E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
John Frassanito & Assoc. via NASA
An artist's conception shows a future Orion crew vehicle on a Red Planet mission.
Pessimists are bemoaning the end of U.S. human spaceflight, but optimists see the next few years as a transition to a new paradigm that will energize commercial ventures and get astronauts beyond Earth orbit for the first time since the Nixon administration. Which way do you see it?
There seems to be plenty of gloom to go around as the space shuttle program nears its end. Hayden Planetarium director Neil deGrasse Tyson, a former member of the NASA Advisory Council and other commissions sizing up the space effort, had this to say via Twitter: "Apollo in 1969. Shuttle in 1981. Nothing in 2011. Our space program would look awesome to anyone living backwards through time."
One of the astronauts on the first space shuttle flight in 1981, Bob Crippen, told me that he was disappointed that the shuttle program's end would leave NASA "without the capability to put our astronauts in orbit ourselves." And he questioned whether NASA had the right vision for future exploration. "I personally favored going to the moon," he said.
The frustration flared up today during a House committee hearing with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden as the sole witness, or sole target. "We have waited for answers that have not come," Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Ralph Hall, R-Texas, told Bolden. "We have run out of patience. ... I would like to point out today that the committee reserves the right to open an investigation into these continued delays and join the investigation initiated by the Senate."
Bolden, a retired Marine general, took the hostile fire. "You have the right guy here to criticize," he said. "I am the leader of America's space program."
He laid out the main points of the post-shuttle plan:
- Rely on the Russians and other partners for resupply of the International Space Station, at least until U.S. companies can finish work on the space vehicles they're developing with NASA's backing. The first commercial cargo craft could be flying to the station by the end of this year, and U.S.-made "space taxis" could be taking on astronauts by 2015.
- Continue work on the Orion crew vehicle, which should be capable of carrying four astronauts on more ambitious trips beyond Earth orbit. Orion had been canceled as part of the Constellation back-to-the-moon program, after $5 billion had been spent on the program, but it was essentially resurrected as NASA's "multipurpose crew vehicle," or MPCV.
- Build a new Space Launch System, or SLS, which will be based on shuttle-era and Apollo-era rocket technology. The design for the SLS has not yet been announced, which is why members of Congress are so frustrated. Bolden said it could take until the end of summer or even longer to get the SLS plan through its financial review. Congress passed a law calling for the MPCV spaceship and the SLS rocket to be ready by 2016, but Bolden said the 2017-2020 time frame was more realistic.
- NASA is aiming to send astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid by 2025, and to Mars and its moons by the mid-2030s. Other stopovers, ranging from the moon to gravitational balance points in outer space, may be added along the way.
"We are not abandoning human spaceflight," Bolden said. "American leadership in space will continue for at least the next half century because we have laid the foundation for success."
So there is an evolving plan for the future ... just as there was an evolving plan for the space shuttle system in the early to mid-1970s when the Apollo program came to an end. Under the best-case scenario, that plan will lead to actual flights within four to six years, which is less time than it took between the last Saturn 5 and the first shuttle launch. But there are lots of questions surrounding the post-shuttle plan:
-
How much money will NASA get? A draft report from the House Appropriations Committee calls for trimming the space agency's budget by roughly 10 percent. (For details, check Space Policy Online, Parabolic Arc and Space News.) NASA officials as well as commercial spaceship developers say that budget reductions will slow down the transition to post-shuttle spaceflight even more.
-
Will the commercial sector succeed? Right now, NASA is committed to paying the Russians $56 million for each seat on a station-bound Soyuz craft, and the price is due to go up in 2014. Commercial providers such as SpaceX, Sierra Nevada and the Boeing Co. say that they can beat that price, but that they need NASA's money to help cover development costs. Shuttle program veterans say the commercial providers still have to prove that their craft will be safe and reliable.
-
Will the commercial space taxis for low Earth orbit and the Orion MPCV/SLS system for going beyond Earth orbit complement each other the way NASA hopes? Larry Price, Lockheed Martin Space Systems' deputy manager for the Orion program, told me that the two-track system served as an insurance policy for the post-shuttle space effort. "There's a little bit of competitive pressure," he acknowledged. "If the commercial guys run into any problem or delay for any reason, then we could back them up. And similarly, if we don't meet our milestones, the commercial guys could evolve into our niche."
After 30 years of grand successes, tragic failures and unfulfilled promises, the era of the space shuttle is ending. We may not yet know exactly what kind of American spaceship will be the next to fly. And because of that, thousands of people will be laid off by NASA and its contractors in the weeks ahead. But we're not witnessing the death of the American space program. At least that's the way Elon Musk, the millionaire founder of SpaceX, sees it.
"As far as I'm concerned, it's not the death of anything," he told me. "What we're really facing is quite the opposite. I think we're at the dawn of a new era of spaceflight, one which is going to advance much faster than it ever has in the past."
Now why would he say that? Over the next few days, we'll be presenting a series of Q&A interviews with Musk and other folks involved in shaping the post-shuttle era. What they've told me runs counter to the gloom-and-doom talk, but you might well have a different opinion. Feel free to weigh in with your comments.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," Alan's book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Reality is not always the happiest thing, but in a world of budget cuts and setting priorities, space exploration can slow down without harming our society.
Knowledge and science will still move forward
Just as the internal combustion engine needs to be replaced so does the solid and liquid rocket technology still being used. Let other nations spend their resources on older technology while NASA can focus on renewable and advanced power sources. At $450 m a mission times the 135 missions = $60+ Billion dollars. You can be sure the military got what it needed before this was allowed to be scuttled (unmanned mini shuttle for example).
Before NASA began the space program the Germans created rocket technology because they thought outside the box. America could not figure out rockets until Von Braun and other rocket scientist were brought over.
Now let a new younger group take over and let them think and design outside the box. The older crew did their job most of the time but they managed to kill more astronauts in two missions than the entire rocket development history of untested technology.
Sadly, I believe the space program is basically over. We have spent billions and billions thru the years on totally unnecessary wars, etc. Do we really not realize that our future is not of this earth. It is out there, somewhere. So, basically, we give up space, we give up our future. Rethinking should take place. Priorities should be changed.
I am a big believer in the space program and in NASA. However, I must say that in retrospect, the 30 year shuttle program has done more damage than good to the prospects of space exploration. Let's look at some facts.
The shuttle program has been a boom to employment of individuals associated with the program, but the space shuttle never met it's mission of launching every six weeks. It has had 2 catastrophic failures with loss of vehicles and all their crew. The role of the space shuttle has been to truck satellites and other equipment into low orbit for launch into space. The other mission has been in building the ISS, another massive failure, which has no real purpose either than to be a monumental orbiting icon to international cooperation.
Most of our "true" space exploration has been conducted with robots, rovers and space probes. Had we taken the 200 billion for the space shuttle program and applied it to space exploration, we might already have a human presence on Mars. I have been hearing about putting humans on Mars for over 35 years. I was kid back then, now I am in my 50s. I would like to see human beings on Mars before I die.
Finally, in order for us to truly explore space, the United States must commit in both money and national will to building a high orbit space station. This is a long-term commitment. This high-orbit space station will serve as the future launch platform for all deep-space travel. Logic dictates this, because most of the fuel used by current rocket technology is expended in escaping Earth's gravity. A high-orbit space station is necessary if we are to truly explore space without having to worry about how much fuel we need to get off the earth.
Let's face it, the science fiction of 60 years ago is now science fact. Movies about landing on the moon, made back in the 50s came true in the late sixties. Why is it that movies about landing on Mars with human beings have not come true. Is it a lack of vision, a lack of commitment or a lack of funds.
We humans are built for exploration. From the times when early man explored the continents and settled across the continents to when Columbus and Magellan explored the oceans vast. Now, as a famous television series state, we have reached the final frontier, to go where no man has gone before. We must reach out and search to determine the ultimate question: Are we alone in the Universe?
What would be inspiring too see would whether or not introducing the Archeae microbial into Titan's methane rich enviroment would allow for the Archeae microbial to evolve into another higher sentient form of life.
Another inspiration would be to see if we could restart the Martian eco-system by bombarding it with icy asteroid's from Saturn's Rings which would cause erosion to occur as the ice melted and found its way to the core of Mars. The resultant erosion would then cause techtonic plate movement as the water became like a superfluios pad that the plates moved on. Once the water reached the core of Mars the water would be turned to steam creating a pressure that along with the material carried by the water to the core would then create a core pressure that would make its way back to the surface of Mars thus forming a circulatory system that is necessary for such a planet to exist.
Basically look at your own blood vessels. One type carries blood to the various parts of the body while the other type carries the used blood cell back to the heart to be re-oxygenated. The same process of water or the blood cells carrying life into the core of the planet creating pressure that sends core material back to the surface is what Mars is missing.
How to create Mars anew? Just add water in the form of icy asteroid's from Saturn's Ring's
Here comes the Private sector of the US to show the govt. how its done.
So where are the goals? Like the shuttle program, any goals involved are nebulous at best. Apollo, and all the programs before it, were geared toward getting us to the moon. The massive research and development those programs required bled over into everyday life like a torrent. Computers that would sit on a desk instead of taking up a whole building. Medical advances that we couldn't have imagined in the '50s came like a torrent in the '60s. While the computer and medical advances continue, that door was opened by the space program. What are we missing by failing to target, say, Mars?
During the 60s, the liberal demonstrators decried the space program as taking effort away from solving problems on Earth. They ignored the evidence before their eyes, that the space program was fueling at least some of those solutions. Those liberals are in power now, and they have essentially handcuffed NASA. And guess what? The same old problems are still with us. They're not going to go away overnight; in fact, given mankind's fallen nature, they'll probably never go away. So unshackle the space program and let us expand our horizons!
As a 35 year veteran of the space industry working on Thor, Gemini, Apollo and the Shuttle, I have to say Nasa has come a long way. The future of manned spaceflight will only be determined by men of vision and America will never be short of those visionaries. My concern is America losing sight of the ultimate goal of putting humans on another world. All our eggs, so to speak, are here on Earth and God forbid something should happen to this planet and mankind be wiped out. I think Astronaut Buzz Aldrin summed it up quite nicely by stating that man's best hope of survival is to move out into the solar system to Mars or perhaps the moons of Jupiter. So, let's keep our eyes on the prize and continue our efforts to achieve that goal.
I look forward to the private sector taking the lead. I am afraid the amount of money needed will be more that they can afford, unless different companies can work together. if countries worked together already, we would be on Mars now. Instead we keep trying to blow each other up. Unfortunately we will kill ourselves off by war or over population long before we populate the planets.
I retired a few years ago after working in the aerospace industry for 42 years. I feel fortunate that I was able to be involved with the space programs in their early years. I also worked on the Shuttle program from it's very beginning. The end of the Shuttle program by no means ends space exploration. This is just a temporary lull. The United States has always been a leader in technology and exploration and that will never change. I would love to come back in a couple hundred years and see how far we had advanced from this point. I'm sure our descendents in the years to come will see advances that we today can only dream of. This is the nature of our country and it will always be that way.
Welcome to the late, great, USA!
We had a good run, but now we are in eclipse thanks to a combination of greed, poor planning and yes, partisan politics. We made some good decisions and some terrible decisions. Now, before you get all political on me you have to realize that this decline has been a good century in the making. No individual and neither party is the blame. No one person can be singled out.
It is the natural order of things.
Look at history if you don't believe me. Great nations and empires, rise and fall on an almost predictable schedule. If we step back and appreciate that fact and plan for the future appropriately we could make a comeback someday. But continually cheering "We're number one, we are Americans, We are EXCEPTIONAL" will only make the fall that much worse and it won't change a thing. For the time-being I think it's China and India who are going to become the new world shakers and leaders.
So, what do we do? Well, we stop being the world's policeman, we turn our efforts inward and repair the damage and neglect of the last 60 years. Improve our educational systems, find ways to take care of our people and plan for the future. A future that will see us reaching for the stars along with the rest of the world. Let the Chinese and the Indians colonize the moon. Learn from their successes and mistakes so in 50 or 100 years WE can reach into deep space.
Yes, I believe our space program will evolve and I believe that we will be preeminent again, perhaps in half a century or so. But for the time-being let someone else blaze the trail. Always being "the first" is expensive and frought with danger. Being second is safer and costs a lot less.
Don't worry, we'll go boldly where no man (or woman) has gone before and like the Enterprise we'll do it with a multi-national effort and crew. We'll reach for the stars as a WORLD united and not as an individual country playing silly one-ups-manship games with other nations.
I like the term "evolve" because that's exactly what we must do. Not just our space program but our entire identity as a people must evolve in order for us all to reach for the stars.
Live long and prosper.
Well said!! Hear, hear!!
One of the best posts I have read on any topic.
Thank you both very much.
more2bits: yeah just stay on this ball of rock till the next blob smashes into us and eliminates us. We need to be out spreading like a virus to survive.
Yada Yada Yada. All the political rhetoric in the world won't get us back into space. Even the scientists and engineers have said that it is all low earth orbit that the commercial people are looking at. A company will only take the risk and expense if there is a return on investment. None of our political people (R or D) or the private industry folks have the vision that the pure scientists have and the 'return on investment' just isn't there. The ONLY way we will return to space seriously is IF a military reason raises its ugly head and that would be Iran or China getting up there with weapons. I believe THAT will happen. Just hope that they don't get there first folks!
Manned space missions may play into our pioneering spirit, but non-manned missions are much more cost effective and can gain so much more scientific knowledge. Man is limited by reaction times and physical constraints that don't apply to robotic probes.
We're definitely seeing the use of drones working better in the military in both intelligence gathering and strikes and that's in a hospitable environment for life support. In space exploration, it seems like 90% or more of the cost, weight, and payload space is for life support and safe return of the people. A one way probe can be packed with all the diagnostic gear we can cram in and accomplish more and multiple objectives in the same mission.
The one advantage manned missions do have is public support, though, so after we gather enough information though robotic exploratory missions and the technology advances, manned missions to Mars and beyond will be much better planned and have more tangible results.
Harrison Schmidt said we learned more about lunar geology in the first 4 hour walk he made on the Moon than from all of the robotic explorations put together. Robots don't have the curiosity and intelligence to look around and notice what is important and what is mundane, what is expected and what is out of place. Our little rovers on Mars have been marvelous, for robots, but they have covered less of the Martian surface in the years they have been on Mars than a human could cover in an afternoon.
The quest for knowledge for its own sake is one mark of a civilized, advancing society. Currently, the pendulum has swung away from that type of endeavor and toward a militaristic, money driven society more concerned with individual advancement than collective liberties. History tells us that the pendulum will swing back again but no one knows how long that will take.
After 60 years of effort by some of the best minds our society can produce, we have failed to resolve the fundamental issues that prevent humans from long-term missions in space. The results are in and they show we cannot adapt to such an alien environment. After all, our biological makeup, including physical and psychological, was created by the same environment we are trying to escape from, brilliant!.
Human spaceflight is a pipe dream and should be stopped so that we can proceed with the real space exploration program. We need to focus and develop the unmanned program infrastructure so we can maximize our space research. For 60 years manned spaceflight has taken front seat, we tried and we failed so lets move on and live in the real world for awhile.
von Braun's plans would have provided us with a space station that rotated to simulate the force of gravity. His Mars vehicles would have provided artificial gravity the same way. A powerful electromagnet would have shielded astronauts from charged particles and the water tanks for the voyage would have been arranged to shield against neutral particles. This could have been done with 1950s technology. We didn't do any of these things. We've wasted 40 years doing what von Braun knew was wrong.
Charles Bolden and Barack Obama use the same techniques on the space program as insurance companies do to avoid the delivery of promised performance to their customers: "Delay, deny, defend". Sure Elon Musk feels good about the future. He's getting taxpayer money via NASA for his start-up. What does "private manned space" boil down to? Adding "for profit" middlemen. They have one customer, as it stands now, for hauling passengers and cargo (NASA) to one location the ISS. They can't build another Space Station without a shuttle-type spacecraft with large cargo bay, or a Saturn 5 type heavy lift vehicle as was done with SkyLab. We have neither, so we are stuck with one destination and one payer. Outside of NASA, arrayed against these companies as competition, are national space programs of China, Russia and India, etc. (I'm not counting Virgin Galactic's sub-orbital "space" tourism plan as competition). In addition to subsidizing Elon Musk and other billionaires, we are also subsidizing the Russian Space program. We are paying top dollar to use 1960's technology Soyuz craft, and associated launch vehicles. That frees the Russians to work on deep space exploration using American taxpayer dollars. In their wisdom, Obama and Bolden canceled the Constellation program and then brought it back, under new names, delayed and less capable. MPCV = Orion The SLS = 1970's technology version of Aries 5. Constellation was "behind schedule" but these will take longer. What about their "basic research" to go faster and farther? Ok! What are they researching? It started or starts when? (sound of crickets chirping). The Space Program is now 100% political football, and Lucy has just pulled it away again!
We should have space flight in the private sector but not only in the private sector. For all intent and purposes, the US Govt has effectively castrated the NASA space program and any chance of the US maintaining any semblence of a lead in manned space flight. We will now be paying other countries to send our people and supplies into space, "out-sourcing" American jobs to foreign countries, like so many other industries in America. This is one of many steps leading to the US losing its' title as a Super Power. Once we are reliant on other countries for services previously done by Americans, we can not claim to be a World Leader and Super Power.
I am very concerned with the way NASA is going about its so called transition. Whatever, transition from a Global Super power for exploring space and new innovation, to a Global retard. With the ISS orbiting Earth an the US being the major contributer to the ISS, its mindboggleing that they would scrap the Shuttle program before NASA has a REAL replacement. And what happens when Russia says NO, we dont want to take US astronauts to the ISS, only Russian Cosmonauts can go, We will be left scratching our heads thinking what the hell have we done, we are giving 60 plus years of hard work and grit, right down the crapper. NASA is on a one way trip, a trip that is relatively short, straight to the Junk yard
The military cannot afford to abandon space, but we will never get rid of NASA is just another Big Gov. social welfare jobs program for engineers, does nothing but spend money, it should be cut, but that will never happen. It has a lobby.
The NASA is not " just another Big Gov. social welfare jobs program for engineers." Actually the NASA and accompanied private sector work forces are not all that large. It is a common mistake to attribute the majority of the NASA funding to wages. The general "in the know" opinion is that NASA funding has driven the development of entire high technology sectors of our present day life and as a consequence is actually funded by the taxes paid by these very same industries and their employees.