Narrowing the Space Flight Gap 128
MarkWhittington writes with an article on the AssociatedContent site, discussing the impending US space flight gap. Between 2010 (the end of the shuttle era) and 2015 (expected date for the launch of the Orion project) the United States will have little or no spaceflight capability. This is an obvious concern to some members of Congress and NASA. "Is all, therefore, doom and gloom? Not necessarily. Just over a year ago, NASA chose two companies for its Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems (COTS) program ... The goal of COTS was for the two companies to build prototype space craft capable of delivering crews and cargo to the International Space Station. A second phase of the COTS program would consist of a competition for a contract to actually deliver crews and cargo to ISS after 2010 ... Private industry may well come to the rescue and preserve American access to space, at least until Orion becomes operational."
I just know this is gonna kill my karma... (Score:5, Funny)
Try 1: In Soviet Russia, the government bails out private industry!
Try 2: I for one welcome our new private sector spacefaring overlords!
Try 3 Yes, it can exit the atmosphere, but can it run Linux?
Try 4: 2010: Google puts up a spacecraft before Microsoft. Chair sales skyrocket (as do some of the chairs).
There, that should cover it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Try 5: In Korea, only old people use spacecraft.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Try 6: Profit!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I just know this is gonna kill my karma... (Score:4, Informative)
The ban would not be permanent, but merely limited to the 2008 fiscal year. The point is not to keep NASA from Mars, but to force additional funding for what is currently an unfunded mandate. In 2004, when Bush announced his new space goals, NASA's budget was $15.5 billion. In 2007, the budget was only $16.3 billion. Adjusted for inflation, NASA's budget has been DECREASING despite having a mandate to undertake a new era of spaceflight. The Bush administration needs to work with Congress to dramatically increase NASA's funding levels.
With this temporary ban on manned Mars exploration, it can be interpreted that the Congress wants NASA to maintain its current scientific missions, including robotics, without cannibalizing them in order to pay for development of the manned Mars mission.
Re: (Score:2)
When you're running the country into bankruptcy to keep a war going, there isn't a lot of money to put into other ventures, no matter how much noise is made saying it's going to happen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In former Soviet Russia, they have tried and tested launch systems that the US could use to fill their gap. However, if the 45 year old embargo against Cuba is anything to go by, I can't see it happening.
(Pity: a trade deal for SLVs in exchange for cash and a crack down on spammers, phishers and other criminal elements in Russia would be a win-win scenario.)
Chinese imports (Score:2)
-l
Re: (Score:2)
The SoRussians will get right on that.
Hint: try a couple more backspace characters or use ^W.
Trickle down effect? (Score:4, Interesting)
So if companies are to be contracted to build and operate a transport system to the ISS, would it be too far-fetched to think that these companies might look at other possible revenue streams from their development work? I could see a privately owned/operated spacecraft doing a better job of opening up the space tourism market, even if a ticket is still obscenely expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Monopoly? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He lays out a great argument for the Government to just GIVE MONEY AWAY as a reward for meeting technological goals ( Such as launching, servicing, and relaunching the same airframe (spaceframe? No, that's something else.. ) 4 times in 90 days, carrying some significant amount of cargo...
That's my off the cuff example, btw, and not any example invoked as part of Pournelle's discussion.
Structured right, we get heavy lift, and space based solar satellites, for a modest ex
Re:Monopoly? (Score:5, Informative)
- Spacex.
- Spacedev.
- T/Space.
- Armadillo.
- New Shepard (hmmm, actually, that is the craft itself).
- Space Horizon.
- Scaled Compostites/Northrup (with sales to Virgin).
And that is just a few of the players.Re: (Score:2)
this would be the former.
Oblig. Dr. Strangelove (Score:3, Insightful)
But seriously, why do US political rhetorics always seem to have that military touch?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why bother (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps, therefore, NASA could decide to bypass the development of the orbital Orion and go straight to one capable of going to the Moon. How much money would be saved is open to question, but perhaps enough would be to advance the return of explorers to the Moon by a few months, if not years. And for those who have been waiting over a generation for that event, it cannot come too soon.
Re: (Score:2)
How else do you propose keeping the jobs of the several thousand shuttle program employees in key congressional districts? It may not be the most cost-effective (or effective period) way to do things, but it's political reality.
Re: (Score:1)
Commercial Results Not Guaranteed (Score:2)
COTSS? (Score:1)
Well if Broken Government[tm] can't do it in-house then they'll just have to do it out-house, err, I mean outsource it! Does Blackwater contract out astronauts?
(okay, so if you don't work for the US Govt then you won't "get it" - pay no attention to the crazy mumbling old guy)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Cover Our Total Shortsightedness, Silly.
COTS is the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a law that we must have an operating Landsat satellite -- it's that important to geology, agriculture, urban planning, etc. Landsats 1-7 were all specified and built by the government or its contractors.
In the early 2000s it came time to build Landsat 8 (known as LDCM, because nobody likes the abbreviation 'L8'). The government directive was to use the COTS program: Buy data from an existing commercial satellite, or get a commercial company to build and operate it for profit, with the government its preferred customer.
But there are no satellites that create the precise kind of data that Landsat needs. And when companies measured the profit potential of building the right kind of satellite, they walked away. If I recall the COTS LDCM request for proposal got zero bidders.
The government has finally given up on its free market fever and allowed LDCM to be a non-COTS system. Meanwhile, because we dicked around trying to shoehorn a government project into a commercial venture, we're going to be 4-8 years late in launching the next Landsat satellite. Assuming budgetary problems don't kill the entire 30+ year program.
COTS, and the recent governmental zeal to make everything part of the free market, is what has crippled and bankrupted the US space program. Some things are just better if done by governments, and at this point in history spaceflight is one of those things.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So what would be the difference if a private contractor picked up the remaining two pieces -- project management and launching/operation?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This COTS is the Commercial Orbital Transport System, which is a very very good program in my mind, because its funding the development of a much lower cost launch vehicle through a program where success is measured in results, not
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:COTS is the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
COTS is to avoid $600 toilet seats, not things which are nearly unique.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case though, NASA has a fairly specific need: transport crew and cargo up to low earth orbit, and bring crew back down safely. Unlike what seems to have happened with Landsat, there are a number of commercial companies [wikipedia.org] who are pursuing this same need.
Re: (Score:2)
Government is worst at EVERYTHING.
The Free Market is the solution to EVERY problem.
The private sector can ALWAYS do it better.
Regulation is ALWAYS the WORST way, voluntary compliance ALWAYS works BETTER.
Repeat until you Believe!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where in the original article was that suggested?
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing and Lockheed are private... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's a politics thing... (Score:1)
...in our current government, it's a politics thing. Before, it was "America Must Be First in Space to Beat Out Those Reds!" (not my words, believe me) - and we weren't first. Now, it's, "golly, let's cut funding because this thing is too expensive." This is the government trying to get out of doing anything related to space research - we're too busy blowing people up and trying to decrypt 128-bit (1024? 2048? 10240-bit?) keys to get at personal data - both of which require enormous amounts of money in and
Closing the gap (Score:2)
What's to prevent the next president from rescinding the 2010 shuttle shutdown date? In preparation I know suppliers have been cut loose and long-range parts and spares capability has been shut down already. There are only so many external tanks on order and IIRC the production line has been shut down on a lot of the expendable pieces needed to fly the space shuttle. But is the
Not Bush to Blame (Score:2)
Actually, no, it's not Bush's fault. After the Columbia Accident, for safety considerations, NASA was directed to recertify the space shuttles for flight worthiness after 2010. This is a hugely expensive proposition
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's to prevent the next president from rescinding the 2010 shuttle shutdown date? [...] But is the 2010 drop-dead cutoff date cast in stone, or is there enough in the pipeline to run another couple of years' worth of shuttle missions?
The article raises this point:
Another effort, led by Rep. Dave Weldon, a Republican from Florida, would keep the shuttle orbiter fleet flying until the Orion is ready. On the surface this seems to be a mad idea. It takes about three billion dollars a year to keep the shuttle fleet operational. If the Congress cannot find the money to bring Orion closer to reality, how can it be expected to come up with six times the amount to keep the shuttle fleet flying? If Congress takes the money out of the Orion program, then the Orion is delayed, perhaps indefinitely, defeating the purpose of the exercise.
Even worse, the shuttle fleet, in order to fly past 2010, will need a major overhaul if it is to fly with an even modicum of safety. That overhaul would cost more untold billions of dollars. Dispensing with the overhaul would place the lives of astronauts at risk and create the real possibility of a third orbiter and crew being lost in some accident.
End of US manned spaceflight (Score:4, Interesting)
So 2010 is the end of US manned spaceflight. There won't be a replacement for the Shuttle. NASA tried four times before, and never even got close to flight hardware. Why should this time be any different?
The Shuttle was designed in the 1960s. Back then, NASA could hire top people. A huge number of experienced aircraft designers were available. Today, who goes into aerospace? NASA is sometimes called "the world's largest sheltered workshop". Aerospace is now so slow-paced that it takes decades to build anything.
The GAO Report [house.gov] on the Orion program indicates that there are significant problems. The most serious is the usual one with large spacecraft - weight growth in the upper stages, requiring huge increases in the size of lower stages. NASA's plan involves adding another section to the Shuttle-type solid rocket boosters, and there are real questions as to whether the resulting stack will be strong enough. (Remember, that's how Challenger blew up; failure at the solid rocket booster joints.)
Re:End of US manned spaceflight (Score:4, Informative)
However, the new people coming up aren't as trapped in those paradigms, and I really feel that my generation is up to the challenge of doing what the Apollo generation did, but for cheaper, and in a sustainable way.
While its true that NASA isn't the beacon for intellectual challenge in the workplace that it was seen as in the 60's, I'd say Google best fulfills that role now, there are still plenty of very intelligent, very driven young people coming up in the space industry. We don't believe that the current way of doing things is the right way, and I feel we have the attitude needed, because we know that our failure could very well mean the end of human spaceflight for a long time, not just a 5 or 10 year delay.
With a large portion of the space industry retiring soon (something like 30%-40% in the next 10 years) my generation will be very involved in the future, and I have a lot of hope for what we can do.
Re: (Score:1)
two years to revive shuttle? (Score:2)
Yet again, I'll advocate for these... (Score:5, Interesting)
Will lift a thousand tons to orbit in a reusable and totally non-polluting craft. (Yup, the exhaust isn't radioactive at all.) But it's "nucular", and therefore terrible. Even though we could finally launch a bunch of solar powersats [wikipedia.org] and turn the U.S. into a net energy exporter...
One question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, "quite possible" is a relative term. As noted in the article, this is a very conservative design, well below theoretical limits. With that much thrust, you can afford a bunch of extra safety measures, like the three independent scram measures [nuclearspace.com] listed here.
But, actually, it does [nuclearspace.com] address the worst case, that of all the fuel and waste getting released into the atmosp
Re:Yet again, I'll advocate for these... (Score:4, Interesting)
Frankly, if we're going to go for putting something big in orbit, I say we just freaking do it right and build a super-orion [wikipedia.org]. Eight million tons, anywhere in the solar system in weeks or months, also capable of reaching a measurable fraction of lightspeed for interstellar journeys. Yes, it would mean detonating a bunch of small nukes in earth's atmosphere. Frankly, if the return is putting twenty thousand international space stations up in one go, I could live with that.
*mumble*goddamn sodding gravity well*mumble*
Re: (Score:2)
Un, no. Please actually read the article I indicated. The hydrogen stream at no point mixes with the UF6 gas. It flows along the outside of the quartz containment vessel.
Oy. Helium, actually. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Misleading headline & summary (Score:2)
1) Manned spaceflight is of very limited value to government. We don't need astronauts up there to have spy satellites and other military hardware.
2) It's a mistake to equivocate the government having no manned spaceflight capability with the United States having no manned spaceflight capability. Private spaceflight will go forth unimpeded, and if you think humans are going to colonize space via NASA, well, evidence since 1969 (and a
Re: (Score:2)
First thing that popped into my head (Score:2)
Sure, let Haliburtin do it (Score:2)
This whole privatization of government thing has been such a boondoggle. Particularly when it comes to technology there is simply no motive to innovate. For example, we get power form coal and 1960s era nuclear reactors because continuing to do the same thing costs less in the short run than investing in finding better ways to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
St
Re: (Score:2)
Before the Haliburtin debacle, I'd have had no problem with the defense department taking over control of NASA entirely. Between the air force and DARPA there's a fair bit of crossover anyway. The pure research stuff could be turned over to public universities in a manner similar to how the
Re: (Score:2)
There is a "military space program". It is called the United States Air Force. They have full jurisdiction over military assets that go into space, and have a rather large fleet of satellites and when NASA sends up "classified" cargos on the Space Shuttle, it is done with 100% Air Force crew
Re: (Score:2)
Stil
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know that manned spaceflight has no money?
As far as spaceflight being
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that people in general are unwilling to risk or their lives or that progress is possible without risking life. I'm saying that there's currently no sustainable business model around manned space f
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
2001 was not "2001" too (Score:2)
There is already a proposal to fix this... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
already had three year gap (Score:2)
Yeah, never mind the law... (Score:2)
Private spaceflight 2.0 (Score:2)
What incentive? (Score:2)
Orion? (Score:2)
So they will actually move to the only reasonable vehicle to put mass into orbit? That is, nuclear warhead powered (im)pulse rocket? Well, that's cool. Way cool.
I hope they didn't just steal the name from a cool project for something lame such as same-old, same-old ho-hum rocketry..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh noes!!1! (Score:4, Funny)
What about the other 75%?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, look at the bright side (Score:2)
Re:Oh noes!!1! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So, are you just too stupid to realize you called him a Libertarian THEN called him a Republican
Many republicans hide themselves in the libertarian label these days, not realizing the full scope of libertarian views, and just focus those which mesh with their screw every one else mentality. A true libertarian realizes that one shouldn't have to live in someone else's filth (pollution), that they have control over their own bodies(abortion, drugs), private schools shouldn't have public funding (school vouchers), and that wars should only be fought against those who attack (like Afghanistan, but not I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What is the effect of not having shuttle launches for the next four years?
Will satellites not be able to go into space?
Nope, we have many rockets (foreign and US) which will throw them into space.
Will our military security be impaired?
Nope, shuttles will be flying from Vandenburg, when needed (extremely rare). They aren't part of NASA's budget.
Will space science be shutdown?
Nope.
Will the ISS be shutdown?
Nope, it will run for another six years with Russian/
Re: (Score:2)
No longer an option - The Vandenberg shuttle launch facility was dismantled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_Air_Force_Base#Space_Shuttle [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
email the owner sam@zoy.org (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Space flight would not exist if it wasn't for the governments of the Soviet Union and United States. Government funds deep research into science and technology because private industry will not. Private investors require short term return on investment. I don't know what your definition of "proper" is based on, but there's the reality of how things work. This is how things work today, and this is how most modern technology has come about.