SHELBY: NASA BUDGET BEGINS DEATH MARCH FOR U.S. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT

John · Senior Member

Obama to Cancel Constellation Program

GoogleNaut · Guru

Some of the things I've been reading suggests that Constellation may be nixxed, but that the Obama administration is leaning toward a very much nearer term heavy lift launcher based on or atleast very similar to the Jupiter 230 program, which was the 'back burner,' non-authorized, not endorsed program quietly being worked on by some NASA engineers and a British national named Ross Tierny who created the directlauncer.com website. I've talked with Ross--and the guy has a very sound and solid idea. It's the simplest, easiest, fastest way to retire the Shuttle and get people flying back into space on big rockets, using almost all heritige hardware. It is essentially STS without the Shuttle, and with the CEV for transporting people...

There are a lot of people at NASA who are opposed to it, and there are a lot who are for it...
Personally, my feelings are that Direct is just about the best way to go if we're gonna go anywhere...it has a lot fewer 'Orbiter' related propblems, uses essentially debugged hardware, and gives us the capability to really do some things in space: like NEO missions--we've never done that before with people. Going back to the moon could be done with Direct. And so can going to Mars later on...

John · Senior Member

I guess this is what you are refering to?

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_v2.02.pdf

It looks interesting. It looks like an alternative to Aries I and V but much in the same concept. I wonder why NASA though going the Aries path was better? But this doesn't sound like the stuff that is leaking out about privatizing.

-- Edited by John on Tuesday 2nd of February 2010 12:16:58 AM

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

Jupiter isn't that far removed from Shuttle-C.

In my opinion NASA is on the 'death bed' it's grasping at straws. Until people are trained and if an economy can produce tangible evidence it can sustain stability and modest growth I don't see a viable space program and it's far from a nuclear space program. This would require a sea change in the American political make-up increasing participation with other political parties.

I'm of course not in favor of the republican-democrat duopoly but I do recognize when certain political people are correct in their assessment of the present U.S. space effort.

Richard Shelby has expressed exactly what I had in mind. If there were an independent type party I would suggest they try and seal him from the republican party along with Ron Paul.

SHELBY: NASA BUDGET BEGINS DEATH MARCH FOR U.S. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT

link

John · Senior Member

As far as I can tell so far the Obama idea is to completely scrape the whole thing including the Orion. If we also retire the shuttle on schedule that will leave us with zero manned space capability. While the economy is one thing, I'd like to point out that the Soviet Union collapsed and they didn't lose their basic capability.

I don't see where these private entities are going to be able to produce any capability to put people in LEO any time soon. That's after we just waste the billions already spent. Stupid.

The point at this time is just to preserve a basic capability to keep up in the game. Otherwise how will we ever redevelop it?

I see the following options:

1) Scale back Constellation. Postpone Aries V and Altair. Go forward with Aries I and Orion to support the ISS operations. The option of restarting the Moon program at a later date would be preserved. A cheaper variant of this would be to drop Aries I as well and use the Atlas V (or close derivative) to launch the Orion.

2) Completely cancel Constellation and retain the shuttle until the economy is better. This has the advantage of low technical risk. No new development required for near term capability (when will be under tight budgets) and as I said above the facilities will be available in this scenario. The Shuttles have flown no more that 30 missions each. I'm sure that we could get another 20 each out of them. Long term development funds could be direct to advance technologies, i.e. a replacement shuttle, nuclear thermal propulsion, or nuclear/VASIMR systems. Also, a shuttle derivative heavy launcher like the Direct concept would fit in with this. My thought on LEO capability is that a mix of a reusable spaceplanes for routine small to medium payloads and a large throwaway system for the infrequent massive loads.

Other than the above I think we are going in the direction of Shelby's comments.

Of course if you want to be on the optimistic side consider the coments of NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden in a conference call with reporters on Monday:

"Imagine trips to Mars that take weeks instead of nearly a year; people fanning out across the inner solar system, exploring the Moon, asteroids and Mars nearly simultaneously in a steady stream of firsts ... That is what the president's plan for NASA will enable, once we develop the new capabilities to make it a reality," Bolden said.

The NASA administrator emphasized the fact that the president's budget would increase NASA funding overall and said the Constellation program was behind schedule and over-budget anyway.

"The truth is we were not on a sustainable path to get back to the moon's surface, and as we focused most of our efforts and funding on getting back to the moon we were neglecting investment in key technologies to get us beyond," he said.

So are they going to go with my option 2?

-- Edited by John on Tuesday 2nd of February 2010 03:40:49 AM

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

Can see your point John on #1

-scale back Constellation but please don't drop Ares 1-X. this system works and can deliver besides dropping it now is an unconscionable waste of money-no wonder people are freakin' mad at gov't. Extend the shuttle operations till Ares 1-X
has seal 'safe for humans'.

-HLV in my book should include a nuclear component but nuclear engines would not be fired till it reached the 50 mile altitude mark.

Shelby in effect is warning public NASA is going to shrink. How far is up to Washington.

GoogleNaut · Guru

'...trips to Mars in weeks..."

That's almost like a codephrase for VASIMR. I wonder if the Obama administration is looking in that direction.

I wonder...

John · Senior Member

Googlenaut, I agree that seems to be what they are hinting. But, this would only work with a nuclear powered system. It just seems unlikely that Obama would go that way. We'll just have see what comes out in the Congressional hearings. I really don't trust these people.

I still think we need to maintain some type of near term manned space capability. I could support either of my two options for that.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

OMG, the same teases about nuclear space interest. I'd probably get more specifics from the RSA than I would from NASA. This happens with every administration since Bush senior.

They mean RTG nukes. Ok, maybe Vasimr but this is feeble propulsion suited to
light robotica missions presently.

You guys have seen too many lounge act singers thinking you're gonna get a strip tease show.

Please examine links below-discuss.
...have to run now.

OMB budget link

NASA FY2011 Budget

P.S. Nuclear Security Obama plan

John · Senior Member

I think it is very clear that I'm sceptical. In fact I said specifically, "I really don't trust these people."

The Denver Post has reported that the Obama plan is to cancel Orion too.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_14310837

The are comments about extending the space shuttle into FY 2011 if required to complete the ISS. No comments about an further extension. So with no Orion and no Shuttle you have no manned space program. So why spend $19 billion a year?

Reading the NASA documents all I see is a lot of hot air. It seem to me that it is too early to be specific about the exact plans. I'm some what surprised that Buzz Aldrin is endorsing this unless he know something we don't. Or, has he lost all sense of principle. I see a big case of Constellation was a Bush policy so we are going to cancel it. However, we'll see as this develops.

On the nuclear issue I haven't seen anything specific that the administration is going that way. My point was what technology that we could start development of now would get us to Mars on time scales of weeks? Chemical? ...no way. Nuclear thermal? ... not with solid core. VASIMR? But, only if it was a large system powered by real space nuclear reactors. RTGs could only do slow unmanned probes. My point is would this administration go this way? If not they are just blowing smoke. Also, this would take some real tech push but not more that say from 1961 to moon landing.

Finally, I see no reason to scrap the Orion unless they are committed to new reusable system to replace the shuttle. But, there is no evidence of that being the plan.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

John like you say;

I think Bolden and Obama, "...are just blowing smoke."

GoogleNaut · Guru

I don't want to be defeatest--but this whole thing has been more than a little depressing...

...sigh...

Well, the good news is, I will be getting all those engineering books I need pretty soon...hopefully I can start making real progress on my project.

John · Senior Member

These are sad times. But, there is a lot of opposition in Congress to the Obama proposal. Even among the Democrats. It seems that Boeing has stated a website that will allow you to easily express your support for the Constellation Program. I found this on another website.

http://www.capitolconnect.com/boeingspace/

So let's tell them not to do this.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

Well, I chose to sign the letter at GoBoldyNASA.org smile

http://www.goboldlynasa.org/index.cfm

John · Senior Member

I signed that one too! I think that the debate over this new NASA budget will be interesting. It seems to me that the Congress may not go along with this one.

I'm looking forward to some detailed questioning on some of Bolden's statements about flying to Mars in weeks. I don't oppose the idea of the new start private contractors getting into the HSF business. I just think this proposal is designed to fail.

John · Senior Member

I watched Bolden's press conference on UTube. It's fairly clear that they don't have a real plan for anything. He doesn't seem to have a real grip on things. For example he spend a lot of the time talking about developing a heavy lift vehicle but doesn't say why this would be better, cheaper, or faster than an Ares V. In fact it seems more delayed. Also, he doens't give have a clue as to what the astronauts will fly in a top his HLV.

He mentions advanced propulsion and Chang-Diaz but mistakenly refers to it as "ion propulsion". Maybe I'm being a bit critical but if the NASA director seem to know less about it than I do something is wrong.

I have learned a little about the commercial ideas for supporting ISS. It seems that SpaceX is the most advanced and SpaceDev is not far behind them. Orbital Sciences and SpaceX have real contracts for resupply missions to the ISS. This basically our version of the Russian Progress robotic resupply craft. SpaceX claims that they have version of there craft Dragon that can transport seven people to the ISS. How close to flight the manned version is I'm not sure. The SpaceDev craft is a version of the HL-20. SpaceX has their own launcher while SpaceDev plans to use the Atlas V.

http://www.spacex.com/

http://www.spacedev.com/spacedev_advanced_systems.php

Ty, I don't think either of these have the high safety factors you used to argue with me about concerning my support to continue the Space Shuttle.

GoogleNaut · Guru

I see this change as being good for SpaceX and SpaceDev, and I see great promise in their vehicles.

My only concern with the Shuttle Transportation System stems from the complete lack of an active escape system that all other man rated launch vehicles have. Should something catastrophic happen, the astronauts have almost no chance of escape.

If they ever go to a 2nd generation orbiter, I would argue that designing the crew compartment to be an integral escape capsule with seperate reentry capability is the only way to go.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

Saw the Bolden NASA press meet.

He seemed more inclined to turn over HSF to some of these commercial outfits. The single entrepreneur space access systems seems sketchy to me for handling even remotely HSF.

It's more a space robotics capability than anything and that's fine more power to them. I hope for them the best.

But pinning HSF on this capability is asking for trouble.

-- Edited by NUKE ROCKY44 on Monday 8th of February 2010 11:41:48 PM

John · Senior Member

I'm happy to see the things SpaceX and SpaceDev are developing but I'll like to see some flight performace from their unmanned supply vehicles before even considering having them fly people into space. I'm think of them more as a Plan B if we lose the fight for Constellation.

I don't see why the Ares rockets are taking so long and costing so much to develop. Most of this is just putting to gather components that have been around for a long time together in a new way. This was supposed to be the low-risk approach. I'd hate to see what NASA would do with a project that had some really technology challenges.

GoogleNaut · Guru

Strangely enough, the Ares I approach was supposedly invented by an astronaut, but I don't think that's the case. There was a strange vehicle dating back to the Apollo days--in fact it was part of the Apollo Applications Program, which was the follow up to Project Apollo before it was cancelled (only Skylab Flew.) There was actually a vehicle under consideration in 1968 that mounted a Saturn S-IV upper stage right on top of an Apollo 260 Solid Rocket Motor--the whole thing looks like an Ares I on steroids. The 260 in motors were concelled after testing only one prototype (it developed 7 million pounds of thrust, if you can believe it.)

I'll see if I can find a like to this and post it

I don't know what the answer is--but apparently the Obama administration thinks that saving money in the Space Program is not flying---a dower outlook, but it's the one I've got.

:(

John · Senior Member

I wouldn't give up on this. Of course it depend on what you are trying to do. One thing I'd like to point out is that the Obama NASA budget isn't being cut from the Bush levels. It's clear that we aren't going to the Moon anytime soon.

However, I think that the Bolden plan is DOA in Congress. What is likely to happen is that the Orion and Ares I will continue while the Ares V and the Altair will be deferred. The Objective will be changed to extended ISS operations while researching future options.

One thing that I that should also be considered (this might not make everyone happy) but the Supreme Court made a recent decision allowing corporations to spend money on campaigns. This will put the established space companies up against the wall. I think they will come out swinging on this.

I also think that Obama is now low enough in the polls and some recent elections will lead Congress to go there own way on this.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

I betcha Ares 1-X system comes back.

Supreme Court approving funding political campaigns issue won't make a big difference in Rep/Dem DUOPOLY control they will continue to vacuum up all that cash.
And of course the corporations love to give BIG CASH to both Republicans and Democrats.

Unfortunately in some cases engineering takes a back seat to cold cash, when viewed as the most effective lubricant when aerospace companies compete for systems and projects and the influence they peddle.

John · Senior Member

And of course the corporations love to give BIG CASH to both Republicans and Democrats.

This what will happen in my view. Obama may want to cancel everything but the interest parties will put out enough campaign cash to go another way. Also, it is not clear that Bolden and Garver really don't have plan. They go there marching orders at the last minute and wipped to gather a lot of hot air.

-- Edited by John on Saturday 13th of February 2010 08:43:14 PM

androbot2084 · Veteran Member

Anyway I do not know why everyone is lamenting the cancellation of the Constellation program when it uses dead end chemical propulsion technology of the Apollo era. Chemical propulsion technology is simply unaffordable and there will never again be manned missions to the moon using this technology. I think that Obama hinted about developing more advanced technology that could get us back to the Moon and even to Mars but so far there are no real commitments and the method of propulsion will no doubt be very ambiguous such as electric ion propulsion which is a clever way for the politicians to avoid the nuclear taboo because electric ion propulsion can be generated from both a nuclear reactor and from solar panels.

However even a nuclear generated ion drive will lack the thrust necessary for a truly ambitious space program and nuclear thermal rockets like NERVA are actually only glorified chemical rockets that are twice as efficient. Of course exotic reactor designs using gas cores like the nuclear light bulb are a compelling choice but do we really have the technology today to implement this design or is this decades into the future?

I think if we really want an ambitious affordable space program that can be done with today's technology we should look to the original 1950's Orion project which propelled space ships by atomic explosions. However Arthur C. Clarke conceded that we need a technology like Orion because it utilizes energy that is a million times more powerfull than chemical rockets and that the idea is not insane because it is based on sound engineering principles but that the idea that we may do it may be insane. On the other hand Carl Sagan who was an arrested anti-nuclear protestor did not think that exploding atomic bombs was insane as long as it is done in space and as long current stockpiles of nuclear weapons are reduced in the process.

John · Senior Member

Welcome to the board. There are differing views on a lot of what you are saying. I think that the first Chinese trip to the Moon will likely use chemical propulsion. So you maybe a little off there. You may well get some arguments about the utility of nuclear thermal propulsion. Even solid core should be about to get to 900 sec Isp. Which is a lot better than chemical.

Also chemical is our basic means to get into orbit or at least to high suborbit. So it have a place. At least until we discover antigravity (Guess if I'm joking!) confuse
Can you really immagine a U.S. government actually going with the classic Orion approach. There is this little thing called the nuclear test ban treaty too. Of course we could pull out that I guess.

But, to your main point of why am I concerned about the proposed cancellation of the Constellation Program. Basically I think that if we don't proceed which it the entire U.S. manned space effort could collapse. I see no good reason not to proceed with the Ares I/Orion part at least. The economic crisis may well lead to an end to the moon effort for now. But why throw away $9 billion in work just to start over with higher risk contractors?

If you'll read more of my posts you see that I'm not the biggest fan of Constellation but with the Shuttle ending I think it is better than nothing.

-- Edited by John on Sunday 14th of February 2010 01:57:33 PM

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

@androbot2084 welcome to our posts at NS.

I still think Project Orion External Pulse Propulsion (PUTT PUTT) is a game changer plus this kind of energy needs to be tested. By staggering the intensity (dampers)of pulse explosions for fission-to-fusion and shape charging explosions for propulsion and the dual use of explosive linear staging along a diversionary route to deflect lethal asteroids and comet on a direct trajectory to earth.

This technology is still in play and is extremely important a bit ironic it could potentially save millions of lives and extend the life of the planet a while longer.

androbot2084 · Veteran Member

The response from the environmental community concerning the Orion's ability to save lives has been rebutted with the claim that an Orion launch will cause radioactive fallout which will cause deaths that are unacceptable. Since the environmental movement is known to exagerate the dangers of atomic radiation nevertheless they have maintained that even if they were to accept the environmental impact report from the Orion scientists themselves which claim that each launch will result in at least one death they still find this an unacceptable barbaric form of human sacrafice.

I really wonder how an enviromentalist can justify doing nothing and letting an asteroid plow into the Earth killing millions of people so that a life of a chain smoker can be saved because the radiation from an Orion launch was the straw that broke the camels back. But if these environmentalists really think that we are a barbaric society that sacrafices people in order to appease the rain god then why are these environmentalists not protesting those gladiators at the Olympics that are killing themselves merely for our entertainment ?

Nevertheless the environmental impact reports from the Orion project were filed 50 years ago and with todays technology I am sure one could use laser ignited pure fusion explosives that would produce negligible amounts of fallout.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

Totally agree with you (androbot2084) on environmental community.
But as we all know they are coming under intense pressure these days.

One of many reports see:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

It was of no surprise to climatologist that this canard would to be revealed as fraud.
So the public in general is at the moment skeptical of environmentalist and its policies. But to be fair concerns of radiation and safety are legitimate. To ban a technology as unsafe purely on the basis of non-scientific study and testing is horrible.

Believe me when is say the nuclear space community would love to test and demonstrate the effectiveness of space nuclear it would revolutionize space.
I have spoken to Russian, American, Japanese scientists and engineers and all roughly say the same thing; we are human too and have families and live in communities we would not wish to implement this technology without knowing the environmental impacts or potential of poisoning humans we send into space with this technology. This technology needs to be test first and demonstrated it's effective, efficient and safe to use.

Like you said when engineering a slide down a mountain you expect it to function without killing people the athlete's responsibility is to slide down as fast as possible to win. The course engineers should of followed the maxim that any human irrespective of velocity would never approach the lethal risk limit.
It's unfortunate this was sacrificed on the alter of excessive hubris to maximize speed and drama at the expense of engineering safety prudence.
I realize the fact of hurling down a mountain has inherent risks but you're suppose to mitigate the risks involved.

-- Edited by NUKE ROCKY44 on Monday 15th of February 2010 08:25:05 PM

John · Senior Member

I would like to point out that nuclear pulse propulsion (NPP) and laser fusion propulsion (LFP) are very different things. As you all know the basic technology for LFP is yet to be developed. By comparison the basic technology for NPP exists (nuclear bombs). However, under anything like current politics, I just can't see NPP being developed. The test ban treaty being just the start of a series of issues.

As described in George Dyson's book, NPP verhicle tend to be very massive and actually take off from Earth using nuclear explosions in the atmosphere. I agree that we could survive the radiation doing this as the fallout would be small compared to that generated by nuclear test in 1950s and early 1960s. But, I just can see it happening. Perhaps if there was an asteroid about to hit Earth and this was the only counter measure.

I wouldn't be so dismissive of solid core nuclear thermal propulsion or VASIMR. The are game changers too and they just might be sellable politically. VASIRM powered by a suitable nuclear reactor could power a spacecraft that would make Charles Bolden idea of flights to Mars talking weeks a reality. But, these is a significant developement cycle to get to that level of performance. I just doubt that his political masters are really going to persue it.

androbot2084 · Veteran Member

My proposal was more like a hybrid of nuclear pulse propulsion and laser fusion propulsion. Rather than using a super laser to ignite a B-B size pellet use a laser to ignite the equivalent of a 100 tons of tnt hydrogen bomb. This is because it is easier to achieve ignition of larger atomic devices than it is to create microfusion. This would eliminate the fission igniter which makes up 15 percent of a conventional hydrogen bomb resulting in a pure fusion device which is much cleaner. As far as being a weapon the explosive devices could no longer be considered a self contained atomic weapon because they would be totally disarmed so they would be a benign as drums of water. Therefore ignition could only be achieved with the laser fired from the rocket and who in their right mind would use a 3 billion dollar rocket just to detonate an atomic weopon? And even then this would be impossible because the laser would be targeted to hit the target only if it were 300 feet away from the rocket so if a bomb were dropped 100 miles under the rocket the laser would miss the target and would be a dud. Thus a properly designed Orion rocket could no longer be considered a weapon anymore than a solar panel that microwaves energy back to Earth. And yes if there was an asteroid that was going to plow into Earth the environmentalists would permit the launch however by then it would be too late because it takes time to build the rocket. What we need is a rocket that is ready to go on a moments notice.