Bad Astronomy blogger Phil Plait talked to EarthSky about the coming year’s budget for NASA. U.S. President Barack Obama announced the new budget in early February of 2010. In it – even as NASA receives an additional six billion dollars – NASA will have to scrap its planned program to return humans to the moon.
Phil Plait: This is not the end of NASA. This is not the end of NASA’s manned space program, which is what a lot of people have been saying on the web and elsewhere. I see this as a shake-up that is actually pretty important and may very well be needed desperately by NASA right now.
Dr. Plait – whose Bad Astronomy blog is part of DiscoverMagazine.com – said he approves of NASA’s plan to rely more on private companies to send astronauts to space.
Phil Plait: The fact that these companies are leaner, faster, quicker on their feet, is something that I think is really important in being able to do stuff like this. If there’s some sort of emergency in space, you want an ability like that. So I’m really excited that they’re doing this. They’re within a few years of putting humans into space. They have to be able to design some of their launch hardware. They have to rebuild some of it, reconfigure it a little bit, to convert it to cargo to be able to put humans onto it. But when all is said and done, they’re predicting that by 2014, they’ll be putting people into space, into orbit, and be able to put crews onto the space station. I think that’s fantastic.
Dr. Plait talked about the changing role of the US in future human spaceflight.
Phil Plait: The United States has always been one of the leading examples of space exploration. NASA is a shining star here. along with the Soviet Union in the early days of the space race. The Soviet Union put the first man into space, and it broke a lot of records, but the United States basically took a series of small steps and concentrated on the technology and the ability of doing what it needed to put men on the moon, and that included putting people into orbit docking two spaceships and doing things like that. And so as the Soviets were more interested in the headlines, the United States was marching forward. And it really worked. It put us on the moon first.
But after that, said Plait, Congress and the President were more interested in the Space Shuttle, cheap access to space.
Phil Plait: The problem is the Space Shuttle became a political toy and got bigger and more complicated and more expensive and never was really the cheap access to space, the ‘space truck’ that it was sold as. And then the Space Station was going to be our big, orbiting experimental lab, and it was going to be this great thing where people could learn about long-term exposure to space and do science in space, and then it became a political football. It’s huge and bloated and is not really capable of doing science. We’ve learned a huge amount from the space station. But right now, as it stands, it’s not doing a whole lot of science.
Plait said the US role has lost its way.
Phil Plait: We haven’t put people out of low Earth orbit in 40 years. And it’s time we do that again. One part of Obama’s plan is to actually expand the space station, to be able to make it do more science, to extend it’s lifespan, right now which ends at 2016, but to extend it to 2020. I’m all for that. We’ve already spent over 100 billion dollars on the space station. If we can spend a few hundred million more, and make it really useful for the exploration of space, then hey – I’m behind that.
Plait spoke about the idea of scrapping Constellation.
Phil Plait: We’ve already spent something like nine billion dollars on these rockets. But is it bad money after good at this point? Constellation, I don’t think, was the way to get to space. Once the shuttle’s retired, the end of this year, possibly into next year if there are any delays, there was going to be a long gap before we could get back into space. What this new budget says is, we’re going to give private space companies, Space X, Bigelow, and other groups like that, a lot of money to develop their abilities to put humans into space to cover that gap. And I think that’s a fine idea. And I think that’s looking to the future better than the course NASA has been on in the last few years.
Plait told EarthSky what he thought was the most important thing people should know about the future of NASA.
Phil Plait: To me, NASA has always been the organization that paves the way. We should even be giving more money to NASA. They’re the ones, as a government agency, that can afford look into innovative technologies, groundbreaking technologies, things that push the limits of what we know, new types of propulsion, new ways of getting into space. That’s what NASA’s good for. And once they develop that sort of thing, then it becomes up to them to sort of step out of the way, because a government agency is not that good at maintaining that sort of thing. We should look to leaner organizations to be able to put people into space and to explore space – let NASA pave the way but once they’ve paved that way, let others follow that road.
Wow, good topic close to this good topic. Would wish to tell me how long time it could take? Just because I am willing to accomplish the economics thesis or may be this will be much better to notice the thesis writing. Thank you very much.
I love Phil and his blog, but he’s drinking Lori Garver’s kool aid on the new direction for NASA. The private companies have not even begun to think about the issues associated with human rating their launch vehicles and (barely) under development crew capsules. Space X has had more launch failures than successes and is nowhere close to achieving unmanned resupply of the ISSP. Read the 2009 report for the NASA Safety Advisory Committee if you want to know the truth.
Just a few corrections that a 5 minute trip to Wikipedia or the SpaceX web site could have made un-needed. I think it’s great to have a discussion and share opinions, but ignoring facts either on purpose or out of laziness is not helpful to anyone.
So first, the SpaceX Falcon 9 LV and Dragon capsule have been designed as man rated from day one, and they comply with every NASA standard for human rating launch vehicles that is available. Secondly, the Falcon 1 has had 5 flights, the first 3 did not reach a stable orbit, true, but they all had increasing levels of success which I feel is pretty reasonable for a brand new rocket from a brand new company. The 4th and 5th flights of the falcon 1 were successful, so it seems like they have a pretty good design at this point although more flights would add to the confidence level.
Judging by the last update on the SpaceX web site, the first Falcon 9 launch should be sometime in the next month or two, so calling them “nowhere near” resupply of the ISS doesn’t sound like the correct characterisation.
Getit Rightplease?
Are you serious? You quote: “So first, the SpaceX Falcon 9 LV and Dragon capsule have been designed as man rated from day one, ”
How can the Falcon9 be designed for ‘man rating’ when SpaceX doesn’t even have the man-rating requirements????
Ummm, the companies who are providing NASA with the current constellation program ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES! ATK, Boeing, Pratt&Whitney etc. and they are very far along. To start from scratch with SpaceX, Bigelow, etc. is NOT going to be faster or cheaper they are going to have to reinvent the wheel. This Phil guy is grossly misinformed.
Tell you what … it’s been one of the shocks of my 58 years of life to understand how difficult it is for human beings to get into space and function there. When I was young – around the time of the first moon shots – we all imagined there’d be 2001-style space stations in orbit by … well, by the time the year 2000 rolled around. But we’re so so far from that! The only conclusion I can draw is that space has just proven to be a much more hostile and difficult environment that we imagined at first.
No matter HOW we try to do, it’s not going to be easy!
Deborah
Rocketman & Scotty
Both the new guys, and old guys, will play. For example, we’ll fly on the existing rockets, like Atlas V and Delta IV, as oppose to building brand new vehicles that have very limited use. And we’ll get new rockets, that are privately developed (like the Falcon 9 and Taurus 2), that has the chance to lower costs)
Further, its not the fact that we are switching companies, as we are forcing them to include cost controls. I mean, I have no doubt that if we have an infinite budget, we can get back to the moon, and go to mars. The question is, can we do it in a cost-effective method, and can we actually find an ROI from human spaceflight.
seems that everyday space tech is overlooked by the casual observer.
Cordless tools, smoke detectors, enriched foods, ear thermometers, smart metal, protective paint, pacemakers, coated scratch resistant glass, and viscoelastic materials. These are all ROI, but probably not where one would expect to find it.
@Scotty: I think what Phil is saying is private companies that aren’t current US Gov’t contractors will have a better grasp on tech they are developing without US Gov’t aid. ATK, Boeing, etc., are and have been on the government payroll for some time, and despite their private ownership, they’re anything but where NASA is concerned. Same for DOE, where Martin Marietta, USEC, etc. are concerned.
If Obama were such a big fan of privatization, he wouldn’t have nationalized banks and automobile companies, and wouldn’t have tried to nationalize health care. Space exploration is not a priority for this president, and it’s fascinating to watch even brilliant minds such as Phil’s failing to get beyond their political bias.
Phil is exactly right about NASA’s role. They developed the technology to put humans in space back in the 60s. The next logical step would have been to hand that off to private industry to turn into spaceliners. Instead, NASA wanted to protect their Apollo workforce, so they sold us the Space Shuttle. They promised a system that would fly weekly at a cost of $100 per pound to orbit. This resulted in the decimation of the space launch industry. Only after the Challenger accident did we start to look at commercial alternatives, and we’ve been playing catch-up with the rest of the world ever since.
We cancelled Apollo simply because we could not afford it. We would have had to cancel Constellation eventually for the same reason. Better to do it now when we still have a chance to invest in the technologies that will make a real difference later.
Going commercial is good; going commercial via FLEX-UP is bad. Worse than bad it’s an outright OMG distraction and out right national tragedy! VSE is the key to robust focused future. We could have done VSE commercial we didn’t have to chuck it all with the look but don’t touch build but don’t fly FLEX-UP. We just handed the high ground to the Chinese. ISS is a billion dollar relic of a blunder. A cluster of little tin cans. We’ve been doing weightless LEO research for forty years first Mir then ISS look what it got us…nothing. VSE was intended to break this go no where cycle. FLEX-UP puts right back in it only now commercial is sucked into the black hole with NASA.
It is said that those who don`t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
At last some people are beginning to understand what Obama`s plan is all about ie. Phill Plait, Buzz Aldrin, Ferris Valyn, Charlie Bolden. It is about saving human spaceflight not destroying it. Constellation would have would have ended it.
You know when Apollo ended I was very disappointed and thought it was the end of human spaceflight. But the people who ended it were right not I. A cheaper way had to be found and the Shuttle was never it. I recently read an article on the solid rockets which was an eye opener. The refurbishing of these rockets was very labor intensive such that it is doubtful that they actually saved any money. The rest of it was just as expensive: A huge tank with which nothing could be done and which damaged tiles from ice build up. Verticle Intergration, a multimillion dollar crawler to get it out to site. Too expensive.
SpaceX does things different: Horizontal integration, transporter erector, launch in an hour (not months), eventual reusability. The big cost plus boys, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, are finally going to have to do something to bring down costs or loose it all to SpaceX.
To Jorge Salazar: I`ve surprised with the reaction of some people. It seems they`re not interested in space and ensuring that it happens or new ideas. They just choose sides without thought. You know I became interested in space when I was 8 years old and at 66 years of age I find it just as exciting as when I was 8.
Phil Plait has it all right but I hope he`s wrong about the compromising. I say Charlie forget about the heavy lifter. Leave that up to commercial space too. Delta has a heavy lifter and SpaceX has one on the drawing board. I think it time to think about a Real Space Ship one that never lands on Earth but stays in orbit where is refuelled and serviced. Going from Earth to Mars is a waste of money. Going from Earth Orbit to Mars is the way to go. This Space Ship would use Vasimr Ion engines to shorten travel times and Chemical rockets to initiate it`s voyage. Astronauts on their way to Mars would use commercial rocket to get to the space station transfer to their Real Space Ship equiped with a rotating boom for artificial gravity and away they go.
dont worry its all good.
hi Phil!
how NASA now? :D
Hey,
I’ve searched a bit arround, it is sooo boring here(!),
found this page and enjoyed a lot!
This is such a great sentence “To me, NASA has always been the organization that paves the way. We should even be giving more money to NASA. They’re the ones, as a government agency, that can afford look into innovative technologies, groundbreaking technologies, things that push the limits of what we know, new types of propulsion, new ways of getting into space.”
I think, I’ll set up something to this post at my small zummondfliegen Blog, because this could be interessting for my readers, too!
Have a nice day :)
NUCLEAR FUSION PARTICLE ENVIRONMENT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szyoB80GPxU
Just entering the microcosm of atom matter where it is able to absorb and emit energy, still having the possibility to obtain energy from the mass of matter which can be found everywhere.
Interestingly, E = mc² does not contain any reference to a particular substance, but there is no need, for one gram of air, water or gram per gram of cosmic particles, is also a gram of mass.
So our new role is important to release any material amount of energy in mass that surrounds us and which we use or adapt to the devices and equipment built until now
NUCLEAR FUSION AND TRAVEL FOR MARS I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAV8ORNAEuo
Why this huge energy consumption?
To overcome the planet’s gravitational field and allow a ship to travel in outer space
All bodies around the globe are attracted to Earth, the force of attraction called the gravity and acceleration with which these bodies attracted into the gravitational field is called gravitational acceleration g = 9.81 m/ s ².
Speed needed to escape Earth cosmic ship is 11000 m / s and can be done with an amount of energy of 2,400 tons of fuel
Escape speed from Earth’s surface is called the second cosmic speed.
With this speed of a ship lifts off from Earth’s surface and escapes the planet’s gravitational field.
Gravitational acceleration surface of Mars is g = 3.75 m / s ² and have an escape speed of 5100 m / s which is equivalent to a fuel quantity of 1055 tons
For a trip to outer space or on Mars was built a Kennedy Space Center, a spaceship and made available energy 2400 tons of fuel – liquid oxygen and to overcome the gravitational field of Mars that has g = 3.75 m / s ² and to return to Earth we need a space center, a spaceship and an energy of over 1055 tones of fuel – liquid oxygen
NUCLEAR FUSION AND TRAVEL FOR MARS II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS4VwoK23BU
Stephen Hawking’s Warning: Abandon Earth—Or Face Extinction
Let’s face it: The planet is heating up, Earth’s population is expanding at an exponential rate, and the the natural resources vital to our survival are running out faster than we can replace them with sustainable alternatives.
So, according to famed theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, it’s time to free ourselves from Mother Earth.
“I believe that the long-term future of the human race must be in space,”
“It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn’t have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet. Let’s hope we can avoid dropping the basket until we have spread the load.”
Solution to travel in outer space with the same ease as we do by car, bus, streetcar, subway, train, boat or plane is:
QUANTIC PROPULSED SHIP