Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer Runs Out Of Time 35
VCP writes: "NASA has decided that the Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer (EUVE) astronomical observatory is to be deactivated and de-orbited even though it is still working flawlessly and gathering valuable information. Why? Because NASA can't come up with $1M per year to support it. Shuttle launches cost what, $20-50M. It shouldn't be that hard to come up with $1M per year."
Ozone layer hole? (Score:1)
I'm afraid you answered your own question (Score:2)
That's the problem, I'm afraid. Most of NASA's budget is committed to the International Space Station and its supporting Shuttle flights; the rest of NASA is on very tight rations as a result.
National Interests (Score:4)
While I agree that we should definately spend our money wisely, it seems kind of odd that we are allowing a 'one of a kind' observational device (there is no other device available to continue observations in this portion of the EM spectrum) to be put out of service simply because of financial considerations. I guess that just shows how tight things are getting in terms of funding.
The even more frightful question is what will be de-commissioned next. If this program was cut based on a 1 million $ / year funding basis, I'm certain there are other projects that must be close to being as 'uneconomically viable'.
Another point to make in this situation is that NASA has had 2 failed Mars missions in the last year. If they were really concerned with public opinion and whatnot, wouldn't they want to promote the continuing success of this observational device instead of bringing it down - it works!? (a claim that often cannot be made in our current stage of space exploration)
{cynicism}I guess high energy uv cosmic events aren't as interesting as a barren red landscape.{/cynicism}
First the Russians can't afford to keep Mir up and now the Americans are starting to have a funding crisis, what a sad state of affairs.
What a revoltin' development (Score:2)
By the way, check out Berkley's slide show [berkeley.edu] on EUVE. It's fascinating. Describes the equipment on the satellite, as well as it's discoveries very well. Even good for a non-techie.
Shuttle launch costs (Score:1)
Shuttle launch costs are much much greater than 20-50 Million dollars. Try at least 300 Million dollars and probably closer to 1 Billion dollars.
NASA Baseline Space Shuttle Costs [nasa.gov]
If you follow the link you will see they calculate the launch costs by taking the budget available and working backwards. The first 8 flights consume the entire budget, so they fudge the last two at 90 Million each even though they don't fit in the budget! Note the maximum safe launch rate of 10/year is what is required for the ISS to be built. Another example of starting with the answer and working backwards. If we don't have a launch disaster we can probably count on the Russian built modules to provide one.
The Shuttle and NASA are the absolute worst things that ever happened to the US Space program.
Why not bring it "up"? (Score:1)
Re:Why not bring it "up"? (Score:1)
Re:What a revoltin' development (Score:1)
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:1)
First let me say that NASA has done some good things... Pioneer and Voyageur are two good examples.
But with that said, I believe that the US Space program has floundered and will continue to flounder as long as NASA is in charge.
You may not agree with me, but perhaps I have watched NASA for quite a bit longer than you. I am 42 years old... born just after the 'Space Age' began. Hell, I remember the Gemini missions, I even watched Neil Armstrong walk on the moon live! Throughout the 60's we had great hopes for the Space program. Hell, everyone thought we would be on Mars by now, not just building our first space station.
But NASA's focus was upon landing a man on the moon and returning him safely. Exactly what John F. Kennedy had promised in his quest to beat the Russians in Space Propaganda. As a result, most of the 25 Billion (1960's) dollars were spent on aquiring a few hundred pounds of Moon rocks and nothing else. We didn't even leave a Solar Calorimeter on the Moon to measure the so-called Solar Constant. Did you ever think that a star with an 11 year cycle might vary it's output resulting in climactic changes such as global warming? Well, don't bother asking NASA because they don't know.
The good thing (tm) that we got from the Apollo program was a Space industry and the Saturn V rocket. The Saturn V could lift over 250,000 lbs into Earch orbit at one time. To put it in more understandable terms: it could lift the equivalent weight of the Shuttle and it's maximum cargo into orbit. You might say "So what? The Shuttle does that all the time." But the Shuttle can only leave about 20,000-30,000 lbs of cargo in orbit. It must lift itself plus it's cargo and the cargo is constrained more by the shuttle's cargo bay dimensions than by weight.
We began our studies of long duration space flight in 1972 with Skylab, a converted rocket stage. But NASA had other priorites. NASA decided that having a single use rocket like the Saturn V was wasteful. They said they could build a Space Plane that could be flown every 2 weeks and that would achieve launch costs of $40/lb. The Shuttle would make Space inexpensive they told us. NASA took what should have been an X project and made it into the production space vehicle for the US Space program. The shuttle was supposed to fly in the late 70's. In fact there was a very good reason... Skylab was deorbiting due to atmospheric drag due to increased activity of the sun during Solar maximum (sound familar?). The shuttle was supposed to attach rockets to boost Skylab into a higher orbit. NASA was so convincing that Jimmy Carter used the last Saturn 1 on the publicity stunt of Apollo/Soyuz in space. Well, the result in case you don't know is the shuttle wasn't ready and Skylab crashed into Australia.
The fact is that the Shuttle will never have a turn around time of 2 weeks and the launch costs are closer to $10,000/lb. The Shuttle is a failed Experimetal Space plane but NASA won't admit it.
NASA hasn't learned it's lesson yet. Witness the X-33 program and it's failed fuel tanks. Now we have a $60,000,000,000 space station that will consume all of the money/launches/resources in the US Space program for a decade or more.
To contrast the current reality of the US Space program with where it should be: We should be mining asteriods now, we should have a fuel station on phobos and deimos (Mar's moons), we should be claiming Europa. In case you didn't know Europo is a moon of Jupiter composed of Water Ice, the most valuable and precious material in space. We should even be on the Moon even though it shouldn't be our first stop. Don't forget that in terms of gravity wells and fuel consumption Mar's moons are closer than the surface of our own moon.
Anyway... that is what I was talking about
Not just money.... (Score:5)
The question is money well spent.
Most people don't realize how old some of these systems are. The EUVE was flown a long time ago and there are now two different instruments that provide similar capability, the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph on HST, and the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer [jhu.edu].
The EUVE has been running for like 10 years, it is probably a good time for it to end (and Stu Bowyer to find something else to do).
Re:Why not bring it "up"? (Score:1)
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:1)
Re:Why not bring it "up"? (Score:5)
There are actually five points you are referring to, known as the Lagrangian points; they're where Earth's gravity and the Moon's gravity are equal, providing what's known as an equilibrium point. Three of them are in a line: one between the Earth and Moon, but much closer to the Moon than to Earth; one on the far side of the Moon from Earth; and one on the far side of Earth from the Moon. All three of these points are "unstable" equilibrium points, however -- the equivalent of balancing a marble on a basketball... there's an equilibrium point there, but the marble's not gonna stay put long.
The other two Lagrangian points are along the Moon's orbital path, but 60 degrees ahead of and 60 degrees behind the Moon's position; these are also knows as "Trojan" points, after the Trojan group of asteroids 60 degrees behind Jupiter in its orbit. These positions are stable: in fact, there's stuff there already, in slow orbits around the Lagrange points. These two points, BTW, are sometimes called "L4" and "L5", and there have been several proposals to put manned colonies there (too long a discussion for here, though).
L4 and L5 are stable, and are the ones you're talking about; but the problem is they're way out at the Moon's orbit, and that's almost as far energetically as putting the EUVE in a solar orbit. It's often been said (and very truthfully) that when you've made it to Lunar orbit, you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar Syatem. The bottom line is, EUVE can't get there.
A further comment: it's not so much that the EUVE needs to be reboosted to keep it going -- the $1M/year is for operational funding, just to support the people and hardware to track EUVE, keep it aimed at the desired targets, receive the data it transmits and suchlike. I remember when NASA decided to do the same with one of the Viking Mars landers after it'd worked for years past its funded lifetime: it upset enough people that some group (the Planetary Society, IIRC) collected the funding to keep it going privately, even though NASA gave up...
EUVE just doesn't have the same publicity pull, though -- too bad for UV astronomy.
---
Commercialization of Deep Space (Score:1)
Commercialization of Space Exploration really depends on Commercialization of launch capabilities. In the 1980's NASA and the Space Shuttle had practically a monopoly on all commericial satellite launches. No company could compete with the subsidized rates that NASA charged which were far far below the actual launch costs.
This ended of course with the Challenger disaster. The problem was that many satellites had been designed with the Shuttle's cargo bay in mind which meant that the Delta rockets could not be used. Now the Shuttle does not compete for commercial satellite launches, but it still competes in the heavy launch area. The main heavy launch vehicle available today is (I believe) the Titan IV. But of course, the Titan IV is not being used to launch the components of the ISS.
By forcing the US Space program to use the Space Shuttle as it's heavy lifting platform, NASA is continuing to inhibit the development of a viable replacement. In addition, NASA's insistence on the multiple use space plane approach for all launches in the future (i.e. X-33), inhibits the development of more capable heavy lifting platforms. We are once again introducing an X (experimental) program as the production platform for space launches.
Commericialization of Space as I envision it involves more than launching communication, weather and photographic satellites. It is more than developing outrageously expensive drugs for the wealthy or developing exotic manufacturing processes.
Perhaps I should call it the Commericialization of Deep Space. For this to happen, we need to be able to produce large numbers of heavy launch vehicles in order to obtain economy of scale in their manufacture. With such a heavy launch capability, we would be able to lift enough fuel to reach the moons of Mars. It is expected that Phobos and Deimos contain enough volatile compounds that they could be mined to produce fuel. If we can produce fuel in Mars orbit the cost of the mission drops dramatically since we would not have to lift the fuel needed to carry the return fuel all the way to Mars. Although people will not believe it, it is more economical to produce fuel from Phobos, Deimos and appropriate near Earth asteriods than it is to lift it from Earth's surface. To accomplish this we would need to construct a space craft capable of carrying a crew to Mars along with the necessary equipment to build the 'refinery'.
This is not as far fetched as it sounds. ION drives have been around since the 60's. NASA's recent experiment with their ION drive Deep Space probe is only 30 years behind the times. Concern over long term exposure to zero gravity can be eliminated with a rotating living chamber which can produce enough 'pseudo-gravity' to keep the crew from deteriorating. (I am at a loss as to why this approach has not been taken in the ISS since it is guaranteed to allow a crew to stay in space indefinitely) The selection of crew is also pretty straightforward. The perfect crew would be the crew of a nuclear powered submarine not some 'fighter-jocks' who think they have the right stuff. The crews of US nuclear subs operate under conditions that are very similar to deep space missions.
The major obstacle to such a trip are a) is there really enough volatile material to produce at least enough fuel for the trip home? b) the expense of lifting the necessary fuel into Earth orbit c) the expense of lifting enough shielding to protect the crew from solar radiation during the trip and the d) design and construction of the space craft and refinery. Unfortunately, NASA has once again jumped the gun in terms of exploring Mars' surface while neglecting the more immediate need to explore Phobos and Deimos.
I think NASA would oppose any project that attempted to reach Mars and build a fuel refinery as this would make them irrelevant. In addition a little known treaty stands in the way of real commericial uses of deep space. It is strange that such an anti-communist president as JFK would promote and sign a treaty that effectively gives each country on Earth equal rights to any space resources. According to the treaty it is not possible to claim private ownership over any planet, moon, asteriod... they all belong equally to everyone. With this treaty in place, there is no motivation to take the risks necessary to reach the planets (major or minor).
I can only conclude that the US will become irrelevant in space in the not too distant future. Societies with more long range plans such as the Chinese will probably explore and develop the solar system. Of course, the Chinese will have no problem in laying claim to Mars, Phobos, Deimos, Europa, Titan, and any valuable asteroids they find.
Where is your mind (Score:1)
Suddenly you can't afford 1M a year. I mean come on now, as said, 20-50M for ONE shuttle launch and they do several a year plus the International space station.
They could come up with 1M in my opinion.
--Nick D.
inick@netacs.net
http://www.inick.net
http://www.lavoixceline.com
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:1)
Um, hello? I thought we were worried about contaminating Europa?
Bake Sale Time? (Score:1)
Skylab vs. ISS (Score:1)
Skylab launched in 1973 on a single Saturn V rocket with the S IV B Stage converted to the Skylab. (Note payload weight with an entire rocket stage converted to cargo)
ISS to be built with 43 launches over a 5 year period
Does anyone doubt that using Saturn V rockets the entire ISS could have been completed in a single year with four launches?
See International Space Station Facts and Figures [boeing.com]
NASA sucks.
Re:I'm afraid you answered your own question (Score:1)
Back then, they actually landed AND worked.
The biggest stories the NASA had to tell the past few years? how great all their OLD satelites, probes and other machinery are still operating.
The sharp decrease of government funding all over the planet has led to a complete standstill in space exploration and development, consequently, interest is fading which will lead to MORE cuts in funding.
I'm very worried of what this will lead to, space exploration should be a priority, not an afterthought, we can learn so much about our origins, planet and ourselves from exploring space, but space exploration is going nowhere in a hurry right now.
Re:Where is your mind (Score:2)
Re:I'm afraid you answered your own question (Score:2)
Utter lack of education, poverty, famine, wars, the huge environmental problems we are inflicting to this planet for the sake of commercialisation etc. etc. are, IMHO, more important issues at the moment than noble causes like space exploration.
So, yes, I'd rather invest in some research that gives me a much "cleaner" energy source for the future, rather than spend those money to determine whatever up there.
I *do* understand the importance of space missions and their huge contributions to technology, but I hope you see my point too.
Trian
Space Expenditure. (Score:2)
1 Million Dollars to keep the UV explorer up there = $0.01 per person per annum.
Cost of a shuttle flight = $0.30 to $0.50.
It helps to keep things in perspective.
Re:Why not bring it "up"? (Score:1)
Not spending wisely (Score:1)
We are simply not spending our money wisely.
See the US Budget for next year [gpo.gov]
For instance, note that NASA's total budget (5.1 billion) is less than the military and other aid we give to one country, namely Israel.
To put it plainly, we spend more money (that's tax dollars, your money and mine) so one religious group can kill another with our helicopters than we spend on the total effort to go to Mars, explore space, and all the other things that make this a beautiful time to be living in. Instead, we spend this money to violently support one side in a dispute that has been going on for hundreds of years; (ok, since 1948 at least) one that no one is possibly going to give in to because both side are blinded by irrational religious fevor.
Take all the money, machine guns, ammunition, and other arms we give to Israel and give it to NASA. Double the budget!
Re:Europa's Current Dollar Value (Score:1)
Re:Skylab vs. ISS (Score:1)
why not eBay? (Score:1)
Just an idea..
//rdj
Re:Europa's Current Dollar Value (Score:1)
First, I'd like to say that I think you've made some really good points about development of space and why it isn't really going anywhere.
Second, about Europa: I may be mistaken, but somewhere up in the thread earlier you said that Europa was a giant source of water-ice. I don't think anyone really knows that for certain right now. Last I heard, there was a good possibility that Europa had seas of methane. Just thought I'd mention that.
But on everything else I agree with you wholeheartedly. Why the designers of the ISS didn't take a cue from Arthur C. Clarke and use a rotational hub as the living quarters for the inhabitants is utterly beyond me.
Another thing I think maybe should be mentioned regards the shuttle. It was conceived of by von Braun as mainly a Mars vehicle, if I remember correctly. Congress castrated the program and we wound up with a half assed, piecemeal implementation of von Braun's goal, which was: a fleet of vehicles capable of making a trip to Mars with a whole slew of space stations.
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:2)
Re:Ozone layer hole? (Score:2)
Re:Not just money.... (Score:2)
While HST and FUSE do examine portions of the UV region of the EM spectrum, they do not go to as small of a wavelength and in this respect NASA is accepting to have a sizable gap in our observable spectra (Fuse goes down to 900 A and I don't think any X-Ray telescopes would go above 10 A). Now I'm not an astronomer/astrophysicist (yet) but from what I can understand it is always nice to be able to study things in as many different wavelengths as possible since different phenomenon appear at different energies. Wouldn't this leave us in the dark? I wonder if NASA has any plans to send up a new satellite that will incorporate a detector for this 'extreme' UV region of the spectrum?
easy + cheap + safe + reusable way to get stuff up (Score:1)
Start somewhere at the Equator. Plug a HUGE anchor in the ground. Put a large weight into orbit. Now connect a large tether from the anchor to the weight, and have the weight go up to a higher altitude. Attatch an elevator to the side of or around the cable.
What you get if you do it right:
The weight supports all the cable with centrifical (sp?) force. There isnt that much pull on the anchor.
The elevator, powered from Earth, is able to make the trip up. Once it gets out of the atmosphere it will stop a bit below the weight... IN ORBIT.
Cargo and personnell placed on the elevator will ARRIVE IN ORBIT IN SEVERAL HOURS. (without suffering any High G forces)
Any ideas?
Re:Not just money.... (Score:1)
Certainly, in an ideal world, we would have satellites going from the radio to gamma rays. Resources are finite, however, and so are allocated on a needs first basis. We still have not seen one serious radio observatory in space, for example.
If you look, however, the number of people using EUVE is quite small. The wavelength range EUVE looks in is quite difficult to work in. The whole satellite was an experiment and one that worked.
10 years, however, is a lot of time for one satellite and in the current climate, no satellite will last for more than that. HST is probably the only exception to this rule and that is because is serves a huge fraction of the scientific community and serves a PR value that no other satellite can match. Proof is left as an excercise to thumbing through the astronomy picture of the day.
FWIF, Chandra goes down to below 0.1 keV, which, is 100 Angstroms. Of course, my knee jerk reaction is to toss the data below 0.5 keV because it is so noisey.
Re:Bake Sale Time? (Score:1)
Re:easy + cheap + safe + reusable way to get stuff (Score:2)
In fact, there was a slashdot article [slashdot.org] on this in September. It's an old idea.
It has little to do with the problem of funding for the satellite. It's just that they can't fund the researchers to watch it. It'll probably stay safely in orbit on its own, but if no one's able to watch it, it would be safer for future shuttle missions to just deorbit it in a controlled fashion.