| Author |
Topic:
NASA Vision of Space Exploration
|
BRYAN_SEECRETS
Registered:
Oct '05
|
Date Posted:
7/28/06 8:34am
Subject:
NASA Vision of Space Exploration
- Date Edited:
7/28/06 8:45am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
BRYAN_SEECRETS
|
In 2004, NASA unveiled its Vision of Space Exploration, as part of charting a bold new course into the cosmos, a journey that will take humans back to the Moon, and eventually to Mars and beyond. Yet, this year, NASA is blurring the Vision of Space Exploration with the U.S. administration's proposed budget for 2007 that cut NASA's science programs drastically. Even now, before Congress approves the cuts, NASA has eliminated funding for a mission to explore Europa.
The U.S. administration is defending the NASA budget, saying that it is growing. But the funds allocated for NASA are more than $1 billion less than those pledged a year ago in order to support the Vision of Space Exploration and the rest of the NASA program. This year, NASA warned that increased shuttle cost estimates would require major cuts to space science and the U.S. administration agreed that funding cuts from space science were required.
This is a woefully short-sighted decision. Cutting science is ridiculous for the space science community. It is the part of NASA that is working best, producing the most spectacular results, and leading the way of exploration.
This budget could also essentially stop human exploration in its tracks. The commitment to 17 more Shuttle flights could delay the sorely needed new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), dooming us to Earth orbit for at least another two decades. The end result is this budget places the future of the Human Flight program and science in jeopardy. It is literally the "worst of all possible worlds."
Recently, the House Subcommittee has approved a budget of $16.7 billion, $100 million less than that requested by the Administration. But, it restored $75 million out of $330 million funding that the Administration had cut from space science plans. The Committee directed $50 million of the science funding to help restore some of the research and analysis cuts. It also restored $100 million of planned cuts in aeronautics. However, to offset the restoration of these funds, additional cuts beyond those proposed by the Administration were made in space exploration program line items. Also, the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee passed a $16.75 billion budget for NASA and also passed the Mikulski-Hutchison amendment for a $1 billion dollar “emergency” supplement to pay for shuttle repair and recovery. (The amendment actually specifies $2 billion over two years). The final total not including the supplement was $500 million more than the previous year and very close to the level passed by the House of Representatives.
All space perspectives are welcome to be discussed in this thread in relation to NASA and the politics concerning space exploration.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VoijaRisa
Registered:
Oct '02
|
Date Posted:
7/28/06 10:34am
Subject:
RE: NASA Vision of Space Exploration
|
I've been saying this for the past two years: The present space vision is a dead end.
Aside from having to pull money away from scientific aspects, many experts agreed that even with 100% of NASA resources going to it, such a program would still be underfunded.
Furthermore, it calls for a retiring of the shuttle fleet relatively soon, while a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) is developed. However, that leaves NASA without any manned space craft until such time as the CEV is finished, and we all know how good NASA is at doing things on schedule.
This also requires an abdandoning of the ISS on the USs behalf. We've commited to doing a certain amount, but with the US not having a manned orbital vehicle, the Russians are the only nation left currently capable or sending people there, and their resources have already been strained during our 3 years off after the Colombia disaster. Abandoning a project that many nations contributed to financially as well as materially (building modules and the like), is not going to make NASA any international friends.
While I have no problem with going back to the moon/Mars, such a task must be properly funded and not taking away from the science that NASA does.
-----signature-----
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."
~Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lord_Vivec
Registered:
Apr '06
|
Date Posted:
7/28/06 10:40am
Subject:
RE: NASA Vision of Space Exploration
|
|
Right now,our space program needs to find a better way of travelling. Our current fuel and method is inneficient. It is also very slow. If we can find a fuel or system that travels faster, we will be better off.
-----signature-----
EUS Vice Chancellor
Do you enjoy pajamas?
Obama/Biden '08
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VoijaRisa
Registered:
Oct '02
|
Date Posted:
7/28/06 10:53am
Subject:
RE: NASA Vision of Space Exploration
|
|
And don't forget expensive. To actually launch a single pound into orbit on the shuttle, it costs nearly $100,000. Once we get past orbit though, then it's not as much of a problem. It's just getting that first few hundred km that's the trick.
-----signature-----
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."
~Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth-Seldon
Registered:
May '03
|
Date Posted:
7/28/06 11:04am
Subject:
RE: NASA Vision of Space Exploration
|
NASA and the Americans have a vision?
-Seldon
-----signature-----
Isaac Asimov was an innovative genius All posters are equal but some posters are more equal than others. Barack Obama & Joe Biden 2008 
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LemmingLord
Title: PT Manager & CLUE Host
Registered:
Apr '05
|
Date Posted:
7/28/06 11:08am
Subject:
RE: NASA Vision of Space Exploration
|
Darth-Seldon posted:
NASA and the Americans have a vision?
-Seldon
They both do silly!
NASA have a vision of dollar bills and big toys and showing off how smart they are.
Americans have all sorts of visions; the most prevelent being "man, I wish I didn't have to work but could still get paid."
-----signature-----
LemmingLord
Take a Leap of Faith and Follow Me
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VoijaRisa
Registered:
Oct '02
|
Date Posted:
7/28/06 11:26am
Subject:
RE: NASA Vision of Space Exploration
|
And just in time to prove my point: NASA considers suspending science on ISS.
Apparently, they're having *GASP* budget issues that are forcing them to suspend science to fund a new attachment.
So without doing science, the ISS is what? A 200 km high, $100 billion tree fort?
-----signature-----
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."
~Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Master_SweetPea
Registered:
Nov '02
|
Date Posted:
7/28/06 11:54am
Subject:
RE: NASA Vision of Space Exploration
|
N.A.S.A.
No
Americans in
Space
At all
ya like?
-----signature-----
I don't like the donkeys and I don't like the Elephants http://www.lp.org "Some people never have anything except ideas Go Do it! Lucky Numbers 3, 11, 21, 31, 41, 43"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VadersLaMent
Registered:
Apr '02
|
Date Posted:
7/28/06 12:26pm
Subject:
RE: NASA Vision of Space Exploration
|
I almost hate to say this because I don't want it to turn into that kind of discussion, but you can blame Bush. This CEV Moon/Mars initiative thingy was a set back. NASA had not finalized a design at the time but they were already given the go years prior for a Shuttle replacement called the OSP or Orbital Space Plane. It was scheduled to be in operation before 2010. And behold, there came a President interested in leaving a legacy rather than doing the right things to forward NASA's endevours. Had some R&D going on for a few years already? Too bad, start over.
Before CEV and OSP there was VentureStar; single stage to orbit, $1,000 per pound. This is one of my favorite stories. The engineers NOT in charge of VentureStar said that the proposed composite fuel tanks were not a good idea and they should go with aluminum tanks. But no, that would not do. NASA must have innovation so Boeing had better make some composite tanks. Come test time the engineers said the tanks would rupture, and they did. So those in charge asked the engineers what they should do, and behold the engineers said they should use aluminum tanks and behold...those in charge actually listened to the engineers! They got the go ahead to use aluminum tanks and a launch system that would cost one tenth what the space shuttles cost was on its way.
Until...
I don't recall the guys name, but an advisor to NASA went before Congress. He told Congress that since they could not get composite fuel tanks to work that the VentureStar should be scrapped. Congress said, "Ok." And VentureStar was scrapped. Jut like that. One year later, Boeing made the composite fuel tanks work as needed, but VentureStar was not pulled off the shelf.
IMO NASA should give up on manned spaceflight. Instead they keep the manned spaceflight budget but use it for pure R&D, then let the private sector buy the patents and make use of the technology. In case you have not been following there is a rather rich man by the name of Robert Bigelow who did just that. NASA had inflatable modules in mind for the space station but went with tin cans instead. Bigelow bought the inflatables, called TransHab, and recently launched a test module successfully into space last week.
-----signature-----
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic--Arthur C. Clarke
Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God--Michael Shermer
I am officially Awesome.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VoijaRisa
Registered:
Oct '02
|
Date Posted:
7/28/06 3:23pm
Subject:
RE: NASA Vision of Space Exploration
|
|
I'm a big fan of NASA looking to the private sector for their technology as well. Every time this has happened, it's brought about major advances.
-----signature-----
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."
~Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
saber_death
Registered:
Feb '05
|
Date Posted:
7/28/06 4:33pm
Subject:
RE: NASA Vision of Space Exploration
|
i agree that private companies should at least join NASA in manned flights (if not take over completely once able) and let NASA stick to advanced R&D (better engines for both ground to orbit and orbit to elsewhere being the big issue) and ISS based science.
i saw an article in Popular Science or one of those magazines about a planned Learjet that can go into space (has a rocket in addition to it's jets)... that will be awesome for the billionares who can afford it, and perhaps trickle down/scale up the tech for a Boeing "787" that can do the same thing. imagine getting a flight for Paris to LA with a stoppover in ORBITCITY 2... if the private sector gets behind these ideas i could see that being an option by the time my parents retire (~20 years).
as for NASA... build a good ION engined craft and go to the ISS/moon/mars and learn something useful... that's what they need to be doing, and for as little as safely possible.
-----signature-----
Qui-Gon, Jango, Dooku, Mace, Padme, Obi-Wan, Bail, Obi-Wan, Biggs, Palpatine, Anakin... lots of people died in the movies... EU doesn't need to be peaceful and death-free... my LOTF fan-fic http://boards.theforce.net/beyond_the_saga/b10477/27067790/p1/?1
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VadersLaMent
Registered:
Apr '02
|
Date Posted:
7/28/06 5:00pm
Subject:
RE: NASA Vision of Space Exploration
|
NASA has a New ion engine which is billed as 2.5 times the thrust as Deep Space 1's engine.
Project Prometheus has been scaled down but that would have been a nuclear powered Ion engine which could have been a precursor to manned Ion engines.
VASIMR IMO is something NASA should get as a funding priority.
Virgin Galactic is considered the leader in space tourism since they are the only company looking at sub-orbital flights that have actually had a sub-orbital flight. Branson has already said that if the first year of tourist flights is profitable they will immediately start developing an orbital vehicle.
Rocketplane ltd. worries me because it is just a Lear Jet, but if its space worthy then so be it.
Blue Origin wants to use a vertical take off and vertical landing vehicle similar to DC-X. DC-X was an incredible test vehicle...launching twice in one day, hovering, turning upside down then righting itself, but I think horizontal landing is better.
Space X has made attempts but is having troubles getting a successful launch. Musk is quite serious about this though and Space X is far from over. It has leaked out that he plans on mounting a wedge-like craft on a future heavy lift version of his rockets for passengers to orbit.
And many more...
Sub-orbital prices look like they will start at $200,000 per seat. Orbital rides may run $1,000,000 per seat when they start which is far better than the $20,000,000 it costs to take a person on any other launcher.
The current powers of the launch industry could actually lower their launch costs if they really wanted to, but they don't, and won't. At least they won't until some of these other guys who are trying to make access to space much cheaper start regular launches and relieve the current industry leaders of their monopoly.
-----signature-----
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic--Arthur C. Clarke
Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God--Michael Shermer
I am officially Awesome.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jediflyer
Registered:
Dec '01
|
Date Posted:
7/28/06 5:32pm
Subject:
RE: NASA Vision of Space Exploration
|
I don't have much time to get into this thread now (perhaps later this weekend), but I do think it needs to be acknowledged that "space" for private industry and "space" for NASA are two completely different concepts.
-----signature-----
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it - Mark Twain
There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
EnforcerSG
Registered:
Sep '01
|
Date Posted:
7/30/06 6:34am
Subject:
RE: NASA Vision of Space Exploration
|
The problem with ion engines is that although extremely efficient in terms of fuel used they have very little thrust. They will never get something off the ground and into space (in the foreseeable future at least). So we still have the problem of expensive launch costs. But once they are in space and if you have years to get to someplace then they are great.
I just want to see space become a more normal part of life. I feel that we should push the envelope of putting people in space, but we should focus on robotic missions until we get the hang of it. I hope that some business man can figure out how to make space profitable in some way. Yeah it will take a major initial investment, but if they can figure out a way to make a profit then I bet it will be developed. Any ideas are welcome.
Vivic
Although I would say that our current rocket technology is not efficient enough to seriously develop space at a reasonable cost, in what way is it inefficient?
-----signature-----
The more you fight, the more the sacrifice for peace becomes a waste
If you don't say what you mean, you can never mean what you say.
God answers all prayers.
Sometimes the answer is no.
I don't know: I would tell you if I did!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VadersLaMent
Registered:
Apr '02
|
Date Posted:
7/30/06 7:32am
Subject:
RE: NASA Vision of Space Exploration
|
I would say that the rocket tech itself in efficeint, but the red tape that goes with it makes it expensive. 80% of the launch cost for the Space Shuttle is payroll. In thi instance though, the reson is because the Shuttles are so complex it requires an army of PhD's to make it fly. $10,000 a pound is the result.
Sounding rockets are capable of orbital altitudes but not orbital speeds and cost ~$1,000 per pound. Most unmanned launchers run around $2,500 to $5,000 per pound. These prices could come down, but there really is no competition to force the matter.
I can't locate the article but NASA has ongoing research into a new type of pre-burn turbo system that would double the efficiency of chemical rockets without losing thrust capacity. This means being able to do twice as much work for the same fuel, or the same amount of work for half the fuel.
Metallic hydrogen is a substance that could have efficiencies equal to a fission rocket with thrust better than chemical rockets. It is unstable however, and difficult to make to say the least and for now remains a dream.
We could go to the Moon and make a gigantic solar powered particle accelerator who's sole purpose would be to make anti matter. Then all you need is water as a working fluid and you can transit the Earth/Moon distance in a matter of hours, to mars in less than a week(a few grams of anti matter with about 40 tons of water for that), or out to Pluto in a month. Containment is the goal here; one kilo of anti hydrogen combined with the same amount of hyrdrogen yields a 48 megaton explosion.
-----signature-----
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic--Arthur C. Clarke
Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God--Michael Shermer
I am officially Awesome.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Neo-Paladin
Registered:
Dec '04
|
Date Posted:
7/30/06 11:26am
Subject:
RE: NASA Vision of Space Exploration
|
It's hard to beat the rocket equation, which is really your hard limit in how a rocket performs. Staging helps, but with diminishing returns, more than three isn't worth the complication. Of course stages add to cost, which is why single stage to orbit is supposed to cure our cost woes. We’ll see.
Of course I'd love to see a maglev launching system or an elevator. I think the maglev's material problems will be solved before the elevator. Before that we may see fission thermal rockets, which are being tested in Russia (last I knew). Unfortunately resistance to nuclear power will be a stumbling block to FTR's usage; we probably won’t see it as a launch engine, it’ll be hard to sell it as an interplanetary transfer engine. It's hard to say where we're going.
I think the vision of a return to the moon is good. I know someone plugged into the workings, and he's very excited, saying there is more traction behind this initiative than any before. That said, I agree there isn't enough ballast (money) there.
-----signature-----
Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.
Edward R. Murrow
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
