Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space United States Science

NASA's Plans for the Future 219

Posted by Zonk from the to-infinity-and-beyond dept.
FleaPlus writes "ABC News, Pasadena Star-News, and Space Politics report on a recent statement by NASA chief Michael Griffin on NASA's plans for the future and how it will be reflected in their annual budget. Griffin has ordered preparations for one last shuttle servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope. He also plans to greatly accelerate development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle to have it ready when the Space Shuttles retire in 2010, stating that the CEV 'needs to be safe, it needs to be simple, it needs to be soon.' Some other highlights include $34 million for the Centennial Challenges prize program and the possibility of completing the space station with unmanned rockets after the shuttles retire. However, due to budget limitations, the cost of returning the Space Shuttles to flight, and over $400 million in Congressional earmarks, a number of other areas will see delays, including space station, aeronautics, and exploration research. NASA also plans on restructuring Project Prometheus to focus on developing space-qualified nuclear power systems for use in human and robotic surface operations, instead of a probe to Jupiter's moons." The Washington Post has a look at NASA's future as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA's Plans for the Future More

NASA's Plans for the Future

Comments Filter:

  • Nukes are the way to go (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ghoul ( 157158 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @06:37PM (#12538573)
    Chemical rockets are just not cost efficient enough.
    also people are studying nuclear engineering all around the world . its better these people are kept busy designing power plants for on earth and off earth applications than nuclear bombs. Just my opinion.
    • Nukes are the way to go
      Nah... Nuclear propulsion is just standing in our way of getting to the Improbability Drive!

    • Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @06:54PM (#12538657)
      Chemical rockets also have a limited practical top speed, research into nuclear propulsion is definately required if we are to make travel to the outer reaches of the solar system a regular occurance without waiting years for the results (how long did Cassini take to reach Saturn? How much more science can be done if we launch a probe a year and they get their within 6 months?)
      • We are just completely spoiled in terms of expected turn-around time in R&D. The timetables you are suggesting are inconvenient and bad, but not impossible to deal with. We're just used to faster in other areas of technology.

        There are plenty of concerns to be taken care of with nuclear propulsion. I think it probably can be done safely and effectively in the long run, but having a Columbia or Challenger type incident with lots of radioactive material onboard is bound to make some people a bit queasy
        • Why are the timetables inconveniant? Surely instead of sending off what are essentially one off probes that cost many millions each time, it would be more cost effective to develop a cheap adaptable frame, with a set propulsion method, a set guidance system, and custom packages on board. Send off one every 6months to a year, have them get there within 6months, that way you know there and then if your probe has failed for whatever reason, theres no waiting around 8 years just for the probe to fail as it un
          • Probes should be both. While we get a great deal of useful information from buoys and balloons, we get a great deal more from full-fledged weather research stations. There are reasons to send out small, inexpensive probes, and reasons to send larger, robotic observatories like Cassini.
          • There are "bus" designs for sattelites that are used primarily by the Military and they just hang different packages off them. However, science probes tend to be more specialized with one-of-a-kind instruments that need special treatment and are usually built scientists NOT engineers so conformance to standards (such as data bus, power, processors, etc) tends to not occur which make the idea of a cheap, mass produced "probe" practically impossible. The idea was tried in the 1990's by the then NASA Head Dan

          • Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            uhhhh do you even comprehend the distance these probes are traveling. Do you know the amount of fuel needed to get them there in 6 months would be to expensive and large to even launch. You talk about making them cheaper but with the amount of fuel you would send you would increase the price by a 100 fold. See it works like this:

            more speed = more fuel
            more fuel = more weight
            more weight = more money
            more weight = a ridiculus amount of money to launch

            thus to get more speed means a hell of alot more money.
            • His point is that more powerful engines built and launched in space would drive the price down while simultaneously decreasing travel time. And he's right. If we had probes coming off of a moon or asteroid-based assembly line with standard science packages and engines, they would be WAY cheaper to launch. Right now we're wasting some ungodly amount of money on fragile little devices that could be whipped together by any half-competent engineer for a few thousand bucks. But the fact that the probe *must* abs
      • Similar to a comment posted above by Matt Edd ...

        As currently designed, nuclear engines in no way enable faster travel to the outer planets. They just allow a lot of energy packed into a small space.

        Voyagers 1 and 2 made the trip to Jupiter in a handy two years. Galileo did it in a little over 3. Cassini took about 4.5 years to get to Jupiter.

        As planned now, the Prometheus reactor, if one is ever sent to Jupiter, is not allowed to use gravity assists. This means it will take about 8 to 9 years gi

    • Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sznupi ( 719324 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @06:59PM (#12538685) Homepage
      My opinion is that the ones working on it should coin a name NOT including the word "nuclear". The public is so brainwashed on the matter that whenever they hear ir red lamp in their mind turns on :/

      • Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ghoul ( 157158 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @07:10PM (#12538744)
        Thats true. The conventional bombing raids killed far more and destryed much more property than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki fircrackers(relatively speaking) Also a lot more people died in the Bhopal Gas leak in India from a fertilizer factory than from Chernobyl but people are shit scared of Nuclear plants. I think its a kind of hysteria created by the nuclear powers to scare the non nuclear powers. Frankly I think nuclear weapons are overrated. They are really useless for war as when used they irradiate the territory so you can make no use of the territory. Thats only marginally better than the enemy holding the territory. Wars will continue to be fought with conventional weapons. Only terrorists would ever think of using nukes (Hmm wonder what that says about Truman)
        Nuclear power is on the other hand the road to freedom from oil dependence as well as the key to space. Take the example of a country like India which imports 70% of its oil. If even 40% which is used in power plants is replaced by nuclear power India would become a developed country instead of a developing one. Witness the French. As most of their electricity is nuclear generated they are not hostage to oil and dont need to get sucked into the middle-east. This gives them the advantage of taking the moral viewpoint on these issues instead of the national security viewpoint. People blame the neocons for starting the Iraq war but given the state of the US economy there really was no other option than to get control of some oil reserves. The same liberals who blast Bush about going to war in Iraq are the one shouting NAMBY when nuclear power is discussed

        • Re:Nukes are the way to go (Score:4, Informative)

          by sznupi ( 719324 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @07:15PM (#12538768) Homepage
          While I agree on general matter, I think the details about France are incorrect a little. Because, for example, where I live practically none electricity is generated from oil...but we still are dependant on it...
          So I think they are still hostage... (who knows if opposing the war wasn't precisely part of it)

        • Also a lot more people died in the Bhopal Gas leak in India from a fertilizer factory than from Chernobyl but people are shit scared of Nuclear plants.

          That's because when nuclear plants have accidents they don't just kill in the initial explosion. They can kill every day for hundreds of years.

          It's estimated that it will be six hundred years before it is safe for people to live in some areas around Chernobyl. For a sense of scale, six hundred years ago people didn't know there were continents on thi

        • Also a lot more people died in the Bhopal Gas leak in India from a fertilizer factory than from Chernobyl but people are shit scared of Nuclear plants.

          Holy shit! How can you say that? Chernobyl is the largest man-made disaster ever-- even the low estimates put the death toll well above the Bhopal Gas leak estiamtes.

          By some estimates, Chernobyl killed hundreds of thousands [wikipedia.org] of people. There are no official death estimate because the government never released any figures and no other entity could go into th
          • I don't think you can conclusivly say Chernobyl caused more deaths than Bhopal.

            Sure, taking the higher estimates of chernobyl (and there are some wild and improbably high estimates for Chernobyl) and the lower estimates for Bhopal would mean Chernobyl killed more. But then again doing the vice versa says that Bhopal killed more.

            Wheras its true the Soviet cover-up probably means a larger actual death toll than the official estimates (which I am always surprised at how low they are considering the notoriety
        • Only terrorists would ever think of using nukes (Hmm wonder what that says about Truman)

          Truman used the Nuclear bomb not so that the US could occupy Japan, but because he wanted to end the war with fewer US casualties. But, nowadays a country using nukes like that will make the rest of the world very angry.

          Nuclear power is on the other hand the road to freedom from oil dependence as well as the key to space.

          While Nuclear power definately helps reduce oil consumption, oil is not burned in power plants

        • Thats true. The conventional bombing raids killed far more and destryed much more property than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki fircrackers(relatively speaking)

          Yeah, but when conventional bombing raids stop, people stop dying. The 'firecrackers', as you so blithely describe them, have far more long-lasting effect.

        • I was going to compose a careful rebuttal of the garbage in the last paragraph... but look let's keep it simple.
          • Countries with nuclear power will tend to get nuclear weapons. Countries without one or the other are likely to feel that it's none of the USA's damn business if they decide to build a bomb - indeed that's what all the nuclear non-proliferation / IAAA hoohaa about N Korea and Iran is about. How many countries do *you* want to have the bomb?
          • You comments about Iraq would be funnny if they weren
        • Please let me make it clear: I *entirely* agree with you on the need for nuclear power, and the value in removing the leverage the Middle East has on the world.

          That said...."Witness the French. As most of their electricity is nuclear generated they are not hostage to oil and dont need to get sucked into the middle-east. This gives them the advantage of taking the moral viewpoint on these issues instead of the national security viewpoint."
          The shoveling of barrelfulls of kickback money on the oil-for-food pr
      • How about antimatter - as in positron/electron or other more interesting positron-based fission reactions?
      • I like the euphemism noted in the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] on the topic, External Pulsed Plasma Propulsion. Cute :)

        As far as the merits of the idea go, statistically each launch would give a few people cancer. You're not going to sell people on that idea unless there's an absolutely compelling need (the Big One is about to hit us, for instance).

      • My opinion is that the ones working on it should coin a name NOT including the word "nuclear". The public is so brainwashed on the matter that whenever they hear ir red lamp in their mind turns on :/

        NASA GUY: Today I'm unveiling our new manned space vehicle, powered by the Happy Fluffy Bunny Reactor Drive.

        PRESS: Wow! That's pretty cool! How does it work?

        NASA GUY: The Happy Fluffy Bunny Reactor takes radioactive elements and splits them, releasing radiation and large amounts of heat, which drives react

      • I'm optimistic about being able to reverse brainwash people in regards to the word "nuclear." If the Bush administration could convince the mass public about Iraq, then they can do this too. They just need to set their minds to it.

    • The Real Reason Chemical Ship Can't Cut It (Score:5, Insightful)

      by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @07:00PM (#12538688)
      Cost efficency has nothing to do with it.

      The real reason we need to use something else to move about the solar system is that chemically fueled ships can't go fast enough.

      We need to go from LEO to the Moon in well under a day, and to Mars in less than one month. Chemicals can't do that.

      Chemicals are fine for launch to LEO, and there is no particular reason, I think, to launch nuclear ships from Earth's surface. Build and use them in space.
      • No particular reason? How about beeing able RIGHT NOW with our current technology to launch an object that weights at least 8000000 tonns? (wikipedia: project orion). How loung would it take to launch such mass on chemicals and assemble it on orbit (plus: needed connections between parts = waste of mass)
        • While those numbers sound truely cool, this little sentence from the Wikipedia article sounds a little less nice:

          ### There were also ethical issues with launching such a vehicle from the surface of the earth; calculations showed that between 1 and 10 people would die from each takeoff from fallout. ###

          Unless they got that problem solved you won't see those 8000000 tonns launch anytime soon.
          • Gee... when you look at how many people die from automobile accidents each day (An average of 114 people die each day in car crashes in the U.S. [unitedjustice.com]), 1-10 deaths per launch, caused by the resulting fallout, doesn't seem all that much.

            I suppose it depends on what kind of spin the media puts on it...
            • Sure, in the grand scheme, a few people doesn't matter much. I'm sure 1-10 people get killed on any given day by far more bizarre things than a little fallout - dwarf tossing, cow tipping, bull-baiting, terminal internet addiction, etc.

              Yet at the same time, the automobile accidents are something we try to reduce and we don't just shrug and say 'Hey, those 114 deaths don't matter! Let's tack on another 10!'

              Oddly, I think that 1-10 more deaths in what most folk would percieve as an unnecessary event would b
              • "Yet at the same time, the automobile accidents are something we try to reduce." Wait a minute. If you wanted to try and reduce automobile accidents as much as you are suggesting we reduce the deaths from fallout from this thing... well you would ban the automobile. Bam, 0 automobile accidents. There is a problem with this logic. Yes, you no longer have as many automobile accidents. You also no longer have the infrastructure which has played a huge role in all sorts of tangential aspects of human life
            • Yes, but those 114 fatalities result from millions of individual car trips. When you drive to work there is only a tiny chance that you will be involved in a fatal accident, and you can decrease that chance by driving sensibly. If you were on the crew of Orion, you'd have to live with the knowledge that no matter what you do, you'll kill 1-10 innocent people every time it lifted off. Could you live with that? I couldn't. It would do my head in very quickly.

              Perhaps on a cost-benefit analysis, a case could

            • ### 1-10 deaths per launch, caused by the resulting fallout, doesn't seem all that much.

              Given the weight that they could transfer it really isn't that much, every once in a while people blow semself up with chemical rockets too. The problem is who dies? Surly not the once that are doing the launch, but some innocent people to which the wind ends up blowing the fallout and that is the real problem. And beside from the dead people you would surly do a lot of havok to a wide area and cause illness for lots of
        • >> No particular reason? How about beeing able RIGHT NOW with our current technology to launch an object that weights at least 8000000 tonns?

          Well, first, because we have no current or forseeable missions that require putting 8000000 tons into LEO.

          Second, Orion is all talk. We have no way of knowing the damn thing would work as advertised.

          Third, we'd have to abrogate several treaties, including the one that bans open-air nuclear explosions. Unless a hostile alien craft the size of the Moon has pa

      • We need to go from LEO to the Moon in well under a day, and to Mars in less than one month. Chemicals can't do that.

        No, chemicals can't do that. Niether can any other form of transportation that follows the rules of physics as currently understood.

        The real question is: Why do we need to go to the Moon in one day? And to Mars in a month? (And you do understand that the distance between the Earth and Mars varies by orders of magnitude on a regular basis...)

        • >> Why do we need to go to the Moon in one day? And to Mars in a month?

          Because human exploration and exploitation of the inner Solor System cannot take place as long as it takes months and years to complete missions. Space travel isn't a mission of pure science and research; it isn't analagous to 19th century expeditions to the poles.

          Even if that were the case, shorter missions dramatically reduce life support requirements, permitting additional cargo and payload, including research personnel and e

          • Why do we need to go to the Moon in one day? And to Mars in a month?

            Because human exploration and exploitation of the inner Solor System cannot take place as long as it takes months and years to complete missions. Space travel isn't a mission of pure science and research; it isn't analagous to 19th century expeditions to the poles.

            That's an unproven assumption, not the fact you treat it as.

            In other words, like other forms of point-to-point travel, the sooner we get there, the better.

            Again, that

            • Of course, they're both my opinion. So what? Have you got a "fact" that says we shouldn't go?

              It is irrelevant to look for "facts" in this arena. There was no "fact" to compel Europeans to migrate to the Americas, but they still migrated.

              People are free to do what they choose. We don't need to find "facts" to motivate us.

              If people like you were running the show, we'd all still be hanging around the Olduvai Gorge chasing game because no you wouldn't see any "facts" justifying going somewhere else.
              • Of course, they're both my opinion. So what? Have you got a "fact" that says we shouldn't go?
                I need not supply facts saying we should not go... Because I never said we should not go. I asked you to support your opinions in re speed of travel, and you reply with an attack based on something I never said.

                This says much about you.

    • Chemical rockets are just not cost efficient enough.

      The key bottleneck is Earth to orbit. It really doesn't matter what technology is used to get into orbit as long as there is high launch volume. Chemical rockets are good enough to fill that need and the real obstacles here are economic and political.

    • No, nukes are evil! What we need is wind power, biodiesel and hybrid engines. If NASA wants to explore Europa, then a Toyota Prius is the way to go. Now excuse me while I get back to my home energy project (I'm building a windmill, driven by an electric fan - why did nobody else think of us?). cheers, DB
    • Seeing as how all newly designed rockets have at least a couple of midair explosions before things get straigthened out, I don't think nuclear propulsion should even be considered in the Earth's atmosphere.

      It is however an option in space, if the nuclear fuel is brought up to orbit in a rocket with established safety.

      As far as the nuclear engineers -- that is a non-issue. If you think nuclear engineers are per se dangerous, then we should pay them to retrain themselves for other (hopefully physics related

  • Man with a plan (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DARKFORCE123 ( 525408 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @06:39PM (#12538596)
    Griffin sounds like a man with the kind of aggressive plans we need to make things like the shuttle replacement finally a reality and make US space efforts relevant and significant again.

    Wonder who in the US bureaucratic nightmare pool is going to put a stop to his plans ?
    • OTOH I would tend to call decisions to service Hubble ANYTHING but agressive. (unfortunatelly)
      "Licking ass of general public" is perhaps too much...but you get the idea :/

  • Let's get this straight. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @06:43PM (#12538612) Homepage
    Best part of a century after the rocket was invented by Goddard, and NASA still have no plans to send up any significant numbers of ordinary people?

    Atleast the Russians will send you up if you're fit enough and loaded, NASA doesn't even do that.

    So why would this plan be a good one?

    • Re:Let's get this straight. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rakishi ( 759894 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @06:50PM (#12538640)
      Why does it matter? So you get to spend a week on a largely-US funded space station for $20mil? Humanity doesn't gain anything and most people can't afford it anyway. Hell the launch costs alone are probably around $300k+ per person, and that won't go down without either a space elevator, nuclear rocket or a lot more space travel (and I mean a lot). And the only reason Russia is even sending ordinary peopel into space is because they're broke.

      • Re:Let's get this straight. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @07:38PM (#12538894) Homepage
        So you get to spend a week on a largely-US funded space station for $20mil?

        Yup. Everyone that has gone thinks zero-g is a blast; and the Earth looks pretty whizzing past at 8km/s. Facile? Maybe. Unique- definitely.

        The more people that launch to there, the more facilities are needed, and the cheaper it becomes to use lunar resources than launch everthing from the Earth- it turns out that that is cheaper, but the startup costs are high.

        Humanity doesn't gain anything and most people can't afford it anyway. Hell the launch costs alone are probably around $300k+ per person, and that won't go down without either a space elevator, nuclear rocket or a lot more space travel (and I mean a lot).

        Actually, the space elevator probably doesn't work for humans because of the Van Allen belts, (but it might be good for cargo); but simply launching a LOT probably does.

        Why does it matter?

        Cheap energy (Solar Power Satellites), colonisation of other planets, reduction of CO2 production, exploration of the solar system. Basically launching a lot reduces the costs, and opens up space so that we can actually use it and go places other than the Earth. Is that bad or wrong?

        And the only reason Russia is even sending ordinary peopel into space is because they're broke.

        So what you're saying is that Russia is doing it to make money, and there is a market. And this is a problem because?

        • The more people that launch to there, the more facilities are needed, and the cheaper it becomes to use lunar resources than launch everthing from the Earth- it turns out that that is cheaper, but the startup costs are high.

          "high" is an understatement. The ISS is around $100 billion in cost and has a weight of 1mil pounds. Quick calculations put the cost of sending the ISS into orbit at $10billion (and probably less), which is only 10% of the cost. Consider that for a second, launch costs aren't the bigg
          • Trying to make it anything larger makes you suddenly slam straight into those limits (ie: you need to build your own space station or add extra launch facilities, training facilities, etc.).

            Well, Bigelow has cheap space hotels in the pipeline, and there's a fair amount of capacity if the launch process can be streamlined.

            Also it's in Russia; it's questionable if such a venture would even be profitable in the US.

            So, are Nike shoes; they're profitable because they don't make them in Russia. That's why

          • "high" is an understatement. The ISS is around $100 billion in cost and has a weight of 1mil pounds. Quick calculations put the cost of sending the ISS into orbit at $10billion (and probably less), which is only 10% of the cost. Consider that for a second, launch costs aren't the biggest thing we have to worry about right now and the other costs will not go down on the moon. It'll be a long time before lunar based construction can match what is possible on Earth, and until it comes close the lower launch co

        • Re:Let's get this straight. (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Actually, the space elevator probably doesn't work for humans because of the Van Allen belts

          If you have the tech to build a space elevator, dispersing the Van Allen radiation belts [space.com] is a cinch.

          Even dispersing just the inner belt would be helpful: the Space Station could be then pushed into a higher orbit so it needs less frequent reboosting.

        • I'm going to venture slightly off topic. Your post brings up another question.
          I wonder what effects the radiation from the van allen belts will have on the carbon nanotubes and the polymers to bind them in the "ribbon" for the space elevator.
          It seems to me that having a sensive molecular structure getting bombarded by high energy particles is not a good thing. OTOH, if they put a big collection plate up, and hooked it up to a cable running down the ribbon, you'd have some zero pollution electricity ;)

          Wow,
      • And the only reason Russia is even sending ordinary peopel into space is because they're broke.

        Russia actually has plenty of spare money - so much that it decided to prepay its debts to the Paris Club ahead of time [mosnews.com]: Kudrin said Russia would transfer the first tranche of $13 billion to Paris Club members in June.

        • ...because it will save them $6 billion in the long run. I should have worded my statement as: the Russian's underfunded space program which is probably one of the places where the goverment is trying to pull funds from to save money.
    • Because NASA is in the exploration business, not the charter bus business. My tax money should not be spent to figure out how to send fatcat millionaires on joy rides.

      Meanwhile, don't forget the Russians are doing the tourist bit because they need the money, not because they're blazing a new trail for "ordinary people".
      • Because NASA is in the exploration business, not the charter bus business.

        Really? I have no problem with genuine exploration, but I have extreme difficulty in understanding what exploration the ISS was all about. It's not like there's been thousands of new discoveries from the ISS. On the other hand check out Cassini.

        Basically, for human flight, to put it extremely crudely, NASA should piss or get off the pot. The evidence of the Shuttle and the ISS is that NASA is not as good at it as the Russians. Rus

        • I have no problem with genuine exploration, but I have extreme difficulty in understanding what exploration the ISS was all about.

          Replace "exploration" with "foreign relations and keeping Russian rocket scientists from going to hostile nations," and it'll make a lot more sense.
        • The ISS and the Shuttle were not about exploration. But, there's been a bit of a mission change lately, or haven't you heard? You know, that Presidential directive a couple of years ago about returning to the Moon and exploring the inner Solar System. Pay attention.

          Meanwhile, let's explore the "exploration" the Soviets did before they went bust: build smaller and cruder version of ISS; use same 3-man capsule they used snce the 1960's to staff and supply that space station. ISS/Shuttle or Mir/Soyuz: no
    • Best part of a century after the rocket was invented by Goddard, and NASA still have no plans to send up any significant numbers of ordinary people?

      If I understand correctly, Goddard invented the liquid-fueled rocket and developed the first true modern rockets, but China used rockets for a long time (many centuries) before that.

      Second, why should it be NASA's job to send ordinary people into space? This sounds like a job for private industry (eg, the Virgin Airlines and Scaled Composites partnership)

    • Best part of a century after the rocket was invented by Goddard, and NASA still have no plans to send up any significant numbers of ordinary people?
      And why should they?

  • No Hubble Mission Decision (Score:5, Informative)

    by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @06:55PM (#12538665)
    Griffin has directed NASA to consider how a Shuttle mission to Hubble might proceed. He has not actually directed that the mission take place.
  • Weren't slashdotters recently getting huffy-puffy over the Hubble not getting it's last servicing mission...?

    You mean we trolled for no reason!?

  • If America and Russia only would cooperate ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sqar ( 884082 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @07:20PM (#12538797)
    ... they could have a new type of spacecraft much earlier. Russian engineers are pretty advanced in their plannings for a soyuz replacement: Kliper

    http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html [russianspaceweb.com]
    http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kliper.htm [astronautix.com]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliper [wikipedia.org]

    the maiden flight was originally planned for 2007-2008 if I remember that correctly (read it in a German aviation magazine (Fliegerrevue) some time ago), but as usual with such projects and russia: sadly they have no more money to complete it. Relatively little american money could have a huge effect here. But I guess national pride on both sides will prevent this from coming true.

    regards, sqar

    • Re:If America and Russia only would cooperate ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by greypilgrim ( 799369 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @07:47PM (#12538940)
      Instead of building an International Black Hole (ISS), the world's space faring nations should join forces and build one common launch vehicle. The combined knowledge and experience of all of these space faring nations could build a new ship far superior to the space shuttle. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, national pride on both sides will prevent this from ever happening.
      • Not arguing about the ISS being a waste, but I'm not sure it's a bad idea that different space agencies are all developing their own launch vehicles. A small amount of competition in terms of engineering will be better for everyone in the long run, right? Obviously everyone should still share science data and results, though.

      • Re:If America and Russia only would cooperate ... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Monday May 16, 2005 @01:18AM (#12540394) Journal
        the world's space faring nations should join forces and build one common launch vehicle

        I'm sorry, but that makes about as much sense as saying that the nations of the world should join together and build one common airplane. Design by committee generally doesn't work too well, especially if the design has to be made such that it siphons an appropriate amount of money into each of the involved countries.

      • Instead of building an International Black Hole (ISS), the world's space faring nations should join forces and build one common launch vehicle.

        Why? First off design-by-comitte rarely (if ever) works. Secondly, we no more need one type of launch vehicle than we need one type of car, plane, boat, or train.

        The combined knowledge and experience of all of these space faring nations could build a new ship far superior to the space shuttle.

        Heck, right here in the US we already have a rough idea of how to

  • What about space elevators? Or are they too poor a cover for subsidizing military contractors?

  • Cliff Notes for TFA (Score:5, Informative)

    by tmortn ( 630092 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @08:01PM (#12539014) Homepage
    We want to get out of Low Earth Orbit but that can't be done until the CEV is operational and Shuttle is dead and Station declared completed. This is because Shuttle represents a 1/3 to 1/2 of NASAs bottom line budget and ISS another 1/5 or so. Short of a major budget increase, NASA cannot throw real money at a new program until Shuttle is axed and ISS is down to support mode rather than construction. Most every thing else in the budget is penny ante in comparison and the political fallout of axing them is not worth the gain of re-allocating the money.

    Key points.

    Shuttle Dead in 2010. Before if possible.

    ISS final configuration from a shuttle launch standpoint is being re-considered. This is perahaps the biggest driver of a 2010 retirement date. Current requirements mandate that pretty much as a minimum. Robotic launches being considered for completing delivery of components.

    CEV developement cycle drasticly reduced. Operational no later than shuttle retirement. Translation: Sounds like if they can get CEV ready Shuttle will die then if a new final config is confirmed for ISS.

    Step up Space Nuclear Power. It is a must for manned sapce exploration beyond earth/moon and for any kind of permanent moon outpost of any real scale. If we don't have it ready by the time the CEV is we will have to wait on it before doing much more than flags and footprints again.

    Re-evaluate the decision to not service Hubble after RTF missions so that a more informed opinion on the safety risks invovled can be made. Key here really is the decision not to kill budgeting for keeping the service mission an option. (ie the cost is mostly in the parts development and testing, not launch). Thus NASA can't re-appropriate that money for use elsewhere in the budget until the decision is re-afffirmed after return to flight... OR they decide it is a reasonable risk after all at which point all money for anything other than de-orbit will be re-apportioned in the budget. Smart move for money by Griffon. Regardless it keeps the money in for FY 06 as we will most likely not complete analysis of the two RTF missions till after the end of FY'05. So that means the money can't simply be axed off the NASA budget, it can go somewhere else. At 350 million it isn't chump change to a budget starved program.

    Keep some other political programs on life support (education etc...) to keep some senetors happy.

    Rob Peter to pay Paul. In order to do anything NASA has to cut somewhere. The only major areas of funding are space science, manned space operations and ISS. Already covered that two are pretty secure. Space science fundign is increasing but existing programs are largely getting the shaft for now with a promise to get picked up on the back end. IE thats what it means to delay some programs till after meeting exploration goals in the short term. So my guess is the telescopes are going to take a hit and that is why they are going to re-consider Keeping Huble limping along to possible keep a gap from happening or at least moving the gap already planned a few years farther along.

    NASA will bug congress to allow purchasing more Russian launch capacity. Nasa paid for Soyuz missions are about spent and right now we can't give the RSA any more for launches. Not played very large in the statement but that is a big issue in current ISS operations and one that needs to be addressed.

  • 3rd Shuttle Blows up: What happens to Priorities? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15, 2005 @08:26PM (#12539120)
    Having worked on half a dozen Space Shuttle Safety projects for the late great Rockwell International Space Transportation Division, and found each of them dysfunctional to the point of criminal fraud; and having given testimony to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board; and having spoken at length to the NASA Inspector General's office -- when the 3rd Space Shuttle disater strikes, what happens to all these objectives?

    The CAIB gave clear direction on how to reform NASA. But their only Nobel Laureate Physicist (Feynman being long buried) gave a press conference to say that he does NOT believe that NASA can effectively change its "corporate culture."

    I've praised Mike Griffin in slashdot, but he can no more change NASA's style than Eric Raymond can change Microsoft.

    -- Professor Jonathan Vos Post
  • Current funding for space exploration is a joke. We should be talking in Trillions of current US dollars. I know that sounds like an incredible amount but if it was spent now the return in profit would soon exceed the entire value of all the world's economies put together. New research needs to be done in all arenas of space; propulsion, energy, and environmental. Space offers the last potential for humanity. The Earth is running into a log jam of population and industrial production / food produ
    • You need to supply a better business plan on the profit there bud. I think you are suffering from the "Field of Dreams" syndrome -- 'If you build it, they will come.' Doesn't work that way, unfortunately.
    • "I know that sounds like an incredible amount but if it was spent now the return in profit would soon exceed the entire value of all the world's economies put together."

      I'd like to see some sort of theoretical figures for this. I _suspect_ you are talking out of your ass, but let's be sure, shall we?

      There's nothing out in space that's going to magically bring in tens of trillions of dollars. Even raw minerals are not anywhere near the sum you're describing.

      But, please, educate me.

      -Erwos
      • Actually the raw materials in space are indeed worth that and quite a bit more besides. Not that it matters, we don't have the appetite to use them on that level. The other problem of course is that right now it would cost too much to get at them... IE dosn't matter if there is a trillion dollars worth of iron in an asteroid if it costs 2 trillion to harness it.

        Though if you want a potential real source of money? He3 is probably the best current candidate. Extrodinarily rare on the Earth it is by compariso
    • ### The Earth is running into a log jam of population and industrial production / food production.

      How about pumping all that money into fixing up earth? Heck, if we don't get it right on the earth, how to you expect to get it right on some mars colonnie, generation spaceship or whatever with much harder constrains?

      The earth is good enough to serve mankind easily for a few million years, I have little doubt that we would even surrive a astroid hit without much problem, sure not all of us, but enough to not
  • On first reading, it sounds like the new NASA Administrator has some visionary ideas. But one has to wonder if some of these proposals are really intended to keep key members of the House and Senate happy by preserving jobs in their districts. Take a look at what effects these changes would have on the employmene tsituation at some key NASA installations, and then be your own judge on whether science or politics is at work here.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close