The most Interesting Points in the New NASA Budget

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

backspace

Guest
<b> HEAVY LIFT ISSUE TO BE DEALT WITH IMMEDIATELY </b> (so where is SG, anyway...?) <i> <br />The conferees are concerned that the current implementation plans for the new vision do not properly address the requirements for the heavy lift capability that may be necessary to carry out the space exploration initiative. A complete review of such plans must be conducted prior to embarking fully upon the implementation of the initiative. In order to assess heavy lift capability needs, NASA shall report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate, no later than 180 days from the date of enactment of this Act, regarding NASA's heavy lift capability needs and plans to meet those needs immediately and in the future. NASA is encouraged to look at concepts currently being developed in the Falcon program with DARPA that could have an impact on future heavy lift program development. </i><br /><br /><b> Hubble: 90 days to give a plan to congress. </b><br /><i><br />The conferees agree that from within the funding provided, $291,000,000 is to be used for a servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope. The conferees believe a successful servicing mission to Hubble should be one of NASA's highest priorities and have provided a substantial increase in funding to accomplish this goal. The conferees direct NASA to report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate on the status of their plan to service Hubble and the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences within 90 days of enactment of this Act. </i><br /><br /><b> LRO: Large cuts, science instrument MANDATE </b><br /><i> The conferees have provided $10,000,000 for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), a reduction of $60,000,000 from the budget request. NASA should continue with its announcement of opportunity for scientific instruments with these funds. However, in establishing the criteria for instrument selection, not less than 25 percent of the LRO's scientific instrumentation funding shou</i>
 
O

odysseus145

Guest
Awsome. Glad to hear about New Horizons II and a new heavy lift vehicle, but I don't see anthing about JIMO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

najab

Guest
JIMO comes under NTP. And heavy-lift since the current plans for JIMO would max out even a Delta-4 heavy.
 
C

crix

Guest
Great! Thanks for the nice wrap up.<br /><br />Man, 180 days to form an opinion on Heavy Lift??! What the hell! This seems like an issue that could be solved between Bush, O'Keefe, and a couple Senior Engineers in a day. These delays and endless studies are so frustrating.<br /><br />I don't like the idea of resusitating Hubble. My only hope is that we'll develop some awesome robotic technologies that will be transferable to other applications in the process.<br /><br />The LRO cuts make sense. I believe there is significant overlap between pure science and "applied engineering" knowledge to be gained from the moon so this shouldn't be a problem for anyone. <br /><br />Hooray for NTP! 10 million for NTP sounds great. I love the sound of TRITON.<br /><br />60 days to CEV specifics... well, at least it's not 120. <br /><br />I hope the above 180 days for Heavy Lift will deliver more than Yay or Nay for heavy lift. Hopefully we'll get specifics, concerning architecture, etc.
 
G

grooble

Guest
^ Hopefully this time they spend will allow them to get things right. They need to lay a proper foundation for what will be a 10-25? year plan.
 
H

haywood

Guest
Actually, crix, as far as robotic repair of the Hubble is concerned, I believe NASA has all but decided to select Dexter, the Canadian-designed and built Remote Manipulator originally ordered for the Space Station.<br />They have apparently already done numerous static tests of tasks on a Hubble mock-up and Dexter passed with flying colours. Now, all they have to do is build another one because the one that exists is only for the ISS.<br />
 
W

wvbraun

Guest
They're reviving nuclear thermal propulsion? About time, after 30 years...I wonder if it would be practical to rebuild NERVA instead of starting from scratch?
 
O

odysseus145

Guest
The current propulsion planned for the JIMO mission uses a fission reactor to power ion engines along with scientific equipment. NERVA would be much better suited for the heavy lifter than JIMO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
W

wvbraun

Guest
I wasn't referring to JIMO, I know that it will use electric engines. I'm just surprised that NASA has apparently launched a new effort to develop an NTR engine (presumably for manned missions beyond LEO)...
 
H

halman

Guest
backspace,<br /><br />Thanks for the synopsis! I am really happy that the committee is expressing concern over heavy lift capability, as this is a glaring weak point in any plans to send humans into space beyond the shuttle retirement.<br /><br />I also am glad to see a demand for definition of the Crew Exploration Vehicle design. We have seen way too much ambiguity in proposed mission requirements for any worthwhile design proposals.<br /><br />To me, the need for another Lunar Orbiter is questionable. We have enough information already to select a viable site to begin manned exploration, which will generate far more information than remote sensing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
 
B

backspace

Guest
I agree. I feel the LRO is a "small steps to show we're doing something" mission to keep the congress and public happy while they work to get CEV happening. <br /><br />And in support of your opinion that a manned mission would generate more information, I agree. Imagine a MODERN CM with modern instruments orbiting the moon and doing science WHILE the EVA work is performed by the landing team. If Michael Collins et. al. had for example, the kinds of cameras, radars, spectographic equipment that Cassini has, we'd have already known everything we needed to know (yes, I am aware that this is an overstatement, but still, it'd come close).
 
N

najab

Guest
><i>I feel the LRO is a "small steps to show we're doing something" mission to keep the congress and public happy while they work to get CEV happening.</i><p>It might turn out to be so, but it doesn't have to be. If they were to concentrate on the (heavy) lift requirement first, then LRO could be a CEV size orbiter. Think of the number of instruments that could be included on a satellite which massed 10 tons or more - free-flying microsats to accurately map Lunar gravity and give true stero vision. Super high-power radar to map sub-surface features, even a couple of penetrators to do in-situ subsurface analysis.<p>These technologies have already been space rated on other missions, combine them into one big mission and you get one heck of a test for the new booster!</p></p>
 
B

backspace

Guest
Now THAT is a cool idea.<br /><br />I wish there wasn't so much mystery about a lot of these projects.
 
N

najab

Guest
Yup, all good points. The point I was making is that we have these technologies that have been developed for other missions, and we'll have (hopefully) a big-ass booster which needs testing. Since we're probably going to fly a couple of them before we put people on top, we might as well put two and two together to get five!
 
R

rogers_buck

Guest
A few years back NASA bought a couple of the russian space rated nuclear reactors. I don't recall if those were intended for thermal propulsion or just power? They might be intending to build on this technology if is more advanced.
 
R

rogers_buck

Guest
Thanks for the post and synopsis. This looks pretty good. Glad they included the X-43C and the NH II. Cool.
 
G

grooble

Guest
Wonder how they will build on the X43-A success. Perhaps a bigger test vehicle or greater speeds.
 
N

nacnud

Guest
The X43c has a longer duation, ie more fuel. It should be able fo fly at around mach 10 for a longer time, but I've got no idea how they intend to stop it melting or whether letting it melt is part of the design.
 
H

halman

Guest
najaB,<br /><br />I was under the impression that the Lunar Recon. Orbiter was well into the design phase, which precludes waiting for a heavy lift launcher to come on-lne. Everything that you said is true, but the timelines don't work out right now, at least as far as I can see.<br /><br />If we are going to test a new launch vehicle, we should start by putting mass into orbit that we can use later, and then sending mass to the Moon that we can use later. Someone has suggested water as a good cache item, and losing a tank of water would not be that expensive.<br /><br />I just have the feeling that the LRO is a 'corporate welfare' project from before the Vision initiative, which will suck up lots of money on science which can be duplicated at a later date with much less expense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
 
R

rogers_buck

Guest
The example of SMART might be a good one for getting a bunch of hardware (multiple satelites for grav, etc.) to the moon without the heavy. They had better launch them soon though...
 
R

rogers_buck

Guest
Make the SMARTs, uh, smart. Like the first ion spaceprobe DS-1. Tell the little beggers to go orbit the moon and strap them on a pegasus or delta/atlas for the bigger drones. I wonder what OTS systems could be quickly cobbled together for such a purpose? I'm thinking along the lines of a cruise stage mated to an existing GPS stellite sort of thing...
 
T

thalion

Guest
I'm more interested in the fact that New Horizons II got the nod, as I thought the odds against it were long. She still has a long ways to go before she's ready to launch--if ever (knock on wood)--but it's a start. Uranus, here we come! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts