NASA's Future

[dtich]

i've been so excited by the new enthusiasm at nasa,<br />starting really with the incredibly successful mars<br />rover missions, and continuing through the triumphant<br />return to flight after the safety revamp of the<br />shuttles. with the space station coming together<br />piece by piece, hubble continuing to amaze us from the<br />leading edge of cosmological exploration, and the<br />several long-range science missions like cassini<br />proving nothing less than awesome at times, all in all<br />it is a great time for nasa and its collegiate<br />institutions around the country and the world. <br /><br />one thing, however, has been dampening my fire<br />recently, and that is the ubiquitous mention of the<br />presidential mandate, based on his speech last year,<br />to return to manned exploration of the solar system,<br />starting with the moon and moving thereafter to mars. <br />while this dictum should excite me, and for sure the<br />fundamental promise of it does, i am dishearteartened<br />and somewhat naseated by the fact that our supreme<br />loser of a president is going to go down in history<br />with, among several much less prestigious<br />accomplishments to his credit, the distinction of<br />having spurred the revitalizing of our manned-space<br />program. i am so loathe to allow him this, i mean,<br />he's no jack kennedy after all... not by a long, long<br />shot. and to imagine his name after jfk's in the<br />honor roll of the space administration is infuriating.<br /> <br />i do grant the president one thing, and that is that i<br />believe his appointment of the new head of nasa,<br />michael griffin, was a fantastic move. from all i<br />have seen and read so far, he is an admirably smart<br />and able leader with seemingly boundless enthusiasm<br />for nasa and our space program. he is quite<br />impressive to me and i feel nasa is indeed in good<br />hands in that regard. frankly, i can't believe the<br />president actually had anything to do with appointing<</safety_wrapper>

 

[barrykirk]

I think that if you asked the people on these forums where their politcal viewpoints are AND I'M NOT ASKING. You would get answers all over the spectrum.<br /><br />Where the posters on this forum have a great commonality is in the desire for mankind to explore space and to push back the frontiers.<br /><br />Truth be told, after reading posts on this forum for a while, I couldn't tell you what the political viewpont of any particular poster was on any issue other than the space frontier. And that is a good thing.<br /><br />I've mentioned politics in my posts here, but only in the context of what can be done to increase funding for space exploration, or what should be avoided to keep from having funding cut from space exploration.

 

[dobbins]

For the first time in over 30 years NASA has a chance to move ahead instead of stumbling along in the rut it's been in and what kind of reaction do we see from some so called space advocates? They act like spoiled brats pitching a tantrum when they don't get some shiny new toy.<br /><br />People in a snit because we are using a design that actually works instead of wasting another 10 years on paper space planes that never fly. People pitching a hissy fit because we aren't dropping everything for a mad dash to Mars. People crying because we aren't firing a nuke at the ISS or doing a WTC on it with the remaining Shuttles. People with a recurring hallucination that some dinky little startup that hasn't managed to get a 1 gram washer into orbit will magically be launching 50 Tonne payloads in a short time. People who just can't stand that the "wrong" President supported it. And of course there are the usual suspects who want to kill manned flight altogether because of a long standing delusion that the funds from it will be transfered to unmanned probes instead of food stamps and/or tax cuts.<br /><br />If NASA is killed off it won't be GOP budget slashers or Dem Welfare addicts that do it in. It will be killed by the brats that are doing their best to stab the agency in the back because they didn't get everything they wanted.<br /><br />

 

[vt_hokie]

I just happen to feel that giving up on grounbreaking programs like NASP and retreating to 1960's technology is a disappointment. I'm sorry if you feel that makes me a spoiled brat, but NASA's new direction will do nothing but put us on par with where we were 35 years ago. <br /><br />And I do like Russia's Kliper, btw! Unlike NASA's "CEV", which seems like one giant leap backwards, Kliper will be a nice step forward from Soyuz for the Russian space program!

 

[space_dreamer]

NASA's new direction will do nothing but put us on par with where we were 35 years ago.<br /><br />-All I can say is, Good! <br /><br />35 years ago NASA had the potential to do great things, but the wrong choices were made. The new plan is like going back to 1970 and making the right choices. I agree that it’s a shame that programs have to be cut to do it. But were going back to the moon! <br /><br />HUMANS ARE GOING BACK TO THE MOON!!!<br /><br />

 

[cuddlyrocket]

So far as humanity as a whole is concerned, won't we be better off with <i>both</i> the CEV and Kliper? One country doesn't have to do everything.

 

[dobbins]

Adults deal with disappointment by looking ahead to the next project. In about 10 years it will be time to start looking at designs for the CEV replacement. It's called planning ahead. Spoiled brats pitch tantrums when they don't get their way, which pretty much sums up the way you are reacting to it being a capsule instead of yet another attempt at a space plane.<br /><br />

 

[vt_hokie]

So, I'm supposed to just sit back and pretend to be happy that my tax dollars are being wasted on an Apollo re-hash that will do nothing to open up the space frontier or enable us to send into space more than the handful of NASA astronauts who will fly on multi-billion dollar flag planting missions? <br /><br />And you honestly think NASA will be looking ahead at CEV replacements in ten years? We should be looking at something better than CEV right now, and once we commit to it, it will probably eat up NASA's budget for another 30 years!

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>So far as humanity as a whole is concerned, won't we be better off with both the CEV and Kliper? One country doesn't have to do everything.</i><br /><br />Yes, that's true. I just wish it was my country that was pursuing the advanced space plane while some other country did the 1960's capsule thing! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[dobbins]

NASA's manned program is to explore space, not to run a airline type passenger service with super duper space planes. Grow up, if you help kill the space program with your tantrums there never will be any NASA space planes at all, not small explorers, not anything.<br /><br />

 

[j05h]

>So, I'm supposed to just sit back and pretend to be happy that my tax dollars are being wasted on an Apollo re-hash <br /> />that will do nothing to open up the space frontier or enable us to send into space more than the handful of NASA <br /> />astronauts who will fly on multi-billion dollar flag planting missions?<br /><br />As a spaceflight advocate, you should be happy that NASA is working on a realistic, sustainable system for moving people into orbit. CEV isn't perfect, but offers a lot of expandability. It has the potential to be long-lived like Soyuz without breaking the budget. STS/ISS have been strangling the rest of NASA for a generation, let's put it to rest so we can move outward!<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

If Russia is working on a lifting body concept, then perhaps it would be best to just accept that at this time. NASA's mandate at this time is to get beyond LEO as cheaply as possible, and that dictates a capsule type of design, it is NOT a waste of taxpayer dollars, it is preserving taxpayer dollars! <br /><br />Once you get beyond LEO the shape of the vehicle no longer matters a hoot! You could just as easily use a box like the Borg. Actually a sphere is probably the best overall shape at this time, but in actuality it no longer matters, so a capsule will do just fine here. So why not just use such a vehicle to get to LEO as well as beyond LEO at this time. <br /><br />If you really want to support efforts to eventually use a space plane type of horizontal takeoff and landing lifting body concept then you need to not only support the Russian effort, but even more importantly support NASA's efforts to develope a true hypersonic vehicle. <br /><br />You also might look into supporting Burt Rutan and his efforts for space tourism. The requirements for vehicles capable of giving the kind of comfort and view that such a business would need almost totally dictate some kind of horizontal take off and landing lifting body concept. A capsule would be just fine with astronaut types who are used to the higher g loads and the relative confinement of capsules. After all they have been using the Soyus now for almost three years solid. But rich paying customers of space tourism are going to want less g forces and windows. This dictates some kind of lifing body concept which is what Burt Rutan and his people are going to go for.<br /><br />So while the immediate future of NASA's efforts to get out of LEO is going to use a capsule design, the farther out future for space planes does indeed look good. So relax already!

 

[barrykirk]

set sarcasm=on<br /><br />Let's forget about the capsule vs spaceplane debate. We don't need either to get to orbit. And we don't need either to stay in orbit or to go to the moon and back.<br /><br />Just use the most efficient configuration which is neither capsule or spaceplace to get to LEO and do everything in space.<br /><br />Use MOOSE as the primary means of returning astronauts!!!! It's much more efficient.<br /><br />set sarcasm=off

 

[tap_sa]

An astronaut using MOOSE to land on the moon is in for a nasty surprise! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[barrykirk]

That's true. We will have to post a sign on our lunar colony, saying something along the lines.<br /><br />Use of MOOSE on the landing pad is unlawful. Violators will be awarded a DARWIN award. <br /><br />The sad thing is that i'm sure that somebody will post a sign just like that. Lawyers are everywhere.

 

[trailrider]

And I want a shuttle craft that lands like the one on Star Trek! And I want a Constitution class star ship with warp drive!<br /><br />But reality sets in (if you let it)! We don't need wings to get to the Moon, and I'm not sure a winged vehicle (even if it were efficient) could be built that could withstand direct re-entry at 37,000 ft/sec!<br /><br />Form follows function. We don't abandon basic subsonic aircraft designs just for the sake of having something completely new. As a matter of fact, we (humankind) DID abandon supersonic transports because they aren't money-makers. That's certainly not progress! But it IS reality.<br /><br />I've said it before and will say it again... I don't care if we use Wiley Coyote's Acme slingshot, as long as we get out of LEO and start exploring space and the solar system with human crews again!<br /><br />Yes, I'd like to see NASA's plan include establishment of lunar bases, rather than the week-long stays currently projected for the near term. I sincerely hope that we won't get the program cut off at the knees after several flights, the way Apollo was. But, hopefully, we MAY be able to get participation by other countries, and be able to obtain backing by private industry for such bases.<br /><br />The whining and bickering will NOT get what the complainers want. But it could result in cancellation of the whole shebang. Right now, even the Vision or ESAS or whatever (why can't we come up with a NAME for this project anyway???), is hanging by a budgetary thread!<br /><br />We are also facing a CRITICAL shortage of scientists and engineers for the immediate future. (Which is why I'm going into schools and beating the drums for interesting kids starting in kindergarten through college!)<br /><br />You know, Thomas Edison, while he was developing the electric light bulb, was asked why he continued the project when he had tried so many different materials that failed before finding the right one. His answer was that he now knew 99 ma

 

[dobbins]

"why can't we come up with a NAME for this project anyway???"<br /><br />Project Constellation was the name announced last year, but for some reason they aren't using it much. I would like to see it called Artemis. She was Apollo's twin sister and closely associated with the Moon in Greek mythology.<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

please remember that, the first moon mission, will be in 2018 (for optimists) or 2020-2022 (for realists) or 2023 up (for pessimists) or never in next 30 years (my opinion) and, in any case, not with the old-looking "apollo on steroid" technology<br /><br />while NASA "thinks and tests" in the next 13-17 years the new capsule&Lem, will be a GROWING need of LEO vehicle for commercial, scientific and military purposes<br /><br />Shuttle will soon be grounded, CEV don't exist, Kliper looks like a "train", NOT a spacecraft...<br /><br />I don't want to burn again the "spaceplane dispute" I've had in past days with some posters... but, since the spaceplane techonology is well known (thanks to Shuttle), while NASA builds the "capsule", other companies and countries will build some small-lowcost-shuttles<br /><br />without NASA experience, technology and funds, they will need more years to come, but, with so much CEV delays (1st delay: CEV selection in summer 2006), one or more spaceplanes models may fly regularly BEFORE the first CEV "uncrewed test launch"<br /><br />if that will happen, NASA must only stop CEV develpment, lose the (big) money spent, and use the foreign spaceplane for LEO flights (like with Soyuz...) <br /><br />if NASA plans to build a capsule, can't stop and change in a few days, it is like a giant locomotive with 300 wagons running at full speed that needs MILES to stop<br /><br />NASA programs duration (from start to end) are of many years: 10+ years apollo, 30+ years shuttle, 20+ years ISS <br /><br />if NASA starts now with capsule and launch it within 10+ years, will remains with ONLY a little-old-capsule in its hands for 25+ years!!! (see my Shenzhou 235 image...)<br /><br />some say that "capsule is ideal for moon missions"... probably... but I don't think moon missions will really happen in 2020... within a few years, <b>VME</b>-like programs (with "home made", low cost, moonrovers), will demonstrate that manned moon missions are completely useless!<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

I fully understand being disappointed with some decision that NASA made or had thrust on it by Washington. I've been there often enough, and I doubt if any of the disappointments over the VSE and ESAS can compare with what I felt when I saw three Apollo Moon Landings scrubbed after most of the hardware for them had been bought and paid for.<br /><br />

 

[wdobner]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>NASA's manned program is to explore space, not to run a airline type passenger service with super duper space planes. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />No, but NASA's role in atmospheric flight is far more academic than their role in spaceflight to date. NASA works with private corporations to develop the next generation technology, takes the lead in introducing this stuff to engineering and science related programs in college, and then gives it to P&W, GE, Boeing, LockMart and such to implement for a privately operated airliner. So many people around here advocate private spaceflight and prostrate themselves before the idea of a private flight to LEO, yet at the same time claim that nothing has come from the R&D that went into the shuttle and that we need to 'get out of LEO'. I'm sorry, but there is a grey area and it's staring us right in the face. I'm all for going to the Moon, and I'm all for going to Mars, but I'd like to at least get to the moon myself someday in the not too distant future. I am highly doubtful that a largely non-reusable spacecraft and booster pairing as the VSE proposes to launch the CEV on is going to in any way benefit my goal. I have no problem shelling out the tax money for 3 guys to go back by 2015 or 18 or whatever it ends up being (it beats that money going to research the mating habits of pigs in North Carolina), I just don't want to see research which could be used to create the CEV follow-on go up in smoke because we have moon fever. It is somewhat ridiculous to expect NASA to follow the shuttle with another RLV, especially given the disappointments they've experienced with the X-33 project and such. However, to just slam the door on reasearch into what could be a very lucrative market in the future makes absolutely no sense. NASA was able to fund many probes, satellites, and some great research projects into advanced spaceflight technologies while flying the sh

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />please don't write the bible in your posts, I've only one life to read them!<br />

 

[dobbins]

I would suggest that you actually take the time to read the Bills that Congress has passed this year, the ones that require a balanced program that includes research in Aeronautics and new technologies. You also might want to actually listen to what Dr. Griffin has said about the need for a balanced program. The research is there, sorry if you are disappointed that NASA isn't tossing everything else aside to R&D a super duper space liner. This may come as a shock to your ego but your interests aren't the only ones that NASA needs to address.<br /><br />

 

[wdobner]

Nobody appreciates a good argument these day <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />How about you work on punctuation and capitalization and I'll work on more direct, cogent responses?

 

[barrykirk]

Sounds to me like the biggest, but not the only, perceived difference on these posts between a space plane and a capsule is the reusability issue.<br /><br />Sometimes, re-usable makes for the most cost effective solution. An example would be the trucking market where you re-use your trucks. In that example, the lowest cost is acheived with re-usable designs.<br /><br />An example where the lowest cost acheived is with throw away stuff is the restaurant industry. The lowest cost is acheived with paper and plastic throw away as in McDonald's. If you want re-usable you need to goto a more expensive restaurant. Now having said that, it is generally perceived that re-usable china is a higher quality than paper and plastic ware.<br /><br />I've seen a lot of debate as to whether capsule's or space-planes are better. And both sides do have some legitimate arguments.<br /><br />Which approach is cheaper may depend on the technology level of the day and market forces.<br /><br />At this point, IMO I'm going with capsules as safer and cheaper. That is just looking at the current level of technology. Certainly, the cost of market entry is lower for the capsule design. <br /><br />But in 10 years, spaceplanes may be the better way to go.<br /><br />If a capsule design can be made re-usable including the upper stage engines. It's hard to see how a space plane is going to be competitive with mass ratio's as low as they are right now.<br /><br />Of course in 30 years we could have a space elevator and this whole argument would be a moot point.

 

[wdobner]

I've looked at the crap contained in those budgets. I realize the aeronautics budgets are not really affected by the VSE, and thank god for that. I really was using the aeronautic side of NASA as a model for how the space side should eventually be run. I'm not willing to accept 'the Virgin Galactic Moon Program brought to you by Cialis', so NASA will likely remain firmly rooted in space exploration for a good long while. However, just because they're flying exploration missions and commercial spaceflight is finally starting to get off the ground is no reason for us to just drop the research programs into lowering the cost to LEO. Boeing, LockMart, GE and P&W aren't out there doing the real abstract research into improving airliner efficiency, NASA does that and mostly farms it out to universities with grant money. The same should be true of NASA's spaceflight side, with commercial operators now entering the picture NASA should be researching ways to reduce the cost for those guys, which will then reduce the cost for NASA's own exploration programs. We've scrapped the X-43, Prometheus, and many other advanced space programs which could very valuable in developing a CEV follow-on. The Vision for Space Exploration exhibits no more vision than the Space Shuttle program did intially. I don't expect NASA to dump everything for Hyper X or Prometheus, but a bit of research money to keep the program rolling doesn't seem out of the question. By all rights CEV, SDLV, or another component of ESAS could turn out to be a bust and it'd be nice to have a bit of a backup plan.