|
Author
|
Topic: Where to now? Where should NASA go to next?
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-05-2010 07:05 AM
   
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
...having someone other than NASA astronauts
That's a good question; the press conference that, if I recall correctly, would have begun to address that had been scheduled for Feb. 3, 2003, as then-NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe previewed the FY2004 budget. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 02-05-2010 08:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Ares I was insufficient for "its intended purpose" and they knew it.
I thought the purpose of Ares I was to ferry crews in the Orion spacecraft to and from earth orbit. Originally, I think it was also intended to launch crews for missions to the moon and Mars as well, but it wouldn't need to do that now, apparently.Did I miss something? Was it determined that a fully funded Ares I could not place Orion in Earth orbit? And whomever "they" is (those who "knew" Ares I was insufficient), apparently "they" doesn't include Doc Horowitz, who remains a supporter of Ares I. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-05-2010 08:42 AM
The primary obstacle for Ares I was insufficient funding from the start, which delayed (among other things) the development of the second stage J-2X engine, delaying the vehicle's availability until very late in the space station's projected, extended lifespan (in actuality, the ISS may be extended to as long as 2028, but NASA had to go by what was going to be funded). Budget aside, the pairing between Ares I and Orion had some very significant weight challenges to the degree that individual crew equipment was an issue. The constraints were very tight. That's not to say that Ares I/Orion couldn't overcome those obstacles. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 02-05-2010 09:01 AM
It is also worth noting that in previous systems, weight ALWAYS crept up as the systems got more complex and the designs adapted to account for that.During the Apollo program, the S-II stage encountered most of the weight problems. The weight of the spacecraft kept growing above it, S-IVB's design was frozen while the S-IC stage below would have required an even more drastic weight cutting to get the same benefits of shaving less weight from the S-II. As such, the designers of the S-II had to come up with some very radical solutions in the form of the alloy they selected to build the stage from and the incorporation of a common bulkhead on the LH2 and LO2 tanks. It was designed to use Liquid Hydrogen, a more powerful fuel then the LO2 and Kerosene combination intended for stage 1 (resulting in some challenges in the storage of cryogenic fuels at much colder temperatures then liquid oxygen). They did it, but along the way there were some rather public doubts expressed about the design. An S-II undergoing static water testing at Seal Beach failed, leading to the leader of that project getting sacked. The German contingent in Alabama expressed their doubts until Von Braun looked at the design and gave it has personal stamp of approval. But that wasn't the only problem as the unstable combustion issues with the F-1 engine also caused some very public concerns to be expressed. All of that stuff was kept more or less private except for what ended up printed in Aviation Week (which only aerospace people read back in those days for the most part). If similar things happened these days, it would be leaked all over the web, the news and blogged about until the next millennium. Engineers are smart people though, and if given a chance they can usually overcome the problems. It was done in Apollo with the Saturn V and I don't see why it couldn't be done with Ares 1. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-05-2010 09:20 AM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
I thought the purpose of Ares I was to ferry crews in the Orion spacecraft to and from earth orbit.
Were you aware that ATK proposed the Ares IV as an eventual successor to Ares I? Like the Ares V, it would be a gigantic liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen booster with two solid rockets attached to it side.With all the compromises made to Orion as a direct result of the constraints of Ares I, it would have made more sense to proceed with IV. Thus, NASA would be well on its way to having had a man-rated HLLV. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 02-05-2010 11:47 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
With all the compromises made to Orion as a direct result of the constraints of Ares I, it would have made more sense to proceed with IV. Thus, NASA would be well on its way to having had a man-rated HLLV.
That is all well and good, but we can't go backward in time with benefit of hindsight and un-do past decisions. What we are looking at is... what is the best way forward from here? I am no cheerleader for Ares I. At the end of the day, my focus is on ensuring US interests in space can be met. In my opinion, relying upon commercial contractors as a primary way of accessing space for US astronauts is far to risky until they have demonstrated their ability to perform. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-06-2010 02:50 AM
It's time to put things into perspective.By comparison, NASA will still exist. US human spaceflight is not ending. It's evolving. In other news reports, both the heads of the European and Russian space agencies have welcomed Obama's decision. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-06-2010 07:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
In other news reports, both the heads of the European and Russian space agencies have welcomed Obama's decision.
Rather obvious reactions. Imagine for a minute that Obama had decided to pull the plug on the ISS... |
garymilgrom
Member Posts: 2125
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 02-06-2010 07:55 AM
Where should NASA go next? I think a one-way journey to Mars because it's the most efficient way to go to that world. Let's establish a human beach head somewhere else - no need to return. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-06-2010 08:20 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
Rather obvious reactions.
Agreed. But the European Space Agency member states have to be realistic in that their human spaceflight programme is 100% dependent on NASA and Russia. You know yourself most European politicians have never been keen for ESA to develop a manned vehicle, much less a lunar base. Therefore, ESA must embrace the Obama decison. And there are only so many seats available to ESA astronauts on Soyuz. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 02-06-2010 10:10 AM
Of course, the EU's GDP is larger than that of the US (source: CIA World Fact Book). If the member states of the EU wished to endorse a space program, that entity has more resources to do so than USA does.By comparison, Russia's GDP is about 8% of that of the EU. China's is about 30% of that of the EU. Of course, that's all off the topic at hand. It will be interesting to see how NASA goes about setting its own direction and creating its own vision for the future. It's kinda unprecedented, I think -- normally, the executive branch provides a vision in terms of "go here" or "build that". |
ross426
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 02-06-2010 04:56 PM
I'm sure an international lunar mission would be a headache, but wouldn't the result(s) be worth it? Isn't that what makes the ISS so diplomatically correct?Hopefully, with the previous International relations already established, because of the ISS, it would help tremendously with communications, engineering, and new technologies for a lunar mission. I guess the new countries to join would be India and China. But even if they don't want to play, it would still leave American, Russian, Canadian, Japanese, and Europeans to not only share in the expense, but continue to improve with friendly interactions. There are lots of people with enough courage to do these missions. Apollo proved it. Part of a mission to the Moon goes beyond science and technological improvements. It restores and improves human pride... moves us forward in a way that's hard to describe. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-06-2010 09:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ross426:
I'm sure an international lunar mission would be a headache, but wouldn't the result(s) be worth it? Isn't that what makes the ISS so diplomatically correct?
It may be diplomatically correct but the US basically gets the shaft in the process. An international lunar mission would not benefit the USA at all. The US needs to go it alone as in an international "flight" the US taxpayer carries too much of the weight. Just think of what NASA could have accomplished towards returning to exploration if we were not saddled with the ISS and Shuttle trucker missions for the last 15 years. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-06-2010 10:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
Just think of what NASA could have accomplished towards returning to exploration if we were not saddled with the ISS and Shuttle trucker missions for the last 15 years.
I'd submit that you can't lay the blame for that on our international partners. It was the US that decided to concentrate on the shuttle/spacestation paradigm long before we brought in international partners. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-06-2010 11:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by garymilgrom:
Let's establish a human beach head somewhere else - no need to return.
And we have a volunteer!  With a bit of luck you'll be traveling with Buzz Aldrin!  |
Colin E. Anderton
Member Posts: 63
From: Newmarket, Suffolk, England
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 02-07-2010 04:04 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
US human spaceflight is not ending.
I'm afraid it is - and for a long, long time. As far as my lifetime is concerned - forever. On what do you base your optimistic view?The U.S. government has turned its back on manned space flight. It's as simple as that. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-07-2010 04:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Colin E. Anderton:
I'm afraid it is...
If you accept the Augustine committee's and Bolden's assessment of the state of the Constellation program, then the timeline for the U.S. human spaceflight program hasn't changed. Heavy-lift is still coming in the mid- to late-2020s, and the Moon is still on the horizon. Actually, strike that, as the timeline has changed. There is now a possibility (however slight some believe it is) that commercial crew services may resume U.S. human spaceflight sooner than Constellation could deliver otherwise. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-07-2010 07:10 AM
Someone made the point that Obama cancelled Constellation in lieu of the depressed US economy.If that is the case, then perhaps it was the sound thing to do. I don't believe most Americans were, or still are, aware that the rockets to reach the Moon simply didn't exist when the president's budget axed Constellation. In that case, US human spaceflight capability was non-existent after the final shuttle mission landed anyway. Why am I so optimistic? (I've always been cynical.) But the key to sustained human spaceflight beyond LEO lies in heavy-lift. A fact now being recognised universally. The big question is if heavy-lift means man-rating existing launchers or developing from scratch? |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-07-2010 07:59 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Actually, strike that, as the timeline has changed. There is now a possibility (however slight some believe it is) that commercial crew services may resume U.S. human spaceflight sooner than Constellation could deliver otherwise.
Bolden mentioned this in his press conference citing 2013 for a start of "commercial" crew services (Orion on top of an EELV?)
|
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-07-2010 08:27 AM
Where should NASA go next?Bolden mentioned sending astronauts into deep space to see if they could... survive! I was surprised and amused to hear this. Note: I'm not picking on Bolden, but his press conference was very intriguing, to say the least.  |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-07-2010 10:27 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
It was the US that decided to concentrate on the shuttle/space station paradigm long before we brought in international partners.
And concentrating on that is what brought on the end of manned space exploration in return for concentrating on installing new toilets and wasting billions.Whatever NASA focuses on now will forever be hampered due to the wasted time and money of the last 15 and 20 years and that's unfortunate. I really hope they propose something bold and something that will happen soon. The longer the US does not have a manned space program the easier it will be to dump the whole thing. |
Rick Boos
Member Posts: 851
From: Celina, Ohio
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 02-07-2010 10:33 AM
Since the Constellation program has not been "officially" canceled (Bolden says he does not have the power to do so and it's up to our elected representatives) is there still a chance for it to continue in a scaled back form despite the President's and or Vice President's wishes? In other words can the Congress and the Senate override the President and Vice President? |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-07-2010 11:30 AM
Just a passing thought. Heaven forbid that it should happen - but what price the shuttles and the ISS if one of the remaining five shuttle flights suffer a major mishap? Will developing ISS continue? Will the shuttles make another flight or would that flight be the last? |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-07-2010 11:34 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
Whatever NASA focuses on now will forever be hampered due to the wasted time and money of the last 15 and 20 years and that's unfortunate.
ISS was originally Freedom. Freedom was proposed in 1984, with Reagan inviting other countries to join. And before that, in 1969, NASA was looking to develop a shuttle vehicle to service a giant space station. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-07-2010 01:13 PM
Yes I am aware it was previously Freedom.I don't remember that the original plans were for it to be the manned US space program that it has become (25 years). |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-07-2010 01:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
what brought on the end of manned space exploration
I would say there is a stronger argument -- backed by public polls over the years -- that what brought on this end -- not that this is the end, mind you -- was the attitude that space is only meant to be explored for the public's own personal excitement, and not to learn more about ourselves, more about our planet, more about how to exist separate from our planet and more about our origins (on edit: not to mention, how to get a whole lot more of us up there).One would have thought that those who actually have an interest in space history would have learned a lesson from Apollo, but it would appear not. Fortunately, those who do recognize the value of orbiting science labs and human research programs have been at the forefront of our efforts to explore space, beginning with von Braun and Webb. That's not to say that we cannot leave low Earth orbit, but even when we do, there will be a lot of time concentrated on "installing new toilets" and if you don't understand why, then I would suggest you don't really support manned space exploration, rather you support manned space entertainment. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 02-07-2010 01:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Rick Boos:
Since the Constellation program has not been "officially" canceled...
At this time, Constellation is NOT cancelled as the budget presented is a proposed budget. The president can't order a program cancelled any more then he can order a program to proceed. He proposes the program or the budget and Congress votes on it after a debate on the issue. That is one of the things that makes the US system of government unique.As such, Constellation has three possibilities, go ahead as it is, go ahead scaled back or in combination with some alternative to appease the folks on Capitol Hill, or be cancelled just as the president outlined. Congress will have to vote on that in the coming weeks. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-07-2010 01:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Will the shuttles make another flight or would that flight be the last?
A shuttle accident this year would immediately end the space shuttle program, with the only possible exception were the loss the result of neither a technological or managerial issue, e.g. a terrorist attack. Even then, it would be highly doubtful.The space station has reached a state of completion that the remaining five flights are not necessary for it to go forward. With the exception of the delivery of the Tranquility node on STS-130, the flights are aimed at facilitating life on orbit and extending science after the shuttle stops flying. Most of those efforts could be offloaded to ATV, HTV and COTS, with the notable exception of the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, which installation currently relies on the shuttle's capabilities. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-07-2010 01:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
I don't remember that the original plans were for it to be the manned US space program that it has become (25 years).
It's a valid point. And one that I don't dispute either.But the fact is that ISS is orbiting the planet and now we have got to maximise its capabilities. The ESA director-general, Mr. Dordain, recently requested that China, India and South Korea become partners. If there's one thing diplomats know is how and when to dangle a carrot. And that's what the US space programme represents to the world. America's leadership is not in decline, because it sets the standards for others to follow. I've written on another thread that one nation alone cannot sustain deep-space human exploration. If all China wants to do is plant a flag on the Moon, then it had better come up with a long-term plan to colonise it quickly afterwards. Even Constellation would have struggled to achieve this. |
Spacefest
Member Posts: 1168
From: Tucson, AZ
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 02-07-2010 01:51 PM
What if we ride a Soyuz into orbit, assemble an ion powered spacecraft at the ISS and take off for Mars? Is that sufficient for the definition of US manned spaceflight?I say let the Russians do the heavy lifting, and we can finesse our way to Phobos. Incidentally, ion engines were imagined in the 1950s, built in the early 1960s, and have been in use space for over 10 years, it's a mature, tested technology. 40 days to Mars! They require little fuel, so payloads and radiation shielding can make up the bulk of the spacecraft. Enough ion engines, it seems to me, would provide protection against solar radiation anyway. Commercial companies who don't pursue man-rated spacecraft can easily launch components and cargo. |
Rick Boos
Member Posts: 851
From: Celina, Ohio
Registered: Feb 2000
|
posted 02-07-2010 02:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
As such, Constellation has three possibilities, go ahead as it is, go ahead scaled back or in combination with some alternative to appease the folks on Capitol Hill, or be cancelled just as the president outlined.
Jay, that's the what I thought, so what about a compromise? Take all the time needed for a solid and realistic program that is well funded and backed. Strive for new technology to be utilized, and stick with the same program names and patches? Why change them? Even Bolden says that the ultimate goals are still the same... the need for a heavy lift vehicle, the Moon, Mars, and asteroids. To me the answer is very simple. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-07-2010 07:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
If there's one thing diplomats know is how and when to dangle a carrot. And that's what the US space programme represents to the world. America's leadership is not in decline, because it sets the standards for others to follow.
That's why the US has to go to space alone.Lesser able countries, that's not meant as a slam or insult just a fact want to use the USA's abilities and technology as a "carrot" with little benefit to the USA. If it does not benefit the USA taxpayer it should not be done. If Europe wants a space station, let them build one and ferry their astronauts back and forth. If China and India want a space station, let them build one. It is not up to the US Taxpayer to carry the load for everyone else. The US needs to keep its technological edge over other countries. Space is one of those. Whatever everyone else accomplishes in many regards the US knows how and has already done. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-08-2010 02:20 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
If Europe wants a space station, let them build one and ferry their astronauts back and forth. If China and India want a space station, let them build one.
I thought that's what the whole point of the International Space Station was(!) |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-08-2010 06:21 AM
No, other countries are sending their astronauts to the ISS that the US taxpayer payed for and are responsible for building with the Shuttle they pay for. Any country could have dropped out of the ISS program and it would not have had a major impact except the US. It may be called an International Space Station but it truly is an American Space Station built with others. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-08-2010 06:34 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
Any country could have dropped out of the ISS program and it would not have had a major impact except the US.
False, the station could not operate without Russia's functional cargo block and service module. False, the station could not be assembled or operate without Canada's robotic arm. False, the station will soon (in two weeks) be incapable of supporting a crew of six without the European-built Node 3. False, the station's science capabilities would be severely hobbled without ESA's Columbus and JAXA's Kibo laboratories, the latter the largest component of the station. False, the station could not support a crew (of any size) without the Russian Soyuz as a lifeboat. False, the station would not be able to support a crew resupplied by the shuttle alone -- the Russian Progress is required, if not also ESA's ATV and JAXA's HTV moving forward while the U.S. waits for its commercial cargo service providers to begin flights. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-08-2010 07:20 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
it truly is an American Space Station built with others.
That's a very revisionist analysis. So why wasn't Freedom ever built? (By your account there would have been no need of those "others".) |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 02-08-2010 08:47 AM
If the question is, "could America have built a space station on its own without the help of other nations?", then the answer is of course yes. It would not have been the ISS, nor would it have needed to be the ISS. And it certainly would not be in a high inclination orbit. The follow-on question would be, "Is the benefit the US is gaining from the ISS worth the investment?" I'll leave the answer to that to others, as the answer likely will not be known until after the program has ended. The best estimates I have seen show that the US costs will be slightly over 1/2 of the total cost of the ISS program. All the other nations make up the other 1/2. Regardless, it is a bit too late to un-build the ISS. We might as well make the best of it, learn what we can, and move on. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-08-2010 10:14 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
False, the station could not operate without Russia's functional cargo block and service module.
The US is/was capable of building this themselves and transporting it to the station with the shuttle. quote:
False, the station could not be assembled or operate without Canada's robotic arm.
The US is/was capable of building this themselves and transporting it to the station with the shuttle. quote:
False, the station will soon (in two weeks) be incapable of supporting a crew of six without the European-built Node 3.
The US is/was capable of building this themselves and transporting it to the station with the shuttle. quote:
False, the station's science capabilities would be severely hobbled without ESA's Columbus and JAXA's Kibo laboratories, the latter the largest component of the station.
The US is/was capable of building this themselves and transporting it to the station with the shuttle. quote:
False, the station could not support a crew (of any size) without the Russian Soyuz as a lifeboat.
The US is/was capable of building this themselves and transporting it to the station with the shuttle. quote:
False, the station would not be able to support a crew resupplied by the shuttle alone -- the Russian Progress is required, if not also ESA's ATV and JAXA's HTV moving forward while the U.S. waits for its commercial cargo service providers to begin flights.
The US is/was capable of building this themselves and transporting it to the station with the shuttle.You are not reading what I am saying. I did not say we could eliminate the contribution of other space agencies from the current ISS and have it function. I said the US did not need the other countries in order to build an ISS type space station. You could have removed all the other countries from the partnership and the station could have been built by the US only. (whether it would have been is a separate discussion) If however you removed the US from the project, there would be no station. This the danger with NASA moving forward with partnerships with other less capable countries and one reason why people are so lethargic and unwilling to pay money for space. the US taxpayer is footing the bill to a ridiculous degree. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-08-2010 10:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
This the danger with NASA moving forward with partnerships with other less capable countries and one reason why people are so lethargic and unwilling to pay money for space.
I doubt that's even partly the reason for the indifference towards human spaceflight in the USA. Constellation hardly excited the masses and it was a purely US programme. The opposition to the 2011 NASA budget is mainly coming from Texas and Florida politicians where JSC and KSC are. It's not national. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 02-08-2010 11:30 AM
Ironic considering that the international countries seem to have better followthrough on their programs then the US has had. In the past two decades or so, ESA/CNES has developed Ariane V and the ATV. Their mini-shuttle (original payload for the Ariane V) was cancelled though. Japan developed two or three unmanned boosters and the HTV. The Russians have come up with a fourth generation Soyuz, the TMA series.In this time, we've managed to cancel the X-33 Venturestar, a couple other shuttle replacement programs and the X-38 CRV. All things considered, it sounds to me like the international countries are tax dollars better spent since they seem to get their stuff built compared to our system of procurement. |
advertisement