Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Exploration: Moon to Mars
  [Discussion] The President's revised plan for NASA (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search


This topic is 12 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   [Discussion] The President's revised plan for NASA
Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-13-2010 09:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
White House Office of Science & Technology Policy fact sheet
A Bold Approach for Space Exploration and Discovery

Fact Sheet on the President's April 15th Address in Florida

On Thursday, April 15, at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the President will outline a bold strategy for human spaceflight that increases the NASA budget by $6 billion over the next five years. His plan represents an ambitious effort to foster the development of path-breaking technologies; increase the number, scope, and pace of manned and unmanned space missions; make human spaceflight safer and more efficient; and help create thousands of jobs. The President will lay out the goals and strategies in this new vision for NASA, including a sequence of deep-space destinations matched to growing capabilities, progressing step-by-step until we are able to reach Mars. He will provide new information about specific elements of the plan, including proceeding with a scaled-down variant of the Orion space-capsule technology developed in the Constellation program (to support crew escape requirements on the International Space Station) and setting a decision date for moving from research to development and production of a heavy-lift launch vehicle. In addition, he will speak to the new technologies, new jobs, and new industries this approach will create along the way.

This new strategy means more money for NASA, more jobs for the country, more astronaut time in space, and more investments in innovation. It will result in a longer operating lifetime for the International Space Station, new launch capabilities becoming available sooner, and a fundamentally more ambitious space strategy to take us to an increased number of destinations and to new frontiers in space. By undertaking this strategy, we will no longer rely on our past achievements, and instead embrace a new and bold course of innovation and discovery.

This new plan:

  • Advances America's commitment to human spaceflight and exploration of the solar system, with a bold new vision and timetable for reaching new frontiers deeper in space.
  • Increases NASA's budget by $6 billion over 5 years.
  • Leads to more than 2,500 additional jobs in Florida's Kennedy Space Center area by 2012, as compared to the prior path.
  • Begins major work on building a new heavy lift rocket sooner, with a commitment to decide in 2015 on the specific heavy-lift rocket that will take us deeper into space.
  • Initiates a vigorous new technology development and test program to increase the capabilities and reduce the cost of future exploration activities.
  • Launches a steady stream of precursor robotic exploration missions to scout locations and demonstrate technologies to increase the safety and capability of future human missions, while also providing scientific dividends.
  • Restructures Constellation and directs NASA to develop the Orion crew capsule effort in order to provide stand-by emergency escape capabilities for the Space Station -- thereby reducing our reliance on foreign providers.
  • Establishes the technological foundation for future crew spacecraft needed for missions beyond low Earth orbit.
  • Increases the number of astronaut days in space by 3,500 over the next decade, extends the life of the International Space Station, likely beyond 2020, and enables the launching of astronauts on new vehicles from the Kennedy Space Center 1-2 years sooner.
  • Jumpstarts a new commercial space transportation industry to provide safe and efficient crew and cargo transportation to the Space Station, projected to create over 10,000 jobs nationally over the next five years.
  • Invests in Florida, adding $3 billion more for the Kennedy Space Center to manage - a 60 percent increase.
  • Makes strategic investments to develop critical knowledge, technologies, and capabilities to expand long-duration human exploration into deep space in a more efficient and safe manner, thus getting us to more destinations in deep space sooner.
  • And puts the space program on a more ambitious trajectory that pushes the frontiers of innovation to propel us on a new journey of innovation and discovery deeper into space.
Specific New Elements of the President's Plan

Outlining A Bold New Vision for Reaching New Frontiers in Space: Building on the announcement of a new heavy-lift rocket decision date and the restructuring of Orion, the President will outline a broad vision and timetable for unlocking our ambitions and expanding our frontiers in space, until ultimately we can meet the challenge of sending humans to Mars.

The President's vision for NASA space exploration enables:

  • a set of stepping-stone achievements in space that will take us further and faster into space, allowing us to reach a range of destinations including lunar orbit, Lagrange points, near-Earth asteroids, and the moons of Mars, and eventually Mars itself. This sequence of missions will begin with a set of crewed flights to prove the capabilities required for exploration beyond low Earth orbit. After these initial missions, our long-duration human spaceflight technologies will enable human explorers to conduct the first-ever crewed mission into deep space to an asteroid, thereby achieving an historical first; venture into deep space locations such as the Lagrange points (potential sites of fuel depots that would enable more capable future missions to the Moon, Mars, and other destinations); and then send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth.

  • increasing investments in ground-breaking technologies that will allow astronauts to reach space faster and more often, to travel further distances for less cost, and to stay in space for longer periods of time

  • systematically tackling the hard problems of space exploration -- from protecting our astronauts from radiation to developing advanced in-space propulsion -- so that we can push the boundaries not only of where we can go in space but also what we can do there to improve our lives here on Earth
Developing a Heavy Lift Rocket, with a Specific Decision in 2015, to Expand Our Reach in Space: To demonstrate a concrete timetable and commitment for expanding human exploration further, the President is announcing that, in addition to investing in transformative heavy-lift technologies, he will commit to making a specific decision in 2015 on the development of a new heavy-lift rocket architecture. This new rocket would eventually lift future deep-space spacecraft to enable humans to expand our reach toward Mars and the rest of the Solar System. This new rocket would take advantage of the new technology investments proposed in the budget -- primarily a $3.1 billion investment over five years on heavy-lift R&D. This propulsion R&D effort will include development of a U.S. first-stage hydrocarbon engine for potential use in future heavy lift (and other) launch systems, as well as basic research in areas such as new propellants, advanced propulsion materials manufacturing techniques, combustion processes, and engine health monitoring, all of which are expected to shorten the development time for any future heavy-lift rocket. The new rocket also will benefit from the budget's proposed R&D on other breakthrough technologies in our new strategy for human exploration (such as in-space refueling), which should make possible a more cost-effective and optimized heavy lift capability as part of future exploration architectures. A decision in 2015 means that major work on building a new heavy lift rocket will likely begin two years sooner than under the troubled Constellation program.

Restructuring the Orion Crew Capsule: Our goal is to take advantage of the best work undertaken in the Constellation program. The President is announcing that NASA will restructure the Orion crew exploration vehicle program to a simpler and more efficient design that will be focused on crew emergency escape from the International Space Station. Under the Constellation program, the Orion crew capsule was intended to house astronauts during their travel to the International Space Station and later missions to the Moon. It also was to be capable of docking at the Space Station for six months and returning crews to the Earth. As part of the President's new plan for NASA, the development work already performed on this capability will be re-oriented to meet the important safety requirement of providing stand-by emergency escape capabilities for astronauts on the space Station. We will be able to launch this vehicle within the next few years, creating an American crew escape capability that will increase the safety of our crews on the Space Station, reduce our dependence on foreign providers, and simplify requirements for other commercial crew providers. This effort will also help establish a technological foundation for future exploration spacecraft needed for human missions beyond low Earth orbit and will preserve some critical high-tech contractor jobs in Colorado, Texas, and Florida.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-13-2010 09:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
News coverage:
  • Space News
    Orion to Become Crew Lifeboat Under Revised Obama Space Plan
    Garver said NASA’s Orion contract with Denver-based Lockheed Martin Space Systems would be restructured to develop a variant of the space capsule that could be launched unmanned to station within the next couple of years to serve as a crew lifeboat. Garver said the plan would allow the agency to retain some of its multibillion-dollar investment in the program while reducing U.S. reliance on Russian Soyuz spacecraft currently used as an emergency crew escape capability on the space station.
  • Washington Post
    Obama speech to outline his plans for returning U.S. to space
    Obama will outline concrete plans to send astronauts to nearby asteroids, to the Earth's moon and the moons of Mars, and to Mars itself. The administration has proposed spending $3.1 billion during the next five years to develop the "heavy lift" rocket needed for that taskand will commit to selecting by 2015 which design will be built.
  • Wall Street Journal
    White House Moves to Placate Critics of its NASA Plan
    If approved by Congress, the move will help Lockheed and the government avoid significant termination costs associated with shutting the Orion project down. In addition, future commercial space transportation providers won't have to worry about paying for crew escape systems.
  • Reuters
    Obama to outline revamped space policy in Florida
    White House officials said on Tuesday that Obama wants NASA to begin work on building a new heavy lift rocket sooner than envisioned under the canceled Constellation program, with a commitment to decide in 2015 on the specific rocket that will take astronauts deeper into space.

    "This is a rocket that is going to happen two years earlier than would've happened under the past program," a senior White House official said.

SpaceAholic
Member

Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-13-2010 10:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Orion strictly as a lifeboat? Why not just reinitialize work on the X-38/CRV. Maybe a politically expedient solution, not the optimum technical one.

Also was struck by the decision to pursue a "Hydrocarbon" first stage - sounds like RP1 and reinvention of the S-1C.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-13-2010 10:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
Orion strictly as a lifeboat?
Strictly as a lifeboat as contracted by NASA; Lockheed Martin could use this opportunity to justify development of a commercial crew version to compete for that NASA contract, too.

Bill Hunt
Member

Posts: 404
From: Irvine, CA
Registered: Oct 2002

posted 04-13-2010 10:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Bill Hunt   Click Here to Email Bill Hunt     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes, exactly. From Space.com...
Garver said NASA has no plans to continue development of Orion for exploration beyond low Earth orbit.

"We will ask them to focus Orion for the government purposes on our unique requirement of crew escape," she said, adding that Lockheed Martin would be welcome to use the Orion capsule to bid on the agency's $6 billion commercial crew program proposed in the president's 2011 budget.

"That would be a company decision on bidding for commercial crew technology," she said.

So Lockheed would be free to continue developing Orion for manned flight use, presumably under possible contract with NASA and other private companies, just like SpaceX is doing with its Dragon capsule. But NASA's development funding past Orion crew escape capabilities would be focused on more long-term strategies. The idea is that if Lockheed can develop Orion into a cost-effective, affordable and reliable manned vehicle, not only would NASA want to pay to use them, but other partner countries and companies would too. NASA wouldn't have to keep footing all the development costs, and could better spend its money elsewhere, and Lockheed might actually develop a commecial market for their vehicle and make a profit.

Fra Mauro
Member

Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 04-13-2010 11:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fra Mauro   Click Here to Email Fra Mauro     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If this story is true, it's a nice start, however, I would like to know if the Shuttle will be continued for awhile. Why not use Constellation to go to the moon or Mars on this new booster? NASA still needs a specific program and a destination. For the first time in months, I am a little more optimistic about NASA's prospects. I applaud all the men and women who stood up for OUR space program, including the NASA greats. However, the battle is not over until the policy becomes law. Don't give up the fight!

cspg
Member

Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006

posted 04-13-2010 11:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cspg   Click Here to Email cspg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
Also was struck by the decision to pursue a "Hydrocarbon" first stage - sounds like RP1 and reinvention of the S-1C.

I thought I had seen this in another thread. Aren't we supposed to be running out of oil in the coming decades? If so, why develop such an engine?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-14-2010 12:01 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
I thought I had seen this in another thread.
From the other thread:
NASA's efforts in this area will focus on development of a U.S. core stage hydrocarbon engine that would be suitable for use in a future heavy-lift rocket or as the first stage of a future launch vehicle. A strong candidate would be a hydrocarbon (liquid oxygen/kerosene) engine, capable of generating high levels of thrust approximately equal to or exceeding the performance of the Russian-built RD-180 engine.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-14-2010 12:03 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
If this story is true...
The fact sheet posted above is sourced directly from The White House...

jimsz
Member

Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 04-14-2010 05:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jimsz   Click Here to Email jimsz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Wow.

Billions more spent to send an unmanned capsule to the ISS in low earth orbit, to invest in groundbreaking technologies to reach space faster (to where, LEO?), tackling the hard problems of space exploration (to where LEO?)

What a bold and worthwhile plan. What a joke.

Big on words and small on real goals.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-14-2010 05:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
(to where, LEO?)
At first, yes, but then that was the plan with Constellation and for that matter, Apollo, too. Test the components and spacecraft in Earth orbit and then head outwards... "to conduct the first-ever crewed mission into deep space to an asteroid, thereby achieving an historical first; venture into deep space locations such as the Lagrange points (potential sites of fuel depots that would enable more capable future missions to the Moon, Mars, and other destinations); and then send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth."

That's the roadmap (as outlined by OSTP) and the first milestone date along it is the design and start of construction of a heavylift crew- and cargo-capable launch vehicle by 2015 (two years earlier than Ares V was slated to begin the same).

issman1
Member

Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005

posted 04-14-2010 08:01 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for issman1     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
What a bold and worthwhile plan. What a joke.
You may call it "a joke," but I think of it as similar to the debate which preceded STS-125 - the Hubble servicing mission cancelled by former NASA administrator O'Keefe.

It quickly became apparent that only a manned mission by the shuttle could service Hubble. Likewise, the clever people in NASA and elsewhere should convince President Obama that a manned Orion-type capsule is much better than unmanned.

Ultimately, this capsule could be adapted for deep space flight.

Tykeanaut
Member

Posts: 2235
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 04-14-2010 08:10 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Tykeanaut   Click Here to Email Tykeanaut     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Mmmm...looks more promising. On a selfish note, being 50 this year I hope I live long enough though to see the moon visited again and perhaps Mars!? We'll obviously have to see if the actions are as bold as the words.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-14-2010 08:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Tykeanaut:
...being 50 this year I hope I live long enough though to see the moon visited again and perhaps Mars!?
Bolden has said he feels NASA astronauts will reach Mars within his lifetime, and he is 63.

alanh_7
Member

Posts: 1267
From: Ajax, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 04-14-2010 09:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for alanh_7   Click Here to Email alanh_7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Bolden has said he feels NASA astronauts will reach Mars within his lifetime, and he is 63
Then why not state in clear terms, and timelines that Mars is the objective?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-14-2010 09:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Then why not state in clear terms, and timelines that Mars is the objective?
The NASA Administrator neither proposes or sets policy for the agency. Bolden has said though that Mars is the objective of the President's plans and Obama is expected to make that even clearer when he speaks tomorrow, as outlined by the OSTP fact sheet.

The President's revised proposal also includes the opening timeline for such an effort, in so much the "by 2015" date for starting construction of a heavylift launch vehicle.

It is debatable whether setting a long-range timeline is the best course of action. NASA has a recent track record for not being able to meet the deadlines set for it, which only provides fodder for program cancellations. It may suit the agency better to meet one milestone at a time, before setting the next one.

BNorton
Member

Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005

posted 04-14-2010 09:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for BNorton   Click Here to Email BNorton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Ultimately, this capsule could be adapted for deep space flight.

No one is ever going to Mars or any other "deep space" location in a capsule.

Please remember that the Orion capsule was the start of a plan for going to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. It was not THE vehicle for travel to any destination beyond the moon. (Yes, I do know that there were PowerPoint proposals made by some for doing so. There were also PowerPoint proposals over the years for flying the shuttle to the moon.) While far from perfect, the idea of the Constellation program was to start a very long term program that would progress through various exploration phases. The hardware was to be developed in steps because of budget constraints.

Please also remember that Constellation required a considerable commercial component to succeed in advanced parts of the plan; however, the timeline allowed those capabilities to be developed. The plan did not "sit and wait" on the commercial components. It was to be a very long "sustainable" program. The intent was to put the country on a space exploration path that would progress through many political administrations. Another vehicle would be developed to land on the moon. The next step would be to develop additional vehicles for travel to Mars as funds allowed and progress on "living on the moon" techniques developed.

So with Constellation, like Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and to a lesser extent the shuttle, we (the US) learned by doing. Now, we will "learn" by going off and doing studies and developing small test hardware projects, a "bold vision"; we will study and study and study heavylift and make a decision with no known hardware to fly and no funded destination, a "bold vision"; we will pay companies to hopefully one day build Soyuz-like capsules, a "bold vision"; and we will watch India, China, Russia, and maybe others go places we used to go, a "bold vision."

alanh_7
Member

Posts: 1267
From: Ajax, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 04-14-2010 09:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for alanh_7   Click Here to Email alanh_7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
It may suit the agency better to meet one milestone at a time, before setting the next one.
I think though Robert the reason for delays to NASA's programs such as the shuttle and ISS, X-38, etc. has nothing to do with unattainable timelines. But the result improper funding to begin with. As also the case with Constellation.

With proper funding in the past NASA was able to meet its end of decade commitment to landing on the moon.

Do not get me wrong. I think the statements coming out of the White House the last day or so are helping to make their position clearer. And I look forward to the President's statements tomorrow and hope they will set the record strait and clear in a positive manor so the program can move forward.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-14-2010 09:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
No one is ever going to Mars or any other "deep space" location in a capsule.
Depends on your definition of "deep space." Orion was very capable of taking an astronaut crew to a near Earth asteroid, where they could either use a robotic arm or spacewalk* to collect samples.

* Orion, as designed, did not include an airlock but like Gemini, could support spacewalks by exposing the entire cabin to the vacuum of space, even if crew members remained (suited) inside.

quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
Now, we will "learn" by going off and doing studies and developing small test hardware projects
Under the revised plan, Orion will be used as a technology platform in addition to a lifeboat for the ISS. For example, an unmanned Orion will demonstrate antonymous rendezvous and docking, a capability Russia and Europe has but the U.S. lacks. Orion will also demonstrate reentry heat shield technologies, solar panel designs and recovery techniques, all necessary for beyond low Earth orbit missions.

BNorton
Member

Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005

posted 04-14-2010 10:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for BNorton   Click Here to Email BNorton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
For example, an unmanned Orion will demonstrate antonymous rendezvous and docking, a capability Russia and Europe has but the U.S. lacks.
SpaceX's Dragon craft (if it ever flies) will use antonymous rendezvous and docking, the development of which is most likely being funded by NASA. Besides, this is old technology... as you point out, the Russians have been doing for decades.

Recovery techniques? You mean new parachutes? The U.S. has forgotten how to splashdown? Heatshield? Is not the heat shield based more or less on a copy of Apollo, only bigger? After one or two flights, then what? Build a bigger one to show it can be done? Where is the payoff? Heatshields on capsules are standard operating procedure.

Solar power? Again, something the US has done for decades; however you are correct if you are referring to it being new in terms of US manned spacecraft. The US has generally not gone that "low tech". Yes, they will be required for very long term near earth missions (remember Skylab? been there, done that). The point: there is really nothing new here. What is proposed as new is what has been done for decades by the US and others; a "bold vision" for sure.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-14-2010 10:33 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
SpaceX's Dragon craft (if it ever flies) will use antonymous rendezvous and docking, the development of which is most likely being funded by NASA.
While SpaceX's Dragon does approach the station autonomously, it does not self-dock. Like JAXA's HTV, it is berthed at the station by astronauts grappling it with the Canadarm2 robotic arm.

As to your others points: parachute and heatshield development have presented significant challenges to the Constellation program, and that research will continue under this new use for Orion. And developing deployable solar panels is no more "low tech" than fuel cells or RTGs.

jimsz
Member

Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 04-14-2010 12:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jimsz   Click Here to Email jimsz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Bolden has said he feels NASA astronauts will reach Mars within his lifetime, and he is 63.
And Gene Cernan thought we would have been back to the moon years if not decades ago.

BNorton
Member

Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005

posted 04-14-2010 02:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for BNorton   Click Here to Email BNorton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
And developing deployable solar panels is no more "low tech" than fuel cells or RTGs.
I respectfully strongly disagree. Fuel cells are a much more "advanced" means of power generation than solar panels. That is not to say that solar panels are easy.

With respect to the proposed Orion shell, its solar panel design is like that used on the recent Mars polar lander. The design is known to work on the lander. Building Orion and saying that it will be used as a test bed for solar panels is disingenuous. It is a waste of money.

Set a goal with a deadline. Develop a plan to obtain that goal. Spend money on the steps and hardware needed at achieve that goal. Do not waste money... NASA does not have money to waste. In my opinion, the President's revised plan is more of a waste of money and a path to no where than the first.

Fezman92
Member

Posts: 1031
From: New Jersey, USA
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 04-14-2010 03:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fezman92   Click Here to Email Fezman92     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
At least it is something. I was a little disappointed that it was only going be a lifeboat. It would have been nice if they said that they would make Orion the US version of the Soyuz. At least then we would be able to launch our own guys without paying millions for each flight.

Spacefest
Member

Posts: 1168
From: Tucson, AZ
Registered: Jan 2009

posted 04-14-2010 03:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Spacefest   Click Here to Email Spacefest     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think not setting a definite date to get to Mars is political reality.

The Kennedy-Apollo timetable was a gamble at ten years. Undoubtedly, he was counting on a sympathetic Administration being in power for most of that. Fortunately there was.

As it was, the first Republican to come to power (Nixon, 1969) canceled the program almost immediately.

It will take longer to get to Mars, so maybe this time we need baby steps.

alanh_7
Member

Posts: 1267
From: Ajax, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 04-14-2010 03:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for alanh_7   Click Here to Email alanh_7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My father worked with high performance aircraft for most of his adult life and had a saying. "Define the mission...design the aircraft"

I know some aircraft are robust enough that they can have multipul missions, but again that is usually something defined at least to some degree in the original concept.

I think the same thinking can apply to spacecraft.

Spacefest
Member

Posts: 1168
From: Tucson, AZ
Registered: Jan 2009

posted 04-14-2010 04:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Spacefest   Click Here to Email Spacefest     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by alanh_7:
"Define the mission... design the aircraft." I think the same thinking can apply to spacecraft.
There is much more to going to another planet than designing hardware. We already know what we need to get there, we've been successful enough in doing that.

alanh_7
Member

Posts: 1267
From: Ajax, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 04-14-2010 05:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for alanh_7   Click Here to Email alanh_7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I guess that's my point. Since the mission keeps changing, in particular as far as Orion goes, then the hardware requirements also keep changing and nothing gets built.

Orion's mission has changed so many times from its original concept as "Apollo on Steroids" to where we are now, a CRV. I wonder if it will ever get built?

jimsz
Member

Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 04-14-2010 08:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jimsz   Click Here to Email jimsz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by alanh_7:
Since the mission keeps changing, in particular as far as Orion goes, then the hardware requirements also keep changing and nothing gets built.
But if you read Obama's press rep today, what they are touting is that this "creates more jobs than Bush's plan."

It is simply politics.

Fra Mauro
Member

Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002

posted 04-14-2010 11:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fra Mauro   Click Here to Email Fra Mauro     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think that the President, like any politician, is testing the waters to see how this revised plan will go over. If the opposition is still there, there might be more in store for NASA. There are so many whispers out there, that there might be two more additional shuttle flights, and that Mr. Bolden wants more than Orion "Lite", that tomorrow won't be the final word on NASA's future.

Jay Chladek
Member

Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007

posted 04-15-2010 02:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jay Chladek   Click Here to Email Jay Chladek     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Just using Orion as a lifeboat is a rather expensive change of mission in my opinion. Reason being is if only one, two or three are built (one primary, one backup, maybe one additional craft as a secondary backup) then all that development money put into them leaves them with an expensive price tag. At least with manned Orion capsules intended for all phases of a mission, more would be built, lowering the unit cost. I suppose it is better then nothing and Lockheed can always use it to bid for a commercial craft, but there are a few different requirements related to a full manned spacecraft as opposed to something that is going to stay parked in orbit for a day of use which may never come.

As for the X-38, as much as I would love to see it fly, I think it is far too late to resurrect that project since the craft intended for space testing has been sitting outside under a tarp at JSC for years and the team that was put together to do it has moved onto other things (with some members retiring). Talking with some JSC based engineers a few months ago, scuttlebutt was the reason why the X-38 was cancelled was due to pressure from the contractor companies. Since it was a fully internal NASA program, they didn't have a hand in it and wanted it cancelled so they could bid on a contract for such a capability if it came up again.

As for solar vs. fuel cell, Solar is the better option for long duration flights since fuel cells have the weak link of needing cryo to sustain them. Even in a stored state, liquid H2 and O2 won't last forever as there will always be a little loss over time and running them will consume the cryo to make electricity and water. Max period of endurance for an Apollo CSM was about two weeks and the same applies to shuttle unless it is equipped with the extended endurance package of more cryo tankage (which Endeavour at one time had and Columbia had through STS-107). For Constellation where the lunar plan was to part the Orion in orbit for about 30 days or so, fuel cells won't do the job like a solar panel can to keep things charged since you can't turn off the sun.

KSCartist
Member

Posts: 3047
From: Titusville, FL
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 04-15-2010 05:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for KSCartist   Click Here to Email KSCartist     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
All I can say is that the proof is in the pudding. There is precedent for Presidential speeches to look at:

Agnew chairs a commission that in 1969 calls for a manned flight to Mars by 1986. Nixon kills Apollo and offers no support for the plan and it dies.

Carter no friend of space exploration - but at least he didn't get our hopes up.

Reagan: announces a plan to build Freedom in 1984. Doesn't lend his considerable political capital to the effort.

Bush (41) gives a wonderful speech in on the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11 in
1989 "back to the Moon and this time stay." No budget support from the White House or Congress and the plan dies.

Clinton changes Freedom to ISS but it barely survives Congress. The orbit is changed due to Russian requirements which angers many in the space community. (But after Columbia is destroyed, thank God for Russian partnership.)

Bush (43) announces the end of the shuttle program and plans to abandon ISS by 2016 for Constellation. Doesn't back up his plans with funds. NASA has to "rob Peter to pay Paul" to begin work on the plan to return to the Moon.

So I'm cautiously optimistic that Obama is backing up his words with a budget increase for NASA but more importantly the space community seems to be willing to engage in vigorous debate and maybe even Congress will accomplish something.

I would still rather see Orion be launched manned on a Delta IV to become our own Soyuz. I still think it could be done within three years if Lockheed and Boeing were given the money.

Then build a HL and launch a fully capable Orion and Altair to begin building a Moonbase by 2019. It could be done. But the public has to see the value in it and even after six years they don't yet.

Much has been made of the recent letters from iconic former astronauts criticizing the President's plan. But I have to ask where were they in 2004 when Constellation wasn't funded. Where was the outcry that could have made Constellation successful?

Finally the people who oppose the President decry bloated government spending. Will they support a budget increase for NASA or will they just deny and delay so their candidate can win in 2012?

Stay tuned....

jimsz
Member

Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 04-15-2010 07:21 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jimsz   Click Here to Email jimsz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by KSCartist:
Finally the people who oppose the President decry bloated government spending. Will they support a budget increase for NASA or will they just deny and delay so their candidate can win in 2012?
It's not all about how much is spent. It's about where it is spent and having clear, well defined goals.

This plan does not have it.

The White House has certainly been softening up the ground for this new policy shift and it lacks in everything.

It's not about being against Obama it's about spinning our wheels yet again and throwing good money after bad.

BNorton
Member

Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005

posted 04-15-2010 07:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for BNorton   Click Here to Email BNorton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
While SpaceX's Dragon does approach the station autonomously, it does not self-dock. Like JAXA's HTV, it is berthed at the station by astronauts grappling it with the Canadarm2 robotic arm.
Please see the SpaceX web site. The Dragon Overview states that one of its features will be:
Fully autonomous rendezvous and docking with manual override capability in crewed configuration.
This feature, since NASA wants it, is most likely one of many ways NASA will use to funnel money to SpaceX to build their "commercial" craft. With the "revised plan" now saying NASA will use Orion as a test bed for this feature, among others, is a clear indication that the President knows nothing about what he is proposing except he knows how to waste money.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-15-2010 08:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I was referring to the unmanned version of Dragon, as comparable to the unmanned version of Orion.

Regardless, calling concurrent efforts a waste of money is leveling equal criticism on the program of record and prior administration. Under Constellation, NASA was funding Lockheed Martin for the development of autonomous rendezvous and docking while at the same time, planning to fund SpaceX for the development of a crewed Dragon through the CCDev program.

dsenechal
Member

Posts: 562
From:
Registered: Dec 2002

posted 04-15-2010 09:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for dsenechal   Click Here to Email dsenechal     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Fox News:
White House Rejects Armstrong Criticism of 'Devastating' Moon Mission Cuts
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs defended President Obama Wednesday against charges from Neil Armstrong and other famed astronauts that he's dismantling the American space program, saying the president's "renewed strategy" will be better for the economy, astronauts and the space program as a whole.

BNorton
Member

Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005

posted 04-15-2010 09:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for BNorton   Click Here to Email BNorton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I was referring to the unmanned version of Dragon, as comparable to the unmanned version of Orion.
The SpaceX web site lists autonomous rendezvous and docking as a feature of the cargo and crew version of Dragon. While this feature may not be available on initial cargo supply flights to the ISS, it is a planned feature of the craft once fully operational. Perhaps this is the source of confusion/our differrence? I obviously stand corrected if the info on the SpaceX site about their craft turns out to be incorrect.

I do not recall anyone on this venue (a great one, by the way) saying or implying that prior administrations and/or NASA administrators have not made serious errors with respect to the US manned spaceflight program. Serious errors have been made in the recent past. However, they are not in power now. They have no control over the future of any US manned spaceflight program, the Obama Administration and congress does.

That having been said, no prior administration and/or NASA Administrator to my knowledge has proposed what I believe to be the wholesale ending of the US manned spaceflight program, a program that, in consideration of US budget deficits and other political realities, once stopped as the President proposes will most likely return, at best, to mid 1960s abilities only in the very distant future. This low level ability will most likely only return if the next Administration "steps up."

I look forward to hearing the President's remarks. I hope he surprises me and today turns out to be a great day for the US Space Program and not a black one.

jimsz
Member

Posts: 644
From:
Registered: Aug 2006

posted 04-15-2010 09:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jimsz   Click Here to Email jimsz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From the Fox News article:
The White House also pitted astronaut Buzz Aldrin against Armstrong...
Buzz supporting it. Armstrong against it.

Since Mr. Armstrong has handled the last 40 year with class and dignity instead of selling himself as a brand and dancing on TV, I think class and dignity wins.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 04-15-2010 09:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Dancing gigs aside, Aldrin has been front and center in the space community for at least the better part of the past two decades, playing an active role in space development efforts. He's done more than sign his name to an open letter, but has made speeches, met with congressmen and the President, attended space conferences, wrote editorials, and established his own non-profit and commercial organizations to advance human space travel.

Armstrong has served on NASA and independent advisory panels, but has largely chosen to remain quiet when it has come to commenting, advocating or influencing NASA's direction. Even now, his only involvement has been to endorse a letter; he has reportedly refused all interview requests in response to that letter's release and his involvement in penning its content is unknown.

My point is not to suggest that either man's approach is better than the others, but to the contrary, propose that judging their positions based on a subjective view as to what is a more acceptable behavior is a paying a disservice to both men.

alanh_7
Member

Posts: 1267
From: Ajax, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 04-15-2010 09:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for alanh_7   Click Here to Email alanh_7     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I like Buzz. Always have, and I respect his opinions even though I do not always agree with them. But while he is riding a high of notoriety right now, this is nothing more than a photo opp for both Aldrin and the White House. "See America, we have an astronaut, too."

Since I disagree with the cancellation of Constellation program, (though I think there needed to be some changes) and those in opposition will have little chance to speak at today's "summit," I have hopes the people that signed those letters continue an aggressive campaign to push their concerns.


This topic is 12 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12 

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 2023 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement