-situ resource utilization, lunar regolith factories, and in-space propulsion. There are increased budgets for planetary and earth science.

      This is NASA concentrating on its roots. NASA was in charge of getting people to LEO when that was new and challenging and unknown. NASA roots are doing the new hard things, with a focus on exploration.

  4. FY2011 NASA Budget by cyberfringe · · Score: 5, Informative

    An overview "Fact Sheet" on the proposed FY2011 budget for NASA has been published by the OMB at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_nasa/ The Constellation program is cancelled, and this could mean thousands of jobs lost in Florida, Alabama and Texas at the major human space flight centers. The savings from the cuts will be reinvested in new R&D for future exploration.

    --
    There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
  5. Re:Electric? by Jeng · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The inflatable structures are able to handle projectiles better than the stiff walled structures since they have some give to them and can disperse the energy across a larger area. The fact that they pack well is just bonus.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  6. What does this mean for manned exploration? by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The shuttle is retiring. There's no stopping that. No more external fuel tanks are being manufactured, the rest of the parts chain is shutting down. When the shuttle is gone, America loses manned access to space. And it appears we can't even manage to cobble together a bloody capsule to put atop a normal rocket. This leaves only Russia with manned space capabilities. (I don't know if the Chinese really have anything they'd consider flight-worthy right now.) The Indians and Japanese have their own programs but I don't see much happening in the near future.

    The Constellation program sounded like a real soup sandwich. Canceling it would be a good thing if it paved the way for something done right. But that's not happening. Every shuttle successor program we've ever looked at has ended in cancellation. Obviously, we have the technology to get into space but it looks like we don't have the organizational ability to make that sort of thing happen.

    You don't have to be much of a science fiction fan to appreciate the opportunities created by a serious presence in space. Even if we teleoperated everything from the ground, orbital power is a winner. Asteroid mining to prevent the destruction of our own environment down here is a winner. And human history has proven time and time again that opportunities can be opened up by endeavors and scientific discovery that we couldn't even begin to imagine at the outset.

    There's so much more we should be doing up there. The shuttle was just farting around in LEO. We should end it to do something better, not end it to abandon a manned presence in space. If we're not going to move forward up there, other nations will. And we will have ceded the high frontier.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:What does this mean for manned exploration? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >If we're not going to move forward up there, other nations will. And we will have ceded the high frontier.

      They'll go broke putting meatbags in space and learning the same lessons we have, while we're focused on robotic missions and investment into private enterprise, instead of a purely government approach.

      On top of that, the Mars mission is still on. While China or India attempts to put a meatbag on the moon, the US will most likely be on its way to Mars. The US isnt ceding anything, its just spending its money more wisely along with the "trophy" of Mars. Turns out Bush's incompetence wasnt limited to just economies and wars, but to also signing checks his ass couldnt cash.

      Funny how the "fiscally responsible" Republicans want my tax dollars to keep subsidizing useless jobs in Florida and Texas and keep a runaway project like Constellation going to the tune of an extra 3 billion a year in cost overruns! Dont confuse the politics of pork with space exploration. Meatbags are too expensive to ship around all the time and moon base fantasies turn out to be too expensive in real life.

    2. Re:What does this mean for manned exploration? by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Science is made by meatbags. Scientists are meatbags that don't hope to earn much money or fame (save for the very few that get a Nobel prize). No, our motivation is the science and the great things it can do for humankind. Specifically, my research is related to technology that can potentially be used on spacecraft/deep space probes. But if I knew it will only be used so that a rich banker can go to LEO, fuck it, I can go back to a job in industry and make about twice the money I make now. I can easily imagine that manned exploration of the Moon and Mars would similarly invigorate and inspire tens of thousands of US scientists, not to mention the other people involved, and the american public in general. The american nation could again have a big, common dream that transcends their short existence.

      The Moon is very important because we can learn how to survive there, and then use that experience ans science to build a base on Mars. Yes, the Moon is in many ways harsher than Mars, but as far as things we can learn, it is still very useful, and the proximity of Earth is very useful in case of unexpected problems. Besides, if Constellation is out, Mars is out, too. It's *not* on.

      Finally, I'd like to emphasize the need for manned exploration of Mars and other remote objects, as radio-delay makes robotic probes severely crippled to the point of being useless, compared to humans. A human can find ways to dislodge a stuck wheel, for one thing.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  7. That's disappointing, but... by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If I made more money, I'd probably have a set of new golf clubs on my wish list for this spring. As it is, I don't have an unlimited budget, and there are other priorities which are higher, such as food, healthcare, and DirecTV. I mention that last one intentionally, by the way.

    You see I could do without DirecTV and save myself enough to get a new set of golf clubs every year. Thing is my wife an daughter really like the programming. They don't begrudge me my greens fees or my high power rocket purchases. Each of us gets something from the family budget, though perhaps not all we want. We simply don't have the unlimited funds for that.

    It's interesting what happens when you must have a balanced budget - certain choices have to be made.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  8. Re:thousands of jobs lost in Florida, Alabama and by huckamania · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unfortunately it is the whole country that loses in this case. I can remember well the day that Al Gore announced the shuttle replacement. The two finalists were a craft that had already been built and flight tested and another that existed as a powerpoint presentation that relied on technology that is still not feasible. The finalists that actually had built and tested their craft were passed over so that Bill and Al could provide a big fat payday to their wing nut allies in California.

    This from the party that always cries about Republicans some how manipulating science for their own nefarious purposes.

  9. Only point I'd like to make... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    is that the list of 'Soviet firsts' should really be 'captured German engineers working for the Soviets firsts'.

    And the later 'American firsts' ought to be 'captured German engineers working for the Americans firsts'.

    I can't think of any early space-flight that did not depend on lots of German know-how and support. Perhaps the British 'Black Knight' and 'Blue Streak' programs, which were pretty well entirely home-grown. But even they only did this because the Germans had shown that it could be done first....

  10. Stop spending so much on the military... by fantomas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US military is something like ten times larger than the next country's military spend for goodness sake. How about easing off on the military spend and using the money for peaceful exploration of space.

    Do you really need a military budget that big?

    1. Re:Stop spending so much on the military... by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, we do, so that we can control oil resources and help companies like Halliburton be very profitable. We've decided as a society that we don't care about future energy sources, and we're going to stick with oil no matter what, so we have to use a giant portion of our GDP to fund a military for the sole purpose of maintaining access to that oil. Later on, when other societies develop energy sources not involving oil (such as electric cars, better nuclear power, solar power, tidal power, etc.), we'll still be driving around in old gas-guzzling vehicles looking for food with a collapsed economy while nations like China, India, and Russia are leading the world in technology and space exploration, and have prosperous economies.

  11. Should have brought back the Saturn family by TheHawke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Through all the brouhaha, the doubletalk about missing blueprints and the expense of reviving older tech, it would have been far inexpensive to bring back a tried and trusted heavy lifter: The Saturn V. The Block 90 series was all set to loft the heaviest payloads to date, even the Ariane V would be hard pressed to match it.
    I would have loved to see the V fly with upgraded hardware and avionics. The instrument ring would have been deleted in place for a more compact INS module. The inner structure rebuilt with improved metals and engineering. The engines... Well, hell, how can you improve on a already perfect set of man-made earthquake makers? I can see a V lofting not one, but TWO full sized ISS modules with them stuffed to the gills with parts and supplies.

    Now we're stuck with a kiwi, not even classed a hangar queen.

    Talk about an embarrassment.

    --
    First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
  12. The myth of private industry by tjstork · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Like, I've pretty much had it up to here with this myth of "private industry" as the salvation of everything. Banks were private industry, and they screwed the pooch not once, but three times in the last 30 years, to the tune of multiple national, no, worldwide economic meltdowns, hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts, and for what? So we can have the pleasure of driving ourselves into the ground with more debt?

    By contrast, NASA put a man on the moon.

    I'm going NASA over private industry, any day of the week.

    --
    This is my sig.
  13. Yeah but lets put this into perspective. by tjstork · · Score: 4, Informative

    1st rendevous in space, USA
    1st multiple rendevous in space, USA
    1st practical spacewalk, USA
    Most landings on the moon, USA
    1st man to orbit the moon, USA
    1st man on the moon, USA
    1st probe to Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and soon Pluto, USA

    --
    This is my sig.
  14. Shuttle "Replacement" by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 3, Informative

    The history of the effort to develop a successor to the Shuttle is littered with cancelled projects, and test programs that were never part of a coherent technology development program. You appear to be referring to the DC-X, but in fact, the other finalist candidate for the X-33 test demonstrator program was not the DC-X, it was a winged-flyback rocket design from Rockwell, which hadn't been flown, either.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.