NASA is in the market for commercial missions ?

[nec208]

-------<br />DALLAS (Reuters) - NASA is in the market for commercial relationships and private capital as it gears up for its next manned missions to the moon.<br /><br />"That would make our life a lot easier," said Neil Woodward, acting director of NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate.<br /><br />The U.S. space agency is hoping to return to the moon in 2019 or 2020 and has longer range plans to send humans to Mars after that.<br /><br />"If somebody says 'I have this really great way to be able to extract water ice from lunar regolith (lunar rocks) that I've developed on my own dime' we would be interested," Woodward said.<br /><br />"If we could be in a commercial relationship with somebody who has the capability that's fine because in many cases they can do it for less money than we can," he told Reuters on the sidelines of a space development conference in Dallas.<br /><br />Venture capital in space exploration was a key theme at the conference.<br /><br />NASA's lunar plans envision the building of an outpost on the moon which would be continuously manned like the International Space Station is now.<br /><br />"Maybe at that point there will be commercial exploitation and we won't be sending missions there but some of the commercial companies here will start sending people there," Woodward said.<br /><br />Other commercial ventures in space include the possibility of fuel suppliers.<br /><br />-------<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nec208]

How can they do so those things when the shuttle is going to retire by 2010 do to old age and problems with the shuttle?<br /><br /><br />And what happen to the Crew Exploration Vehicle or are they still working on it?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">How can they do so those things when the shuttle is going to retire by 2010 do to old age and problems with the shuttle?</font>/i><br /><br />They can do these things <b><i>because</i></b> they are retiring the shuttle which will free up several billion dollars a year.<br /><br />However, NASA has been fairly clear that their budget doesn't match their vision. For example, NASA will show slides of an outpost with multiple modules, high-speed communications, rovers, etc., but if you read the text of the presentation or the slides, it says NASA doesn't actually have any of the funds to do these things.<br /><br />NASA is hoping that someone else will volunteer their own money to help build this vision out. I don't think it is going to happen unless someone can make a credible argument for an economic incentive for going to the Moon.</i>

 

[jimfromnsf]

The shuttle is not needed anymore

 

[nec208]

So NASA needs more money to go to the moon and congress will not give them more money?<br /><br />But if the shuttle is retire by 2010 than what will NASA do?If they don't go to moon and have no new shuttle than what will they do close NASA down? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

NASA is more things than manned space. It is even more than space at all. Congress could shut down all funding for manned missions and there would still be things for NASA to do.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">So NASA needs more money to go to the moon and congress will not give them more money?</font>/i><br /><br />NASA probably has enough money to go to the moon, but not a lot of money to do anything once they get there. There are several possible approaches for resolving this, including:<ul><li>Performing well over the next 10 years and then asking Congress for more money because they have been good stewards of the money already given to them;<li>Convince the governments of other countries to participate by building different elements (this is a major reason to complete ISS... to get the same participants to play in the next adventure);<li>Find a financial hook to get private investors and entrepreneurs to participate (e.g., PGM mining for the "hydrogen economy" here on Earth, He3 mining for fusion reactors here, ???);<li>Hope for a new space race that would prod Congress to give NASA more money.</li></li></li></li></ul><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">But if the shuttle is retire by 2010 than what will NASA do?</font>/i><br /><br />A more precise question would be: What will the Kennedy and Johnson folks responsible for launching humans into space do between 2010 and 2018 or so?<br /><br />Some will still be resonsible for managing activities at the ISS. If SpaceX, Kistler, and others actually succeed, the NASA folks will have some role in launching these vehicles to ISS. There will be a number of test flights of Ares I plus Orion between next 2008 and 2014. Around 2015, the Ares I and Orion should be capable of taking crews and supplies to ISS. Maybe around 2017 NASA will launch some "beyond LEO" missions for Orion, such as an Apollo-8 class mission which goes into orbit around the Moon but does not land or a flight out to a Near-Earth Object (NEO).<br /><br />However, Griffin does expect some downsizing of personnel at NASA. Most of that can probably come through attrition, however, as I believe a fairly large number of people are scheduled</i></i>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Maybe around 2017 NASA will launch some "beyond LEO" missions for Orion, such as an Apollo-8 class mission which goes into orbit around the Moon but does not land or a flight out to a Near-Earth Object (NEO). "<br /><br />This is going to happen much later than 2017, way after the lunar flights. There isn't a launch vehicle that can do it nor a companion module for the CEV

 

[holmec]

Try adding some links and not just copying from an article, someone might call you on copyright infringement. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The shuttle is not needed anymore<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, I don't think any semi trucks are going to the ISS to finish it. So jim define "needed" plz. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>How can they do so those things when the shuttle is going to retire by 2010 do to old age and problems with the shuttle?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />NASA is the customer here not the supplier. NASA is looking for a supplier. And I see this as a very good thing for NASA since eventually commercial space access should be in our future. NASA is for exploration and research, and its natural for commercial companies to use the exploration and research for monetary gain. So if companies can lift off cargo and crews to space then NASA would have less of a need to develop their own launchers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

The Shuttle is not needed after the ISS is completed. Is that better?

 

[holmec]

Much... <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[nec208]

=======<br />Some will still be resonsible for managing activities at the ISS. If SpaceX, Kistler, and others actually succeed, the NASA folks will have some role in launching these vehicles to ISS. <br />=======<br /><br />What are those apollo type to go to ISS for crew and maintenance to the ISS?<br /><br /><br />=======<br />There will be a number of test flights of Ares I plus Orion between next 2008 and 2014. Around 2015, the Ares I and Orion should be capable of taking crews and supplies to ISS.<br />=======<br /><br /><br />Okay is Orion and Ares a rocket and I thought they will be going to use the Crew Exploration Vehicle a enhanced Apollo type craft<br /><br />=======<br /> Maybe around 2017 NASA will launch some "beyond LEO" missions for Orion, such as an Apollo-8 class mission which goes into orbit around the Moon but does not land or a flight out to a Near-Earth Object (NEO).<br /><br /> =======<br /><br /><br /><br />Why 10 years to go back to the moon?Why so long? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

For one thing, you don't seem to get the concept of there being money to pay for it.<br /><br />Whether it's NASA (beholden to the taxpayers through Congress) or private businesses (beholden to shareholders or rich guys with really deep pockets) the money has to come from somewhere.<br /><br />This stuff ain't cheap, if you want it to work.<br /><br />MW <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Orion is the CEV and Ares is its booster

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Why 10 years to go back to the moon?Why so long?</font>/i><br /><br />There are a number of reasons. Here are a few:<br /><br />(1) Most of NASA's money and effort will be going towards completing ISS until Sep 2010, so the "new vision" doesn't get up to full speed until after that. However, even after 2010 NASA will spend a fair amount of money maintaining ISS through about 2016.<br /><br />(2) NASA won't be marshaling as many resources as it did during the Apollo years. The size of the Apollo program with respect to the GDP back then was huge compared to the size of the "New Vision" with respect to the current GDP. Apollo was a truly a national effort. After announcing his new vision, Pres. Bush has essentially ignored NASA.<br /><br />(3) NASA wants an architecture that has wider applicability and is more sustainable than Apollo. Apollo had a very focused goal: put a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth. This time NASA wants the ability to go to more places on the Moon than Apollo could, land more people there, and stay for longer periods of time. NASA also hopes that much of the architecture can be repurposed for Mars missions.<br /><br />(4) NASA wants the new architecture to be open so that other organizations (governments or private enterprise) can participate. Coordination, negotiating, developing, and documenting an "open architecture" designed for interoperability is more costly and time consuming than creating and controlling everything in house.</i>

 

[nec208]

(1) Most of NASA's money and effort will be going towards completing ISS until Sep 2010, so the "new vision" doesn't get up to full speed until after that. However, even after 2010 NASA will spend a fair amount of money maintaining ISS through about 2016. <br />===================<br />This is the problem they should be doing dual programs.We are in 2007 if we go to to moon in 2017 that is 10 years that so long away .<br /><br />Do you think the US people may get interested when we get program under way?<br /><br />So what may speed things up?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">This is the problem they should be doing dual programs.</font>/i><br /><br />The problem is that the money is finite. For example, for this current year alone Congress cut about $500 million from what was expected for the Moon program.<br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">Do you think the US people may get interested when we get program under way? So what may speed things up?</font>/i><br /><br />Success and progress is always good. If NASA continues to build out ISS, increase its crew size to 6, launch the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) in 2008 and get some really great imagery (the public responds well to pretty pictures), and gets some preliminary test launches of Ares I over the next 2 years or so, then NASA might be able to generate some positive press, get the public interested, and then maybe there will be more funds for NASA.<br /><br />Also, in 2009 a new President will take over. Hopefully the new one will be more interested in NASA's activities and fight for its funding.</i></i>

 

[nec208]

So all we can do is just see what will happen , for now because of money things are moving very slow.<br /><br />Dam 10 years is long ways away to send people to the moon.<br /><br />And when do they want to send people to Mars? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">And when do they want to send people to Mars?</font>/i><br /><br />Below is a link to a to a NASA slide briefing titled "Exploration Strategy and Architecture". It is probably the best overview of NASA's plans that I have seen. For example, Slide 17 shows what elements of the Lunar Architecture NASA plans to implement (those in blue), and which elements will need to be funded by someone else.<br /><br />Slide 15 shows the <i>possible</i> directions NASA may take after 2025. The choice will be left to future Congresses and Presidents.<br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/163896main_Exploration-LAT_Briefing_120406.pdf<br /><br />From the slides (and other documents), NASA will deliver by 2025 a mature technology base that will allow them to take several future paths. One path would be to build out the Lunar output even more; another path would be to visit other sites on the Moon; yet another path is to go to Mars.<br /><br />Right now (18 years from the decision date), it doesn't appear that NASA will have funds to follow more than one path. My guess is that they will abandon the Moon and head towards Mars. So expect a Mars landing between 2025 and 2030. (Everyone who thinks they will still be alive then, raise your hands!)</i>

 

[Testing]

Eactly Wayne, I am reminded of the old triangle of engineering:<br /> Quality (reliability)<br /> Cost ($$$) Delivery (Production time)<br /><br />History has proven you can choose two only. As an example, a common ordinary Solar Panel drive flown before (heritage) starts at about $45K, for a small sat. For a new RFP you are talking a minimum two years to first delivery at best for flight hardware with a major effort. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nec208]

It is saying going to the moon by 2020 but I'm sure some one can put pressure to congress to make to 2015.<br /><br />And than there is 5 years after that before going to mars?<br /><br />============<br />rom the slides (and other documents), NASA will deliver by 2025 a mature technology base that will allow them to take several future paths. One path would be to build out the Lunar output even more; another path would be to visit other sites on the Moon; yet another path is to go to Mars<br />============<br />If the private sectors get in and other countries they can do all 3..<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Perhaps if you could spread around some of those money trees you must have in your yard.<br />The rest of us have to make do with what we have available. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">It is saying going to the moon by 2020 but I'm sure some one can put pressure to congress to make to 2015.</font>/i><br /><br />To accelerate manned exploration, I suggest following one of the following strategies:<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">Become obscenely rich and start or fund your own space company.</font>/b> Many of the "new space" efforts (e.g., Bigelow, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, Armadillo Aerospace) follow this approach. Probably the best way to become obscenely rich quickly is to identify a brand new industry that is about to explode and get in on the ground floor. However, Warren Buffet and others have shown that hard and intelligent work over a long period of time also works.<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">Become mildly rich and buy services from the obscenely rich.</font>/b> By becoming a paying customer for these other space services (e.g., a space tourist), you help give these companies the money they need to continue investing for better products and services. Becoming mildly rich is relatively easy and just takes some discipline -- invest early and often over a lot of years. Compound interest over time is your friend.<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">Become an activist.</font>/b> Try to get the public, media, and eventually the political leaders to believe investing in space is important. There are a number of organizations that already do this; you could look them up and join one or more. Becoming a good activitst means developing good communications skills, learning the art of persuasion, understanding your target (e.g., what makes him or her tick), and understand your competition (others will be arguing for the same money).</b></b></b></i>