NASA Rejoins Space Race With Manned Deep Space Craft

Laura K. Cowan writes "NASA is back in the future-tech space race with a new manned deep space craft called the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, which aims to take astronauts on longer missions to deep space, eventually to planets such as Mars where only unmanned crafts have previously traveled. The MPCV holds 4 astronauts, is currently capable of 3-week missions, and not only could take mankind to new frontiers but is billed as being '10 times safer... than the current space shuttle.' Maybe there is hope for space travel outside the X Prize."

Comments

capable for 3 week missions

[Anonymous Coward]

Going to mars with a vehicle capable for 3 week missions is a bit of a stretch.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Look!

Let's retread Apollo Command and Service modules.

Yawn. I guess this IS a step forward, from doing nothing at all.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[h4rr4r]

So you want to replace something that works with something shinier?

Apollo did it right, the space shuttle can now hopefully be forgotten. Let us all remember the people go on top of the fiery bits, not next to them.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[Volante3192]

And what would you replace them with?

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[Brett Buck]

So, pray tell, Mr Space Expert, what big improvements would you have made? Nice simple capsule concept, with well-understood characteristics, and adequate for the job. Very similar to something that was close to an operational system and known to be nicely adaptable. Seems like a pretty good idea to me, but please, do wow us!

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[rhook]

Yep, the Space Shuttle existed only for the cold war. It was to let the Soviets know that we could put a nuke delivery system into space. The Soviets even made one of their own, complete with a launch system. The USSR collapsed before that program was ever completed but they did send it on one unmanned space flight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_(spacecraft)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6WHjQ3Y3Uo

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[kurt555gs]

Where should we start? We have to start at the end of Apollo because we wasted all that time and money with the useless shuttle.

Next, some one should come up with a rocket that has at least the lift capacity of the old Saturn V. None of the proposed launch vehicles even come close.

We have been out of the space business for a long time. We have to start somewhere, like where we left off.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[Anonymous Coward]

Space Nutters have no real concept of engineering and physical reality. They took all their engineering from Star Trek and add a bunch of romantic nonsense about "exploring"... "Deep space" and "three weeks" also don't really go together...

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[JWSmythe]

    I was excited by the story title, and depressed when I read the rest.

    We are at KSC for the STS-134 launch. While we were there, we toured the visitors center. You can look at the mockups of various capsules, and walk inside a cutaway of the STS orbiter. It was all exciting stuff, except when you consider their great Orion capsule.

    No offense to the astronauts who have, and may go up in the future. I'd have to believe you'd rather be in a bigger, better ship, than crammed into something smaller than a VW bug for a month in space. Come on, a capsule that size, for a month long mission? They can't even stand up. Well, stretch to full extension, since "up" doesn't exactly work, unless you're saying it relative to the floor of the capsule. :)

    Orion would be what I'd see as an emergency transport system. If all else fails, you can get someone up or down in one, but that's about it. Or as I was telling my girlfriend, "Look at the distance from the bottom of the seat, to the bottom of the capsule. I wouldn't want my ass that close to plasma burning away at the hull."

   

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[wxjones]

In an era where all space science is done by unmanned probes and robots, I think it says a lot that we are willing to preserve our heritage in manned space flight. These selfless men and women in their period costumes, devote their careers to re-enacting history, so that we can enjoy the spectacle. Very much like the royal family in the UK. I'm so happy that the US taxpayers are willing to spend billions of dollars each year to keep this history alive. It is almost as good as civil war re-enactments!

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[sconeu]

Next, some one should come up with a rocket that has at least the lift capacity of the old Saturn V. None of the proposed launch vehicles even come close.

Can someone in the know tell me what was wrong with Ares V (other than it was proposed by the previous Administration)? Ares 1 was a clusterfuck, but Ares V looked like a decent heavy lifter.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[sortius_nod]

Yeh, because what they've been using more than the shuttle is so much more advanced.

Funny thing is, THIS IS ROCKET SCIENCE. Stupid comments like this betray one's inability to understand why the shuttle was a REALLY bad idea.

If a shuttle has a bad launch, everyone dies. If a Soyuz has a bad launch, the command module ends up in Siberia. I know what I'd prefer to fly.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[sycodon]

There are no more engineers at NASA.

Just bureaucrats with technical degrees.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[RoFLKOPTr]

In an era where all space science is done by unmanned probes and robots, I think it says a lot that we are willing to preserve our heritage in manned space flight. These selfless men and women in their period costumes, devote their careers to re-enacting history, so that we can enjoy the spectacle. Very much like the royal family in the UK. I'm so happy that the US taxpayers are willing to spend billions of dollars each year to keep this history alive. It is almost as good as civil war re-enactments!

One day in the (hopefully) distant future, the human race will be forced by overpopulation to colonize other planets. If we don't spend any time developing ways to get PEOPLE into space, then that will never happen and we will all be fucked here on Earth.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[RoFLKOPTr]

If a Soyuz has a bad launch, the command module ends up in Siberia. I know what I'd prefer to fly.

The shuttle? I'd rather die than spend a day in Siberia.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[Strider-]

Nonsense... In my previous job, I worked with several excellent Engineering types from NASA. Aside from the backroom guys who build the equipment that flies, the Astronauts themselves are very much Engineers. Mario Runco, for example, was responsible for the design and testing of the large window that exists on the Destiny lab.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

X-Wings!

Really, how about any of the craft in Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odessey. He was working with Bob McCall and Willy Ley and all of that crew - who were tasked with imagining the post-Apollo vision of space exploration. The PanAm shuttle was eerily like the configuration of the Rockwell NASA shuttle...

But it were not to be...

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[rednip]

What do you want? A space liner with a lido deck? Bigelow space is working on an inflatable space habit, which I'm sure would be perfect for asteroid interception. However if you want real luxury, you'll need to wait another 10 - 100 years.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[Stoutlimb]

Historically war and famine have been much cheaper alternatives to overpopulation. For a more humane way, the Chinese seem to be doing fairly well.

I can't imagine any launch and colonization effort would come within several orders of magnitude for any form of affordability. There are plenty of very good reasons to colonize in space, but I can't imagine solving overpopulation as being one of them. Not with the current level of technology, or anything remotely feasible on the drawing board.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

To paraphrase Charles Bukowski, "What's it matter? A guy is an asshole on the Earth, he's still an asshole on the moon."

Change yourself.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[RoFLKOPTr]

Space travel is still in its very infancy. This is mostly due to the fact that it's only been explored by governments. In the last few years, though, private enterprise has taken a liking to it and I'm sure that very soon we will see an explosion (pun not intended) in new technologies and especially new efficiencies. When cars were still new, they were completely unaffordable to most everybody. When air travel was still new, it was completely unaffordable to most everybody. When computers were still new, they were completely unaffordable to most everybody. The major difference between those industries and space travel is that those industries were STARTED by private enterprise looking to make oodles of money so things progressed much faster.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[cratermoon]

It was OK, except it still ended up in the same obscenely expensive cost model for development that has plagued almost everything that involves continuing to work with the current batch of contractors -- Lockheed Martin and ATK (formerly Morton-Thiokol).

Another downside was the use of SSMEs -- an throwing them away every flight. Yes, there were proposals to replace them with modified RS-68 engines, but the redesign and NASA requirements for human-rating them (said requirements can be argued about, but that's another topic) would have raised the cost yet more.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[SETIGuy]

Like all of the Ares launch vehicles, it was primarily a welfare program for Alliant Techsystems (formerly Thiokol)

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[SETIGuy]

If a Soyuz has a bad launch, the command module ends up in Siberia.

There are phases of any launch that are unsurvivable if the worst case happens. It goes with the territory. The goal is to minimize them as much as possible. But we're going eventually lose a crew with another manned launch vehicle. Pretending that it won't happen makes the consequences on space exploration worse when it does.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[sconeu]

Ares V wasn't going to be man-rated. The Ares I was, and it would rendezvous with Ares V in orbit.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[cratermoon]

You're correct, Ares V was never intended to be a launcher for humans, but the changes to the RS-68 were still substantial, and there were discussions within NASA to man-rate the engine as part of the changes anyway. I also wonder how many changes would be required in the first stage core -- essentially a shuttle ET -- to work with the RS-68 vs. the SSME.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[dadelbunts]

No credit to Arthur C Clarke? You must have not read the books.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[bill_mcgonigle]

Next, some one should come up with a rocket that has at least the lift capacity of the old Saturn V. None of the proposed launch vehicles even come close.

Why do you need all that lift in one rocket? The Falcon 9 heavy can lift half of that for 1/3 the launch cost of 're-building' a Saturn V.

I guess you could save some money on not having to bolt stuff together in space, but for that kind of money saved on every launch I bet you could build a really neat space-bolting robot.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[JWSmythe]

    You know the Apollo module had a whopping interior volume of 210 cu/ft. The Orion is planned for approx 525 cu/ft.

    The crew cabin of the STS orbiter is 2325 cu/ft to 2625 cu/ft depending on the airlock configuration, and even more with an experiment module in the payload bay.

    For comparisons that you may know, a 40' bus (like a city bus or greyhound/MCI) is approximately 2400 cu/ft.

    A Ford Econoline e150 cargo volume is 230 cu/ft

    An average master bedroom is 1,800 cu/ft (15'x15'x8'). An average bedroom (not master) is about 960 cu/ft.

    The longest shuttle flight was STS-80 at 17 days, 15 hours, 53 minutes, with a crew of 5.

    So STS-80 crew had at least 465 cu/ft each (crew + supplies + flight gear), and flew for just over 17 days.

    The Orion module crew will have 131 cu/ft each (crew + supplies + flight gear), for at least a 21 day flight. Basically, 4 to 6 people in 56% of a single small bedroom (8.1x8.1x8), plus all the food, water, clothes, hygiene supplies. It'd get very crowded in there very quickly. It sounds far from ideal as our future of space travel.

   

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[wm2810]

Soviets had much better nuke delivery system in space (fractional orbit bombardment system - FOBS) than the Space Shuttle in 1960's. It was called R-36-O:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/r-36o.htm/
It was phased out in 1983 because depressed trajectory SLBMs were cheaper and better.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[Eunuchswear]

Spaceships made of paper usually have pretty amazing performance.

Making stuff out of other materials is harder, which is why NASA and the US have stopped doing it.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[Eunuchswear]

What on earth is a cu/ft? cu's per foot? ITYM cu.ft. or ft^3 (idiot stashdot wont let me write a superscript 3, not even ³ works).

Anyway, in real units:

You know the Apollo module had a whopping interior volume of 6m^3 The Orion is planned for approx 15m^3. [ a bit more than 2 x Apollo.]

        The crew cabin of the STS orbiter is 66 m^3 to 74 m^3 depending on the airlock configuration, and even more with an experiment module in the payload bay. [ Around 10 x Apollo CM.]

        For comparisons that you may know, a 12m bus (like a city bus or greyhound/MCI) is approximately 68 m^3, [ About the same as the STS orbiter.].

        A Ford Econoline e150 cargo volume is 6.5 m^3. [ About the same as Apollo CM. ]

        An average master bedroom is 51 m^3 (4.6m^3 x 4.6m^3 x 2.4m^3). An average bedroom (not master) is about 27m^3 .

        The longest shuttle flight was STS-80 at 17 days, 15 hours, 53 minutes, with a crew of 5.

        So STS-80 crew had at least 13m^3 each (crew + supplies + flight gear), and flew for just over 17 days. [ i.e. twice the volume of the Apollo CM each ]

        The Orion module crew will have 3.7 m^3 each (crew + supplies + flight gear), for at least a 21 day flight. Basically, 4 to 6 people in 56% of a single small bedroom, plus all the food, water, clothes, hygiene supplies. It'd get very crowded in there very quickly. It sounds far from ideal as our future of space travel

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[Eunuchswear]

One day in the (hopefully) distant future, the human race will be forced by overpopulation to colonize other planets.

It doesn't work.

At the moment we seem to have around 131 million births per year, 55 million deaths per year, so +76 million people per year.

So to reduce our population by emigration we need to put 76 million people per year into space.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[Maury Markowitz]

Oh geez, where to start? In no particular order:

1) re-entry and recovery systems should be part of a dedicated return stage, rather than part of the crew cabin.

2) the lifting body has extremely limited cross-range capabilities, so any orbit significantly outside that of a due-east launch from Kennedy presents a *serious* recovery infrastructure problem

3) the utility module is on the base on the vehicle stack, and it includes the de-orbit system. That means if you want to change the mission requirements (length of stay, etc) you have to build a different one. While that is *easier* in this case, given the history of NASA it is extremely unlikely the budget for this will ever appear (Aft Cargo Carrier, Shuttle-C, Advanced SRB, etc.)

4) For an extended duration single-launch mission, the system (AFAIK) does not have the ability to have a mission module docked on the front. That means that the design has to be used with a rear-mounted module and manoeuvre to it, or use multiple launches.

The Soviet-style launcher is the best solution in terms of throw weight. By isolating each mission into a separate "container" you have improved flexibility. They did not make much use of that (keeping the operating area when launching to Salyut for instance) but the idea remains sound. It is what they used on Apollo, for instance, except for the single module.

Re:capable for 3 week missions

[khallow]

Here's the problems as I see it with Ares V.

1) It was a bait and switch for the Ares I. The goal was supposedly the Ares V with 200 tons to LEO capability. But the development was staggered so that Ares I was worked on first (with first launch some point in 2012 or 2013). Then somewhere around 2016-2018, the first Ares V would lift. So Ares I development was funded instead of Ares V development at the start. And the Ares V had to survive numerous presidential administrations before it was first deployed.

1b) Because the Ares V was dependent on Ares I to complete first. Several years delay in Ares I meant a similar delay in Ares V.

2) It launched infrequently. NASA never talked about more than three launches a year of the Ares V. High fixed costs and low launch rate is a recipe for expensive launches.

3) There was never a serious consideration of commercial launch providers. For example, despite development delays, SpaceX may well come out with a 50 ton to LEO launch vehicle by beginning of 2013. That's within Ares I's original timeline. United Launch Alliance has two vehicle lines that could have been considered as well (and flying Ares I-class manned launches well before 2012, if NASA had paid the money).

Nor were alternatives to heavy lift considered such as propellant depots, orbital assembly, etc.

4) NASA never demonstrated a need for Ares V's capabilities. It was a another highly capable rocket, like as the Shuttle, without enough serious uses to justify itself.

At last!

[kurt555gs]

Back to real rockets, and rocketmen! (women also).

The sooner the Shuttles can be put on display in museums, the better.

Re:At last!

[stonedcat]

I think it's going to be a long long time..

Re:At last!

[Medevilae]

July isn't that far away...?

Re:At last!

[Anonymous Coward]

Woosh

Re:At last!

[Capsaicin]

July isn't that far away...?

No, but 1972 is.

Re:At last!

[Dzimas]

And all this science I don't understand
It's just my job five days a week

Re:At last!

[cyberchondriac]

I think it's going to be a long long time..

Besides, Mars ain't no place to raise your kids, in fact, it's cold as hell..

Believe it when its built

[jhoegl]

How many "concept art" drawings have we seen from NASA regarding anything deep space?

Stop talking about it and start doing it.

Re:Believe it when its built

[dmgxmichael]

Built hell. I'll believe when the sucker is launched... with a crew.

Re:Believe it when its built

[Anonymous Coward]

It's being built just a few miles from where I sit. NASA is just re-branding the Orion capsule, currently being manufactured in Lockheed-Martin's Denver facility. Nothing really new about it but the name.

Dissapointing

[socz]

Why do they insist on capsules? Why not take the advice of someone from FPA; build it at the space station and design it to refuel/load from there, eliminating the need to return to earth? We still have to get things up to the ISS, but that'll be left to the Russians and their superior rockets. We can take over 'space exploration' by just skipping that part. "Oh but what if they don't want to help us shuttle our crew/items up to the ISS one day?" No worries, Virgin and Japan/other countries are working on that! So we'll find one way or another to get to the ISS.

Re:Dissapointing

[countertrolling]

The continuation of the space station is very uncertain... unless it is converted to a military base

Re:Dissapointing

[Noughmad]

An AC three posts down from your answered it quite well:

Gotta keep the boys at Lockheed Martin in pork

I don't think there was much in the way of "campaign contributions" from Russians or Japanese.

Re:Dissapointing

[Wyatt Earp]

How can they "build it at the space station"? The ISS has no construction or testing hardware, everything you built at the ISS would have to be launched from Earth anyway.

Re:Dissapointing

[tyrione]

Why do they insist on capsules? Why not take the advice of someone from FPA; build it at the space station and design it to refuel/load from there, eliminating the need to return to earth? We still have to get things up to the ISS, but that'll be left to the Russians and their superior rockets. We can take over 'space exploration' by just skipping that part. "Oh but what if they don't want to help us shuttle our crew/items up to the ISS one day?" No worries, Virgin and Japan/other countries are working on that! So we'll find one way or another to get to the ISS.

We'd first have to actually build a large scale Space Port, not to mention more advanced large assembly equipment and space suit assembly equipment for the staff before we can pull a Star Trek.

Re:Dissapointing

[JWSmythe]

    Don't worry, there will be military bases up there. It'll happen shortly after private organizations make their own spacecraft for deep space travel.

    Consider what would happen if a private company found asteroids made of precious metals. Like, bringing home a metric-fuck-ton of gold would devalue the gold commodities market so much, it would be worth just about as much as fine grain silicon dioxide. You think these wars for oil are rough? They'd look like a little border skirmish compared to what they'd do to the people saturating the precious metals market.

Re:Dissapointing

[geekoid]

OK. Let's do that.

Re:Dissapointing

[caseih]

I don't know of anyone who's not insisting on capsules for manned flight. What else would you suggest?

Re:Dissapointing

[socz]

I agree. Why couldn't we? We don't need to build a huge 'space port,' we can build something that is sufficiently large enough to get it done. We can ship up parts and assemble while docked or in a 'port.' It'd be lego assembly easy.

@wyatt

Everything has to be sent up anyways, but why try to send anything up in its entirety every time? That's where the station could really shine!

Re:Dissapointing

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because it takes 2000 times longer to assemble things up there?

Re:Dissapointing

[HornWumpus]

Mass on orbit is worth more then gold on earth.

Gold would make good shielding.

Re:Dissapointing

[OctaviusIII]

Well I like the concepts in this thread: build a ship that stays in-orbit. Ship up fuel but not the beast itself. I can see problems, though: 1) Huge rockets yield huge thrust that grants the craft escape velocity; any spacecraft that remains on-orbit would need to perform sufficient thrust to push it out of our gravity well. 2) It would need to be cheaper to launch the fuel for the aforementioned thrust than just doing it all in one go with a capsule. Often, it's the fuel and not the spacecraft that makes up the bulk of the launch mass. Solar sailing or ion thrust, although obviating the need for much of the fuel shipments, adds significant cost in terms of time spent en route to a given destination. Gotta circle the globe for a month or so before you can go anywhere. 3) Maintenance would be a pain in the ass. The ISS functions reasonably well, but it isn't shuddering to life and blasting off to deep space every few months. Making a ship that's servicable on-orbit by a nonspecialized crew of 6 instead of thousands of techs could be exceedingly difficult.

Re:Dissapointing

[Macgyveric]

Why do they insist on capsules? Why not take the advice of someone from FPA; build it at the space station and design it to refuel/load from there, eliminating the need to return to earth? We still have to get things up to the ISS, but that'll be left to the Russians and their superior rockets. We can take over 'space exploration' by just skipping that part. "Oh but what if they don't want to help us shuttle our crew/items up to the ISS one day?" No worries, Virgin and Japan/other countries are working on that! So we'll find one way or another to get to the ISS.

I think for the same reason the Space Shuttle can't visit BOTH the Hubble Telescope and the Space Station in one trip is the same reason why you wouldn't ever have a ship from beyond low earth orbit return to dock at the Space Station...the necessary changes in velocity would require too much fuel. Picture this: the ISS is orbiting earth at 17,000 mph, while the Apollo craft had to reach speeds of 25,000 mph to go to the moon. You don't just get to slow down for free in space, so would you rather launch your rocket from earth to bring more mass (computers, moon buggies, test equipment, etc.) to your destination? Or would you rather use fuel as that mass so you can slow down from deep space to dock at the station?

Re:Dissapointing

[DerekLyons]

Why do they insist on capsules? Why not take the advice of someone from FPA; build it at the space station and design it to refuel/load from there, eliminating the need to return to earth?

Because that takes considerably more lift capacity, more life support capacity, more time, and is much higher risk. Not to mention that the ISS is in an orbit that is difficult to get to from the US (imposing a large cargo penalty) and not very good for getting to anywhere from (imposing yet more of a cargo penalty).
 

We still have to get things up to the ISS, but that'll be left to the Russians and their superior rockets.

If Russian rockets were superior, you'd have a point. But when it comes to reliability, they're in pretty much the same 98-99% ballpark as everyone else. (Including the Shuttle.)
 

"Oh but what if they don't want to help us shuttle our crew/items up to the ISS one day?" No worries, Virgin and Japan/other countries are working on that! So we'll find one way or another to get to the ISS.

Virgin is building a suborbital amusement park ride, not an orbiter. Japan is building an umanned cargo vessel, not a manner orbiter.

Re:Dissapointing

[VortexCortex]

Mass on orbit is worth more then gold on earth.

Unless it isn't. Then it's just dangerous space trash.

Gold would make good shielding.

I agree. It could be an important component in our fully automated solar powered self replicating asteroid farming robots...

Re:Dissapointing

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a chance, really. You're seriously underestimating the production volume of precious metals on Earth, if you think any conceivable spacecraft could bring enough of it in to make a dent in the prices. You're also vastly underestimating the effort it would take to mine an asteroid. Just developing and building the energy infrastructure required for refining ore in space is going to be a multi-decade endeavor if it ever happens. It could potentially be useful for something exceedingly rare, like some rare earth elements and platinum group metals, but generally if the element occurs naturally on Earth it will never be economically viable to bring it back from the outside.

Asteroid mining will most likely only be viable for in-space uses, such as building spacecraft and infrastructure in zero-g. Iron is particularly plentiful in asteroids, useful for building robust space stations and moon bases, and heinously expensive to launch from Earth but could be shipped cheaply if slowly across the solar system along "free-transfer" paths.

Re:Dissapointing

[john.r.strohm]

There's an outfit called SpaceX. They build a booster called the Falcon 9. They build a BMF version of it, called the Falcon 9 Heavy.

NASA recently took all the data on the Falcon 9, and shoveled it into their cost model system. Done as a NASA project, Falcon 9 estimates out at something like 7 billion dollars. Done as a Commercial project, with NASA supervision, it still costs out at 1.5 billion. The problem with those estimates is that SpaceX did the whole shebang for about 300 million.

When your cost model system says it will cost five times as much as it actually did, either your cost model system is utter bullstuff, or you've shoveled in a HUGE amount of gold-plating and featherbedding. Probably both.

Re:Dissapointing

[Anonymous Coward]

Building rockets that can escape earth's gravity is more than just space exploration, there are military uses for this technology and it helps justify the expenses.

Re:Dissapointing

[CrimsonAvenger]

Often, it's the fuel and not the spacecraft that makes up the bulk of the launch mass.

Often??

Actually, since mass ratio to reach LEO is about 10, it's fairly safe to say that fuel is "the bulk of the launch".

Hint: Mass ratio is the number you multiply the empty mass of a launch vehicle (or any other spacecraft) by to get mass with fuel. So typical launch vehicles are more than 90% fuel....

Re:Dissapointing

[The Grim Reefer2]

Not a chance, really. You're seriously underestimating the production volume of precious metals on Earth, if you think any conceivable spacecraft could bring enough of it in to make a dent in the prices. You're also vastly underestimating the effort it would take to mine an asteroid.

And you are seriously underestimating the volatility of the commodities markets. It really doesn't matter if a mission can bring back a lot of, say, gold. If a company brings back an ounce of gold, the market will go nuts over speculation alone. Not to mention the stock of the company that managed it spiking to insane levels (and probably going bankrupt 6 months later).

Also, the OP stated that bringing a metric-fuck-ton [sic] would be the threshold. As I'm not familiar with that unit, it very well could be double the amount of gold on the entire planet for all I know. It may even be the exact mass of Voga. ;-)

Re:Dissapointing

[Anonymous Coward]

Speed itself is not the problem. The problem is the orbital plane.

Think an orbit as ellipsis. You define it by the height of it's nearest point to earth, the height of it's furtherest point from earth, and the angle of this ellipsis with the equator plane.

Changing the first point is easy. You increase speed on the nearest point, the furtherest goes higher. You decrease speed, it goes lower. The same for changing speed at the furtherest point.

Now, changing the angle is TOUGH. Impractical. That's the reason a visit to ISS and Hubble is impossible is this: both orbits are in different angles. The ISS is actually in a more or less very strange orbit but it had to be in this angle because of Russian launch requirements. This is the same reason you can't go to the moon from the ISS. And I'm not sure you would use more fuel in a Hoffman orbit transfer between Moon and Earth than changing the orbit plane from the ISS.

Sorry for the bad English, I didn't speak it in a long long time.

Re:Dissapointing

[guybrush3pwood]

Building rockets that can escape earth's gravity is more than just space exploration, there are military uses for this technology and it helps justify the expenses.

Do you always need a military use for every conceivable piece of technology? You make me sick.

Re:Dissapointing

[DerekLyons]

When your cost model system says it will cost five times as much as it actually did, either your cost model system is utter bullstuff, or you've shoveled in a HUGE amount of gold-plating and featherbedding. Probably both.

You've forgotten that there are other options too. Maybe SpaceX left out a heap of the detailed testing and QA or cut other corners that a NASA or commercial program wouldn't. Maybe SpaceX hasn't accounted for the development costs of the Falcon 1 components that were used in the Falcon 9 in the same way that NASA would. Etc... etc... It's not as black-and-white as you'd like to believe.
 
So, pretty much the only way to reach your conclusion ("NASA is messed up, SpaceX is a priori innocent") is either bias or ignorance. Which is it?

Re:Dissapointing

[Confusador]

NASA is not insisting on capsules. The majority of proposed vehicles are capsules, including this one that they're doing the traditional way, but in the last round of CCDev proposals Orbital Sciences and Sierra Nevada both proposed spaceplanes.

Re:Dissapointing

[OctaviusIII]

"Often" was definitely a poor choice of words. The question, then, is what's the delta-v required to move a craft from LEO to an interplanetary trajectory, and is it cheaper to ship the requisite fuel to space than to do everything in a single go, ground to interplanetary.

Re:Dissapointing

[WegianWarrior]

Building rockets that can escape earth's gravity is more than just space exploration, there are military uses for this technology and it helps justify the expenses.

Out of curiosity, what is the military uses for leaving earths gravity well? Going up to geostationary orbit I can see, but beyond that?

Re:Dissapointing

[Anonymous Coward]

On the scale of do-ability in timeframe and budget... using a rocket and capsule to fling 4 people at mars is reasonable. We could have done it decades ago. But building spaceports in orbit, and then using those spaceports to build other things for transport, all the while shuttling tons of resources and labor to-and-from earth... yeah... not happening.

As it is, keeping the ISS in suplies and the rare additional module is a gigantic, expensive clusterfuck. Fortunately there's SpaceX coming to the rescue with cheaper launches... but we're still talking about a absolutely tiny fraction of what it would take to build a building space in orbit. The ISS would be like the restroom for a facility like that.

And then do the real work of building ships? Yeah, again, not happening in your lifetime... or that of your great grandchildren.

Re:Dissapointing

[Anonymous Coward]

False dichotomy. It's entirely possible, maybe even likely given the excessive waste at NASA, that he's just plain "right".

Not to fault NASA itself, we know a lot of their mess has to do with political shackles, but excuses don't make for cost effectiveness.

Re:Dissapointing

[noname444]

if you're building spacecraft in orbit, I guess it would be nice to mine most of the raw materials in space.

Re:Dissapointing

[AmiMoJo]

You know that ISS stands for International Space Station, right? The Russians built the main module that was originally going to be Mir 2. Japan has built modules too, as has Europe. It doesn't belong to the US.

Re:Dissapointing

[Anonymous Coward]

Done as a NASA project, Falcon 9 estimates out at something like 7 billion dollars. Done as a Commercial project, with NASA supervision, it still costs out at 1.5 billion. The problem with those estimates is that SpaceX did the whole shebang for about 300 million.

Source? What cost model? NAFCOM?

Re:Dissapointing

[Bill_the_Engineer]

To be fair NASA gives money to SpaceX and other space related industries as parts of its COTS initiative. The reason for the reemergence of the capsule is to eliminate the safety issues associated with the space shuttle. Having the crew above the rockets rather than along side them will lower the possibility of debris endangering the crew during launch.

Not to mention, NASA doesn't have the money to do anything too revolutionary. Their first priority is to reestablish the US's direct access to space.

Re:Dissapointing

[stiggle]

Also the orbit of the ISS is wrong for getting out of Earth Orbit. Its originally planned orbit would have been better, but it was changed to over-fly the likes of Europe & Russia when they came on board.

It would be better if they scaled up SpaceX's Dragon capsule as at least that has built-in motors for launch-abort or landing rather than the Apollo era blast stick on the top.

Re:Dissapointing

[Kam Solusar]

Not really. Shooting raw materials 350 Km up into orbit is a bit easier than travelling a few hundred million km into the void, cruising around in the asteroid belt looking for those materials (remember, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately three thousand, seven hundred and twenty to one!) and then returning into earth orbit.

Re:Dissapointing

[Anonymous Coward]

[Yes, this is trollish. It is also at least partially true.]

Reasons why:

1) Some assembly required spacecraft requires blue collar assembly workers. This means putting and housing joe and jane sixpack in space.

2) Failing putting Joe and Jane in space, it means MIT and other high profile college graduates that get a buzz out of being called astronauts would end up with a space career equivilent to Joe or Jane, but now in space.

3) NASA is, and pretty much always has been an elitist space club.

Taken together, this is one set of reasons why NASA has consistently avoided building a moon colony, building an orbital shipyard, and/or subsequently avoided far from earth manned exploration.

currently, NASA outsources most of its aerospace production to private enterprises, like Hawker, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and pals, where they can outsource that grunt assembly work without soiling the mystique of space with the infamy of Joe and Jane sixpack. (nevermind that Joe and Jane built the components for and assembled their shiny rockets, space suits, fancy radar telemetry equipment, etc... that part gets left out.)

Building a lunar colony would mean dedicated construction foremen, machinists (the most joe-sixpacky bunch I have ever seen...) etc.. all people that now because they are in space, can be called astronauts.

Its about brand dilution. They would rather wait until all assembly and construction can be done by robots, because robots are cool, and dont dilute the astronaut brand-name. Next time you look at NASAs moon colony construction ambitions, you will see robots prominently showcased. Nevermind it was a NASA official who claimed that humans are the most inexpensive autonomous robot that can be built and deployed. They paid big bucks to go to stanford and MIT, and dont want their perk soiled by blue collar people.

NASA does NOT want to see Coors cans in space. It does not want a candid interview with a news agency talking with people who talk about going to a strip club as soon as they come home. It views Joe and Jane as a PR nightmare, and cannot resolve how to do these kinds of big projects without them. So-- it just doesnt.

Private enterprise would do it. NASA never will.

Bonus:
captcha=Prestige

Re:Dissapointing

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that, but its rubbish. First, all the material to build the deep space 'capsule' must be built on the ISS. They can do light assembly in space, but complex detailed assembly is not possible there. You need the equivalent of a machine shop/aircraft fabrication facility but bigger: and the ISS is far too small for that. Next, even putting the supplies to build the craft in space still requires getting all the materials there. Its over a million dollars per thousand pounds, and bringing it up in pieces means you have to assemble and test up there. Its overwhelmingly easier to do that on the ground. If we had a cheap way to get spacecraft to orbit (at a dollar per kilogram or less), then nothing would be assembled by the ISS (including the ISS); everything would be assembled on the ground. My take, for years, has been: having a space agency without rockets is like having a navy without ships. Its nice to say, and fun to pretend, but in the end its all just make believe. Wishing doesn't make it happen. To go to space, you need something to get you there.

Re:Dissapointing

[socz]

You said it, "International." It doesn't belong to any one entity. So if the Russians were to refuse shuttling for us, we could always go with someone else. That's the idea, so no one country and shut it down for their strategic use.

Re:Dissapointing

[JWSmythe]

if you think any conceivable spacecraft could bring enough of it in to make a dent in the prices.

    You're overthinking it.

    You don't need any conceivable spacecraft to bring it home. You only need to get it into a geostationary orbit, and thrust appropriately to simulate dropping straight down slowly. There are tremendous options for reentry that don't involve burning the shit out of the hull of your spacecraft (or the payload). It just takes a lot of fuel, which is impractical to lift from Earth.

    But where, oh where, oh where would you find something to give you propulsion?

    That is, of course, if the buyers are on Earth or want it for space purposes. The buyer always determines the destination.

    The future of space travel, including developing new and better propulsion system, will *require* people living in it. Observing and experimenting with it. Making propulsion devices that work, and those that don't.

    Right now, our understanding of space travel is primitive at best. We're like sailors in the Rocky Mountains, planning ships send to the open seas. The only experience we have so far is sending a whole bunch of paper sailboats down a creek, and a few bamboo rafts.

    The people who learned to build ships that could cross the ocean lived on the shore. The built and sailed and learned from each others achievements.

    We don't really know anything about space travel, and we never will, unless we try.

Re:Dissapointing

[Anonymous Coward]

No you don't.

We do not need to jump to Star Trek, we need to start small. Take the internal fairing dimensions of the largest heavy lift rocket we have, IIRC it is the Atlas V. It can do a 5 meter diameter cylinder with a length of 5, 7.5 or 10 meters. Using that and the max weight load to LEO as your parameter, you simply build a multiple section craft that would connect each module together using a air tight docking ring, like doors in a submarine. Think of it as a string of cans.

You would then launch each of the modules into LEO using the existing rocket tech. Once at ISS, astronauts would space walk to connect the modules and dock it to the ISS. You would need a C&C module to run the craft, a crew quarters, a power plant (type IV nuclear?), and an Ion propulsion module (VASIMIR).

Astronauts would rocket to the ISS and then board the craft via the docking port. Power up the craft, break dock and drive it out of orbit. This could operate at first as an experimental platform for extra-orbit studies and then as the craft used to go to the moon (add an extra module for lunar landing), NEA, or Mars.

Beyond X Prize

[Ashenkase]

"Maybe there is hope for space travel outside the X Prize" I guess the author hasn't been following the private space race at all over the last couple of years. SpaceX's accomplishments alone puts us far past X Prize days and into a new frontier, especially with SpaceX Heavy slated for 2014/2015.

10x safer

[yotto]

So only one out of every 500 or so will explode? /but I don't wanna explode!

ka ching!

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta keep the boys at Lockheed Martin in pork

Re:ka ching!

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta keep the boys at Lockheed Martin in pork

Thats right. Manned space flight is silly with our present technology. Unmanned flights have yielded much more scientific discoveries. Look a Galileo and what its sending back to us now. Its an insane waste of resources.

Not really noteworthy news

[ravenspear]

Everyone following NASA even remotely knew that Orion was going to be the MPCV.

Re:Not really noteworthy news

[Noughmad]

No, Orion was going to be the most awesome thing humanity has ever produced. Then they cancelled it.

Re:Not really noteworthy news

[h4rr4r]

Indeed, to call this thing Orion is disgusting.

Re:Not really noteworthy news

[rhook]

Constellation was canceled, Orion is still alive as it is the very vehicle. Orion is officially known as the MPCV (Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)

"As of 11 October 2010, with the canceling of the Constellation Program, the Ares program has ended and the Orion vehicle is now planned to be launched on top of Space Launch System, an intended cheaper alternative to the Ares series."

Re:Not really noteworthy news

[ravenspear]

No it was not. This announcement is about rebranding Orion as the MPCV.

Re:Not really noteworthy news

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Orion was going to be the most awesome thing humanity has ever produced. Then they cancelled it.

For the uninformed, I believe parent is talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion), the original Project Orion.

Let's see...

[milbournosphere]

how SpaceX and the like can fill the heavy lifting gap left by the shuttle. I think it'd be awesome to commoditize (not sure if that's a word) the act of getting equipment to LEO and the ISS, while letting NASA concentrate on far-flung missions and manned and probe-based exploration. That said, NASA really needs to work on a better name for that module.

Re:Let's see...

[h4rr4r]

SpaceX will be sending up their heavy in 2014/2015. If you can get rid of the political keep the Beoing and Lockheed in pork BS prices can come down.

Re:Let's see...

[rhook]

Because the US doesn't have any heavy lift rockets, oh wait!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_IV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V

Re:Let's see...

[Anonymous Coward]

Far more expensive than anything SpaceX offers. SpaceX will have those replaced in 2 years, if not less...

Re:Let's see...

[rhook]

I didn't know that SpaceX was in the ICBM business. These are rockets that we have now, and we do not even need to human rate them in order to use them for launching cargo into space, although man ratings are under way.

Political Maneuvring

[Anonymous Coward]

MPCV is the new way to say Orion. The Constellation program became politically radioactive, so they renamed it's flagship project.

Re:Political Maneuvring

[ArcherB]

MPCV is the new way to say Orion. The Constellation program became politically radioactive, so they renamed it's flagship project.

No, Obama canceled Orion, renamed it and the relaunched it with his name on it.

Re:Political Maneuvring

[Anonymous Coward]

The Obama?

Re:Political Maneuvring

[rhook]

Orion was never canceled, try keeping up with the facts.

Re:Political Maneuvring

[ArcherB]

Orion was never canceled, try keeping up with the facts.

Orion was part of the Constellation program that was cancelled in this year's budget.

So, maybe you should try to RTFA:

The MPCV's crew capsule design takes a direct cue from Orion, which was to fulfill the same role for the Constellation program, an initiative that was canned after it fell behind schedule and over budget.

Re:Political Maneuvring

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Obama planned to cancel Constellation. The problem is that a committee of Senators, and Congressmen in the house, write legislation for NASA that the whole of Congress then votes on. These committees are almost exclusively populated by members who benefit from certain forms of spending and continued spending.

2. Senators from states where NASA's main centres are, JSC/KSC/MSFC, and manned spaceflight work is, Texas, Florida, Alabama, and Utah where the Shutte's SRBa are built, sit on the Senate committees that draft the legislation that the Congress then signs. They wrote the legislation to revive Constellation components, Orion, and a heavy lift vehicle, and wrote it in such a way that NASA was forced to build those programs without competitive selection. This legislation then went to congress where it was passed by an overwhelming majority, just like every NASA bill is because NASA is a popular agency,

Certain Senators hijacked NASA legislation to put in pork programs that benefit their constituencies, and associated contractors. They basically fixed tens of billions of dollars of future government spending without fair competition. NASA manned spaceflight is not so much the American space program, as it is a high tech welfare program for Texas, Florida, Alabama, Utah, and big aerospace companies.

3. Obama's initiatives were cut to bone to pay for the above. No robotic precursor missions, much less technology development, and a less well funded commercial crew program. The last one a target because it threatens the hold the corrupting influences have on NASA because it is competitively awarded, and nimble efficient aerospace firms can demonstrate their lower cost structures.

Nothing new here; just politics

[cyberfringe]

This is simply a rebranded Orion capsule. I worked on Constellation (from inside NASA) for years and helped the program get started. There is no rocket to launch the capsule. There is no mission for it. Nothing on the books, nothing remotely near ready for approval. Just how "deep" into space will it go with a mission time of 21 days? Hint: The Moon is not "deep space". Mars is deep space. Mars is at least 6 months away - one direction. Finally, how many times (altogether now) have we heard "advanced avionics"? That means they are up to Web 0.42 now, maybe. Bottom line: This is pure pork for Lockheed-Martin (Lockheed HQ is in Maryland; Dem. Senator Mikulski is on the Appropriation Committee). It is a multiple billion dollar gift. It will never fly. Ever. I'll bet a fair share of the related jobs go to Houston and to Huntsville, AL (Rep. Sen. Shelby, also on the Appropriations committee).

Re:Nothing new here; just politics

[harperska]

And SpaceX will be launching a deep space exploration craft from the Bigelow Space Station long before the MPCV gets a single test flight.

Re:Nothing new here; just politics

[clutch110]

Actually quite a few of the jobs will be in Colorado according to this Denver Post article http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_18132552.

Re:Nothing new here; just politics

[chemicaldave]

In defense of TFA, the summary isn't accurate. The article's author even says

missions lasting upwards of 21 days (so, no Mars landings just yet),

And the "deep space" designation I'm willing to bet is just to get public support (although I don't know why you wouldn't just say "Let's go back to the moon."). Take it from NASA Admin Charles Boldin

We are committed to human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit and look forward to developing the next generation of systems to take us there.

"Deep space" sounds, and is easier to understand to laymen than "outside low-earth orbit"

Re:Nothing new here; just politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you worked CxP..you should know the avionics network refers to TTGbE...covered here in the past.

21 days powered on, the 210-day loiter requirement stays. Orion will be attached to a Hab, powered down for "the drive" on NEO\ Mars type missions.

2013 Flight test on a Delta IV Heavy.

FUD from a former worker...sad.

Re:Nothing new here; just politics

[LWATCDR]

This is so sad. No rocket, no mission, and they point out how many different states are building it. Space welfare no more and no less.

Re:Nothing new here; just politics

[cratermoon]

Allow me to say it more colorfully:

NASA announced Tuesday that they will continue to blow wads of cash on a failed design for a spacecraft.

The Orion capsule, now dubbed "MPCV", in development since 2005 but not even ready for first launch, will continue to suck up money that could go to efforts that have a chance of producing something tangible well before 2015.

The bloated, overweight, and complicated capsule that has already made $5 billion disappear into a black hole will continue as a contract to fill prime contractor Lockheed Martin's coffers.

Amusingly, the PR materials show the as-yet-nothing-but-a-ground-test-article spacecraft in Mars orbit, even though it only has a 21-day mission span.

Re:Nothing new here; just politics

[cyberfringe]

It sure isn't going to use that fancy new heat shield to enter Mars atmosphere either, much less land with parachutes! That PR picture of it in Mars orbit is really one of NASA's more egregious lies.

Re:Nothing new here; just politics

[Anonymous Coward]

A Buy~Votes Gift like th BAILOUT MONIES WERE REALLY A DEBT FORGIVENESS PROJECT. I think I am beginning to UNDERSTAND NOW. Thanks for your great post.

Idiotic Waste

[Anonymous Coward]

Of PRECIOUS Eath Resources for NOTHING

Re:Idiotic Waste

[basketcase]

You think we get nothing from exploring beyond our tiny little insignificant spec of space?

Re:Idiotic Waste

[Volante3192]

One could say the same about you...

Re:Idiotic Waste

[AchilleTalon]

Well, you should distinguish between manned and unmanned space exploration. While unmanned space exploration has proven itself very useful on both scientific and industrial returns on investment, it is a complete other story about manned space exploration. Most of the work done by sending people in space could have been done with unmanned vehicules as well. It is much more costly to send humans in space, we should expect a significant higher return on investment. This is not the case. And to prove that point, space exploration has become a kind of tourism and space agencies are lurking at this market to value the space program. Instead of wasting money and resources in manned space exploration, we should rather than put these resources into unmanned space exploration.

Re:Idiotic Waste

[compro01]

Unmanned exploration is cheap, sure, but it's also bloody slow.

Over a period of 7 years and 4 months, Opportunity has covered a total of 28 kilometres. How long would it take 2 humans to cover a similar area of exploration?

Re:Idiotic Waste

[AchilleTalon]

Much longer, since Opportunity has already do it while manned mission is still impossible. By the time a manned mission to Mars would be possible, we could have done much more with many Opportunity(ies). And at least, one way mission doesn't pose any ethic problem and we can go much more farther than any manned mission could dream, like interstellar space where Voyager 1 and 2 are now still sending scientific data after 30 years and will continue to do it for another 10 years or so before the energy source will exhaust.

You just cannot dream doing the same with a manned mission. And sustaining life has an energy cost along the path.

Manned, Schmanned: +1, Helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

and requires Soyuz launch services.

Go Energia !!!!

Yours in Miami,
K. Trout

Vapor-where?

[bwohlgemuth]

Isn't "Deep Space" supposed to be outside the influence of the Earth's Gravitational Field? Because three weeks of spaceflight probably won't get you there unless someone has packed a VASIMR engine and a nuke power plant inside of the Lego set NASA is calling a deep space vehicle.

Re:Vapor-where?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gravity's effect has infinite distance. You must define a significance cutoff value to have an "outside the (significant) influence of Earth's gravity".

Re:Vapor-where?

[ZankerH]

Strictly speaking, the Moon is outside the Earth's sphere of influence. The only reason it's orbiting us is because the sum of the gravitational forces of both the Earth and the Moon are somewhat greater than the Sun's gravitational influence.

Re:Vapor-where?

[sconeu]

My guess is that they're defining "Deep Space" as "Anything above LEO"

Re:Vapor-where?

[the_enigma_1983]

I thought "sphere of influence" meant that, in your example, the Moon is not influenced by Earth at all (or at least, significantly). As in, even if the Earth were not there, the Moon would still be there and in its present orbit?

The way you wrote it, it sounds like the Earth does have an effect on the Moon, which I thought meant that the Moon was inside the Earth's sphere of influence?

Re:Vapor-where?

[ZankerH]

The Sun has a stronger pull on the Moon than the Earth. However, the Moon has a much stronger pull on the Earth than it does on the Sun. The Moon-Earth system is essentially a binary orbit. The barycentre is just barely below the Earth's surface, and the moon never goes retrograde in it's heliocentric orbit (unlike the gas giants' moons, for example).

Re:Vapor-where?

[the_enigma_1983]

How does the Sun manage a stronger pull on the Moon than the Earth? I thought, looking at the gravitation pull of just the sun, that the field was given by 'g(r) = - G.m / (r^2)' where r is the radius/distance, G the gravitational constant, and m the mass of the object(sun in this case). Does the specific orbit of the moon somehow manage to keep it's "average" distance to the sun closer than that between the earth and the sun, somehow?

And if the Moon-Earth system is essentially a binary orbit, surely the Moon disappearing would have an influence on the Earth and vice-versa? My understanding of 'sphere of influence' has always been that if something outside the sphere is removed/destroyed/changed/eliminated, then the object in question feels no effect/sees no change, but removing mass from the Moon-Earth system would surely change the orbit in some manner?

Re:Vapor-where?

[sjames]

Strictly speaking, the only reason anything orbits anything at any distance is that the sum of their forces exceed the forces from outside the system.

If the Moon was really outside the Earth's sphere of influence, then it would be in solar orbit because the Earth wouldn't influence it.

There are really 2 reasonable definitions for sphere of influence. It could be anywhere where another body 'feels' a measurable effect of any kind, or a stricter and probably more useful definition of anywhere where the total external forces felt are dominated by the body in question.

Either way, the Moon is very definitely within the Earth's sphere of influence.

Makes you think...

[stalky14]

"The year is 1987 and NASA launches the last of its deep space probes. Fleeing the Cylon tyranny, a young loaner, captain William "Buck" Rogers is on a quest to champion the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, from a world of criminals who operate above the law. The names have been changed to protect the innocent. These are their stories. *BUM-BUM*"

Re:Makes you think...

[JockTroll]

a young loaner

Outer space if off-limits for Wall Street types, or it should be. Only jocks allowed.

Re:Makes you think...

[Eunuchswear]

A young loaner?

New definition of "current"?

[Platinum Dragon]

This thing isn't even out of the design phase, so it's a bit... i dunno... presumptuous to state it's "currently" capable of anything.

On top of that, 21 days doesn't let you get very far from Earth into "deep space", unless LM is sitting on a revolutionary propulsion system for the capsule, which given the budgets and proposals involved doesn't seem likely. Moon missions are possible, which would be neat to get back into, but until NASA gets the budget of their dreams while DoD has to hold a fundraiser to pay for those new aircraft carriers (or a non-gubmint concern cooks up something awesome), I just can't get too excited over these press releases.

Not so safe

[suitti]

The Shuttle has a 1 in 50 chance of failure. That's not exactly the right benchmark. 1 in 500 isn't particularly good.

Re:Not so safe

[geekoid]

No, it does not have a 1 in 50 chance of failure.

And for space flight, 1 in 500 is remarkable.

Re:Not so safe

[Anonymous Coward]

1 in 67 then. (2 failures over 133 missions, more or less.)

Re:Not so safe

[fizzup]

Well, the shuttle has about a two per cent death rate per astronaut flight, and a failure rate of 1 in 65. (130 missions with two failures.) the OP is not that far off, and there was a time when the failure rate was 1 in 50, but there have been successful missions since then. Who knows what the final failure rate for the shuttle will be?

I tend to agree with the OP that using the shuttle as a benchmark for safety is a great way to make a high risk activity sound safe. What sounds better: 10 times safer than the shuttle or 1/100,000th as safe as air travel? NASA is lying with statistics.

Re:Not so safe

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the shuttle has about a two per cent death rate per astronaut flight, and a failure rate of 1 in 65. (130 missions with two failures.) the OP is not that far off, and there was a time when the failure rate was 1 in 50, but there have been successful missions since then. Who knows what the final failure rate for the shuttle will be?

Well, it won't be much higher then 2 in 135 (1:67.5), or it could be as low as 3 in 135 (1:45).

(Given that the last mission is being launched in July 2011.)

Imaginary Spacecraft

[WoollyMittens]

Because making far fetched plans is cheaper than actually doing manned spaceflight.

Re:Imaginary Spacecraft

[tsotha]

Is it? NASA has managed to spend a hell of a lot of money making far-fetched plans that never go anywhere.

SpaceX Dragon Capsule is far less expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

The SpaceX Dragon Capsule is far less expensive and has already been tested in Space. They are also retrofitting it with thrusters so that it can have controlled landing. Why NASA is wasting their time and money with Lockheed is beyond me... *waves goodbye to his tax money*

Sad, just sad

[arikol]

It's sad to see that NASA has been reduced to this. A modern recreation of their 1960's glory-day technology. The Russians have Soyuz which is an evolved an mature version of their old tech, tremendously improved over the original, and NASA wants to field something which is pretty much an upgraded Apollo system.

Ask the Russians for the ride up and down, make something cool for deeper space exploration which doesn't need to make the huge trade-offs of aerodynamic braking and stability but rather is optimised for longer times of habitation (i.e. bigger, doesn't require massive heat shields or a cone shaped body).

Bloody bureaucracy killing space exploration :(

Re:Sad, just sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I agree. What we need for a Mars mission is a proper orbit-to-orbit vehicle, something like a small, light version of the space station (maybe with a centrifuge that the crew could sleep in, to prevent bone deterioration). The thing would be built and fueled in Earth orbit, and it would park in Mars orbit and bring the astronauts back home. That seems to me the only sensible way to do the Mars mission.

10x safer?

[esme]

So they think this will only kill 1.4 people?

Re:10x safer?

[Anonymous Coward]

"So they think this will only kill 1.4 people?"

"But I've still got me fightin' spirit, sir!"

About Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, if you arrive to Mars, bring back the Spirit, the sad alone robot.

2x safety advantage is built-in

[TwineLogic]

Because it holds 1/2 as many astronauts as shuttle did...

Deep Space starts where? Politics, once again.

[cyberfringe]

So here is the story: inside NASA, "Deep Space" used to mean (prior to 2003) anything beyond the orbit of the Moon. This was intended to be the domain of work for science and telecommunications ops of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), an FFRDC operated by Caltech as a NASA center. Inside the Moon's orbit was the domain of scientific work for NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). This included Earth observing science and telecom as well as astrophysics spacecraft. During the Constellation program, when simply returning to the Moon was not enough justification for the program and seeking a way to justify control of the design of deep space telecom for manned spaceflight, the Constellation Program Office at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) and NASA GSFC sought to redefine deep space as anything beyond HEO. This was also an attempt by GSFC to put JPL's Deep Space Interplanetary Network (aka "DSN) on the sideline of the design process for Constellation deep space telecom. (Furthermore, GSFC at the time was lobbying to get new Earth orbiting telecom spacecraft launched and needed additional justification, ergo "they are good for Constellation"). I don't think the issue was every resolved one way or another as far as "official" definitions go and in the end, not much changed before Constellation was cancelled. The lesson is this: Words like "deep space" can mean a lot when government research centers are fighting to protect their charters and business base. I'm glad I'm out of that biz!

Outside the X-Prize?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe there is hope for space travel outside the X Prize.

Surely you mean "maybe there is hope for American space travel outside the X Prize"...

10 times safer ..

[n5vb]

"10 times safer than the current [now obsolete] space shuttle" is probably barely safe enough .. the "current space shuttle" has a record of 2 actual LOVC's in flight, which is 2 more than anything else we've ever flown in space. (The only LOVC the Apollo program suffered was the Apollo 1 fire, and Apollo 13 survived a catastrophic LOX tank failure late in the lunar transit.)

4 crew for a mission time of 21 days isn't that big an advance over 3 crew for 10-14 (?) days, which is what the CSM was capable of around the time of 17 and ASTP. If it still has solar power, and has the ability to be shut down on-orbit while docked to ISS, then that's an improvement over the CSM whose fuel cells couldn't be shut down and safely restarted, but those are evolutionary, not revolutionary.

Is this really the future of manned spaceflight? China has this level of tech .. :/

Deep space?

[dicobalt]

I wouldn't consider anywhere inside the solar system as being deep space.

Re:Deep Space starts where? Politics, once again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. And I thought deep space was simply outside the Alpha Quadrant...

Does this look disturbingly like the Orion?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Seriously.

This seems to be the Orion with a new background pic. Four astronauts, 3 week mission.

And where are they going with a three week mission? The moon again?

Re:Does this look disturbingly like the Orion?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with 'moon again'? Is space exploration some kind of traveling salesman problem where you're only allowed to visit each place once?

Progress?

[Wolfling1]

Cue the "Magic Carpet Ride"

Infinity times safer

[Anonymous Coward]

...because it will never get off the ground.

Re:Infinity times safer

[Eunuchswear]

No, there is a small chance of an infected paper cut leading to the death of one of the engineers.

New Big Rockets

[Anonymous Coward]

How come no one mentions SpaceX in all these discussions? A Falcon 9 can certainly handle a large capsule and so much more.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Siberia spends a day in YOU!

Article is Gibberish

[hackus]

Presents a promise that the vehicle could go to Mars and Deep space, but then turns around and says:

"The MPCV holds 4 astronauts, is currently capable of 3-week missions..."

To Mars? In what, 7 days?

That is impressive. But it would require an open mind, and revelation of physics people have been killed for even discussing.

So, no way

Bodies in a capsule...

[JohnReid]

is all you'll have when it returns. Getting people out in deep space and back isn't a problem, its keeping them alive after they travel beyond the Earth's magnetic field. The rocket is technology that has been around for some time and simply a matter of building it in a particular configuration (simply as in getting the funding to do it right the first time). Personally, I'd love to take a trip to Mars, but not if it means developing cancer on the way back, or even a few years afterwards.

"Currently"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"is currently capable of 3-week missions," Maybe NASA has a different definition of "currently" than I do.

Desperation, no Inspiration, no Destination

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA HQ Program managers are sweating bucks and scrambling like MAD now.

The death of the Space Transportation System spells the end of NASA.

In Obama's second administration he we send to Congress bills to disastablish the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This will occur in February 2013.

Toodles

Clarify please

[bill_mcgonigle]

a HUGE amount of gold-plating and featherbedding

does 'featherbedding' mean corruption? If not, you forgot one.

Re:Deep Space starts where? 2 million km

[Anonymous Coward]

ITU regulations define two ranges of distance for radio communications, divided at 2 million km. Since the moon is 350-400 thousand km away, you have to get a bit further out before you're in the "deep space" frequency allocation.

Hay! Lets Go Retro 1960's

[LifesABeach]

From the design, it looks like the South Beach Junior College is in charge of rocket design for NASA; cudos SBJC. I'm amazed that Charles Bolden didn't request the drawings from the Wright Brothers "Wright Flyer" for Crew Module System Recovery. One can only imagine the howls of laughter when some senior level aeronautical engineer said, "Hay, why don't we build the entire thing in parts at the ISS!" Because everyone outside the U.S. doesn't have a clue about modular construction methods...

Re:Deep Space starts where? Politics, once again.

[Vegeta99]

This is why some countries favor the dictatorship.

The plural of sheep is sheep.

[Eunuchswear]

eventually to planets such as Mars where only unmanned crafts have previously traveled.

MOD ARTICLE FUNNY

[Anonymous Coward]

> deep space
> mars

lolwut

Who's pulling what?

[Eunuchswear]

The Sun has a stronger pull on the Moon than the Earth.

You mean: pull (sun, moon) > pull (earth, moon)

(The other way of interpreting your statement, pull (sun, moon) > pull (sun, earth), is clearly wrong as mass(earth) > mass (moon) and distance (sun,moon) == distance (sun, earth) (*)).

However, the Moon has a much stronger pull on the Earth than it does on the Sun.

You can't mean that pull (moon, earth) > pull (moon, sun) as that contradicts what you said before! (**)

So maybe by "it" you mean "earth" and you're claiming that pull (moon,earth) > pull (sun, earth), but we've already seen that that is wrong.

Am I missing something?

(*) pull (a, b) = G * mass (a) * mass (b) / (distance (a, b) **2)

(**) pull (a, b) == pull (b, a)

Gasoline Discovered in Outer Space Meteor Flyby!

[Anonymous Coward]

When they design a spacecraft to all that Matter in Outer Space wake me up for sausage biscuits THEN Pleez. Surely Space Dust absorbs SUNLIGHT.

space planes don't work yet.

[bkmoore]

A lot of comments here that NASA shouldn't settle for a redesigned Apollo capsule. NASA has been developing space planes since before Project Mercury. The X-15, the Blended-Wing lifting bodies are examples. Most recently, NASA cancelled the X-33 in 2001 because the X-33 was too heavy to ever make it into space. All space planes have one thing in common: None of them can carry enough fuel to reach orbit. The only space planes to ever fly into orbit were carried aloft by conventional rockets, such as the Space Shuttle.

Maybe some day these problems will be solved by more efficient propulsion and lighter structures. In the mean time, NASA is right for sticking with proven technology. NASA needs something that can work within the foreseeable future. Spaceplanes, as space elevators, warp drives, etc. are still a long ways off.

Re:space planes don't work yet.

[ianare]

Well it's still at a very early stage, but the Skylon spaceplane design has been deemed to be solid enough for beginning to static test the engines.

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/05/skylon-spacepla-1.php

No worries; it will be cut...

[Hasai]

...by some pandering politician looking to redirect the funds into a pork-barrel project in their district.

Not an Apollo capsule.

[wcrowe]

Why no, this is nothing at all like an Apollo capsule. Not, not, not.

How embarrassing.

Because China is making it.

[tekrat]

After all, *nothing* is made in the USA anymore. Too expensive.

Yes, all this is, is a slightly improved Apollo capsule. Amazing how much we've advanced in almost 50 years (sarcasm, in case you didn't catch that).

It's a real sad state of affairs if this is the best we can do with all our advances. Maybe we need to get Chuck Yeager to pilot it, because it really seems that all our aeronautical and space advances took place while he was still active.

Either that or we need a war with Germany so we can steal their scientists because it's clear that without them, our guys have exactly zero ability to come up with anything truly groundbreaking.

SyFy

[MrKaos]

Excuse the cynicism but NASA has been the victim of pork barreling for a long time. As long as that is controlling NASA's destiny with a management culture overruling an engineering culture I simply do not believe it is geared to do anything more than guide budget into electoral provinces. Sadly.

Bootstrapping space stations

[Anonymous Coward]

Use the ISS to build a rotating (gravity ftw) successor to itself, with the ISS continuing on as a zero-G research lab. THEN ue the big station to build spaceships.