E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
SpaceX
Artwork shows SpaceX's Dragon capsule delivering cargo to the International Space Station.
The lines of debate over the future of space exploration are becoming clearer — and it doesn't necessarily add up to a pretty picture. NASA's $35 billion Space Launch System is just a piece of the puzzle: This week's developments also touch upon SpaceX, the James Webb Space Telescope and next-gen technologies. Here are a few not-so-easy pieces to muse over during the weekend:
James Webb Space Telescope: A House panel stirred up a ruckus earlier this summer when it called for canceling the JWST, the grand observatory widely regarded as Hubble's heir. The problem is that the project is way behind schedule and over budget. Now the Senate Appropriations Committee has released its version of the fiscal 2012 bill that covers NASA's budget, and it provides just enough money to keep the JWST on track, based on NASA's current projections. Some observers are exulting that the next-gen telescope has been "saved," but there's a long way to go yet, including House-Senate budget negotiations.
Space Launch System: The same Senate bill follows through on the SLS plan that senators worked out with NASA and the White House. It would provide $3 billion during the next fiscal year ($1.8 billion for the rocket, $1.2 billion for the multipurpose crew vehicle), just as NASA projected. A $17 billion cost cap is also specified for work through fiscal 2017. That compares with NASA's estimate of $18 billion earlier in the week. New-space opposition to the SLS plan is continuing, with the Space Access Society and the Space Frontier Foundation weighing in against what they see as a money-gobbling white elephant. But one of the Senate bill's provisions would hold back $200 million of the $500 million allotted for NASA's commercial crew program unless NASA makes good on its promise to get to work on the SLS. For details on the Senate bill, check out the Space Politics blog and Space News.
SpaceX schedule: California-based SpaceX, which is arguably the country's most successful new-space venture, voiced support for the $500 million commercial crew plan laid out by the Senate bill. The company had been due to launch an uncrewed Dragon cargo capsule to the International Space Station on Nov. 30, as the final test opening the way for U.S. cargo resupply flights in the post-shuttle era. But this week, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said that mission might have to be postponed until January or February, due to the launch delays caused by last month's problem with a Soyuz rocket. What's more, RIA Novosti quoted a Russian space official as saying that SpaceX does not have permission to dock with the space station. "So far, we have no proof that this spacecraft duly complies with the accepted norms of spaceflight safety," said Roscosmos' Alexei Krasnov. That led NASA to issue a Twitter retort: "A decision has yet to be made regarding the upcoming @SpaceXer test flight to ISS."
Wild-card technologies: There's good news and bad news for space technology fans. First, the good news: NASA announced awards totaling up to $3 million to five companies working on solar electric propulsion, the kind of technology that many experts think will be needed for a mission to Mars. Today, NASA announced additional awards amounting to more than $3.7 million for two "game-changing" space technologies: beamed power (for ground-to-air and ground-to-ground applications) and next-generation lithium-ion batteries (for future space missions). Now for the bad news: The Senate bill for fiscal 2012 trims almost $400 million from President Barack Obama's $1.02 billion request for space technology initiatives. (The good news is that it's more than what the House bill would provide.)
How do you see the space picture shaping up? Feel free to add your comments below.
More puzzle pieces to ponder:
- Big questions about big rockets
- Some scientists balk at telescope bailout
- Is Apollo's past spoiling our future in space?
- Houston Chronicle SciGuy: A splash of cold water
The best source for keeping up with the new space race is Clark Lindsey's RLV and Space Transport News. But if you're interested in this subject, you probably knew that already.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding me to your Google+ circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
It's just sad to me to see the change in the public's opinion and aspirations regarding space travel. I'm not sure which generation first failed to convey the importance of the task of planetary exploration to their children, but the result is that there is currently zero popular interest in doing what, logically, is necessary for humanity to continue to exist.
The evidence is everywhere you look...Not only in explicit budgetary decisions allocating money to dead end pursuits of earthly material wealth and weapons to take it from others, but also in the shift in the focus of modern science fiction from exploration and colonization of new worlds to something akin to horror fantasy.
Sadly, if the current trend continues, we won't diversify our location of existence in time and we'll continue squandering our natural resources and human resources on piling up precious metals and material goods within artificial political boundaries and, eventually, all end up suffering a suffocating, hot, crowded death.
If we are to even consider a robust human exploration program, a Saturn V plus class heavy lifter needs to be at it's heart. You need a lifter that can launch habitats, refuling systems, deep space vehicle components and advanced propulsion modules without even breathing hard. The net savings comes with fewer assembly missions and a reduced need to compromise on advanced lander and vehicle designs. If it's about touching Mars with a boot in 2032 and running home with a handful of rocks, you can live with smaller launch vehicles. If you don't want to repeat the great mistake of Apollo and build a robust and permanent deep space exploration architecture, SLS must be at it's core. You do long term exploration without it. . And yes, austerity or not, congress needs to fund NASA at $24B a year, not 18. We can live with one less carrier or a two fewer attack subs. A robust deep space exploration program will generate so much more for an America that needs to be inspired again.
The Saturn V was too expensive, that's the main reason why it was discontinued. A modern version wouldn't be much better, economically speaking.
No, if we seriously want to have manned space exploration without going bankrupt, we'll need to come up with some way to dramatically reduce the cost of getting to orbit. Sadly, I've yet to see anything that can do that, though some ideas do show some promise.
This isn't a duplicate of a Saturn V any more than a 2011 Porsche is a duplicate of a 1960's Porsche. It uses far more advanced materials and design techniques. It will be far more reliable, with an order of magnitude difference in everything from guidance systems to modularity. This also goes for the Orion capsule and service module. Apollo specs don't even compare. They have the same ballistic shape, because it's reliable for high speed, ballistic re-entry. That's where the similarity ends. NASA is fully supporting lower cost commercial space development for orbital missions. This is a deep space crew and cargo delivery vehicle. You need a whole different animal for human rated deep space missions. Everything from power management to radiation and heat shield design. Commerercial vehicles such as Falcon Heavy will no doubt augment many future missions. They simply can't do the whole job. A Mission to Mars requires hundreds of tons of cargo and vehicles. Even with this system, a 500 day exploration mission will take 4 to 7 launches. There are more possiblities for future cost reduction in orbital vehicles, especially as material technology eventually allows for that dream space plane concept to take off. I'm afraid though that hurtling equipment to the Moon and Mars will best be done by brute force heavy lifters for decades to come.
What about the Palin Orbital Injection System?? We have the football goals. If we just invest in our rubber band technology, we could be launching spacecraft like every 5 mins. What about the 10,000 gauge Launch Rifle proposed by the NRA? If we really want to get the best bang for the buck though, we should move the space program to Texas. How much do you think NASA will save if all employees get paid minimum wage?
Space tech will open up many possibilities and many jobs that we havent invented yet. it would be a costly and terrible mistake to defund nasa or to retard space operations.
I think visiting and exploring asteroids has been grossly underestimated. I am not sure manned vs unmanned missions make that big a difference, but in the future, the economics say that most resources are cheaper from asteroids, than the moon or any planet in the solar system. I would love to see multiple cheap asteroid exploration craft developed that could visit multiple asteroids, drill and identify resources. This knowledge could be as valuable as the Lewis and Clark expedition was to the development of the United States in the 1800s.
It is time to develop space flight further, but with the US waging war as it's primary financial venture it will never happen to the level that is currently possible. All we will see is small budgets and big plans.
Congress planning the future of the space program? Why does my head hurt? Let me count the ways...
what are some good ideas to increase space exploration or development? i want something specific with some good realistic impacts, any suggestions?
we need to start thinking multiple uses for technology, standardization. This may not sound exciting, and it isn't but the technology isn't the exciting, it is the exploration, and starting to be able to reduce your costs by reusing and increasing volume, that is what is going to drive the industry.
Yup, boring, but necessary.
ok, so what is a piece of technology that could be invented that would benifit that?
how could we solve space debris?
first thing, don't add to the problem.
We have that fantastic 747 mounted laser system to shoot down enemy ICBMs. why not try it out on some space junk?