More

Senators To NASA Chief: Get A Goal

SETH BORENSTEIN   02/24/10 07:02 PM ET   AP

Space

WASHINGTON — NASA needs to go somewhere specific, not just talk about it, skeptical U.S. senators told the space agency chief Wednesday.

President Barack Obama's proposed budget kills the previous administration's return-to-the-moon mission, sometimes nicknamed "Apollo on steroids." That leaves the space agency adrift without a goal or destination, senators and outside experts said at a Senate Commerce science and space subcommittee hearing, the first since Obama unveiled his new space plan this month.

On top of that the nation's space shuttle fleet is only months away from long-planned retirement, an issue for senators from Florida, where NASA is a major employer. And while the new NASA plan includes extra money – $6 billion over five years – for private spaceships and developing new rocket technology, NASA shouldn't be just about spending, the senators said. It should be about John F. Kennedy-like vision.

"Resources without vision is a waste of time and money," Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said, calling the Obama space plan a "radical change of vision and approach." He vowed to fight the plan "with every ounce of energy I have."

And former chief astronaut Robert "Hoot" Gibson said the new plan "has no clear path, no destination, no milestones and no program focus."

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said after the hearing that critics were confusing the lack of a specific destination or timetable with the lack of a goal.

NASA has a goal, a big one, Bolden said. It's going to Mars. But Bolden added that getting astronauts to Mars is more than a decade away and NASA needs to upgrade its technology or else it never will get there.

"We want to go to Mars," Bolden said. "We can't get there right now because we don't have the technology to do it."

That is why he said the new NASA plan invests in developing in-orbit fuel depots, inflatable spaceship parts, new types of propulsion and other technology.

Bolden would not even guess when NASA would try to send astronauts to Mars, but said the technology NASA is studying could cut the trip to the Red Planet from three months to a matter of days if it works.

"We're oh-so-close, but we've got to invest in that technology," Bolden testified.

Subcommittee Chairman Bill Nelson, D-Fla., seized on the Mars comment as a goal that could be embraced. But the other Florida senator, Republican George LeMieux, saw the Mars comment as too vague.

"I have great concern about saying we'll get there someday and not knowing when it's going to be," LeMieux said.

Former Martin Marietta chief operating officer A. Thomas Young said he worried about "no expectation of any human exploration for decades."

That's not what's in the NASA plan, countered Miles O'Brien, a former CNN anchor who now is on NASA's Advisory Council. He said NASA's new plans are more realistic than the ones that were just canceled, which he likened to a middle-aged former athlete "spending all his time talking about the glory days."

The new NASA plans are more of "a grown-up approach to space exploration," O'Brien said. But he said the problem was that NASA, once an agency known for its public relations skill, did "a horrible job" of communicating its new goals.

Vitter criticized NASA for ignoring a 157-page report by a special panel of outside experts, headed by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine. But the "flexible path" of going to the moon, an asteroid or Martian moons next was first proposed by the Augustine panel. And it was the Augustine panel that called the previous plans unsustainable.

NASA's new plans are "consistent with the options we laid out," MIT astronautics professor and Augustine panel member Ed Crawley said in a Wednesday phone interview. And the path NASA chose is aligned with the options that were scored highest in the panel's rating system, he said.

___

On the Net:

NASA: http://www.nasa.gov

Senate Commerce science and space subcommittee: http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?pScienceandSpace

Augustine panel's report: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

WASHINGTON — NASA needs to go somewhere specific, not just talk about it, skeptical U.S. senators told the space agency chief Wednesday. President Barack Obama's proposed budget kills the previ...
WASHINGTON — NASA needs to go somewhere specific, not just talk about it, skeptical U.S. senators told the space agency chief Wednesday. President Barack Obama's proposed budget kills the previ...
Filed by Bianca Bosker  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 88
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
06:44 AM on 02/26/2010
The NASA's plan for human spaceflight could include aneutronic propulsion, I presume it can be developed at a cost of few millions instead of several billions.
http://www.crossfirefusor.com/nuclear-fusion-reactor/overview.html
06:07 PM on 02/25/2010
Here is former astronaut Buzz Aldrin's article about needing a better rocket.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/why-we-need-better-rocket_b_351335.html

My question to him was:

How many folks are researching more exotic propulsion systems like ion, solar wind, magnetic, "warp drive", etc?

What is the current status of such research?



Solar Sail: Planetary Society Plans Sunlight-Propelled Spacecraft
:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/10/solar-sail-planetary-soci_n_352087.html

How is work progressing on the following new engine, if any?

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/dec/HQ_08-332_VASMIR_engine.html

My point is that there should be greater emphasis in NASA and in the federal budget on R&D for newer propulsion systems. We have already lost too many lives in the space program putting people on top of a big firecracker.

If you are the son of a NASA rocket engineer, perhaps you or he can comment on any and all strides being made in new propulsion systems. I'm just a retired Federal IT guy who believes in the Star Trek vision of exploring the "Final Frontier", "to boldly go where no one has gone before", and we aren't going to get there on top of a firecracker.
06:56 AM on 02/26/2010
There is no replacement for chemical rockets on the horizon for earth-to-orbit propulsion.

The only other option that can survive the dynamic pressure environment of transonic atmospheric flight is nuclear thermal propulsion, either solid core or closed-cycle gas core (i.e. nuclear lightbulb). The thrust-to-weight may be sufficient, but marginally so, and the politics of operating a nuclear rocket on earth are intractable.

To be fair, we've only lost seven lives in a single incident due to ascent propulsion failure in the history of human spaceflight. I think we should avoid using solid rockets for human spaceflight because they have no benign abort shutdown capability. But liquid and hybrid chemical rockets can be thrust terminated on command, which greatly enhances abort safety.

In-space propulsion offers more options, including VASIMR and solar sail (although I'm not sure the latter is particularly suitable for human spaceflight). The budget proposal includes $7.8 billion in funding over the next five years for in-space propulsion including solar electric VASIMR and orbital propellant depots to extend the reach of chemical propulsion.

In the long-run, nuclear propulsion is the only way we can send humans beyond in the inner solar system, but we badly bungled the rollout of nuclear technology in our civilization (to say the least), and I don't think we'll be ready to move forward for the next generation or two.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:52 PM on 02/25/2010
>> Obama space plan ... "has no clear path, no destination, no milestones and no program focus."

Sounds like a decent description for more than just Obama's space plan.
photo
RealityBaseCamp
My micro-bio did not meet someone's guidelines!
03:54 PM on 02/25/2010
You left out the "Republican Senators say..." on that evaluation above; they were the ones saying that, not any experts on NASA policy.

And, oh look, it's replacing a program from the Bush years that WASN'T GOING TO WORK!

THAT sounds like a decent description of a lot of politics lately.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chuck prebys
11:22 AM on 02/25/2010
NASA you need a goal?
How about looking into ways to harvest some of all that Helium-3 on the moon for us?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Caru
Politics is fun to watch.
01:40 PM on 02/25/2010
We have most of the tech. Now, where's that money?
10:26 AM on 02/25/2010
If you could explain how human beings can explore Mars better than the probes we have already sent there at a fraction of the cost of a single shuttle mission, I'll gladly fund it. The fact is, there's no reason at this stage to send people (and their food, water and oxygen) to do things robots can already do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
COPerez
10:47 AM on 02/25/2010
The things that robots do well are pre-programmed explorations with only the tools that are built into them. The "exploration" they do - if it's not part of it's programmed routine - must be directed by humans with the limitations of the several minutes of round-trip radio time. It's why the Mars rovers move at only a few meters an hour.

While some of these things can eventually be overcome with more autonomous robotic explorers, the technology is not robust enough yet.

The human brain is much more flexible than a computer, can be "re-programmed" in mid-task and has an infinite variety of tools to choose from in the form of the human (gloved) hand and senses. Not to mention the multiplicity of tools that hand can pick up and use. And by having that marvelous, inquisitive brain on-site, humans can move about at a speed limited only by the machines they build to travel in; there' s no reason why a manned rover couldn't travel the surface of Mars at several tens of kilometers an hour; moving people quickly from site to site making immediate, even impulsive changes of mission enroute.

And if all of those scientific reasons for sending humans to Mars don't move you, how about the age-old NEED for humans to explore; to see what's over the next hill or the broad blue sea? Without that drive, without that need, we'd still be a scattered band of cave dwellers in central Europe.
10:57 AM on 02/25/2010
They did this test in the Arizona desert. A human astronaut who had taken a training course in field geology identified 45 samples on a simulated Mars terrain in the time a robotic rover took to identify one.

Robots are very useful. They can go places humans can't, they don't need much in the way of consumables, and they don't necessarily have to be returned to earth. But if we can send humans, we can get a lot more done. We're insightful and assertive, which makes us much better at figuring out a landscape that is literally alien. Robots can only approach these tasks systematically.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:20 AM on 02/25/2010
We have so many problems here in America- on planet earth, maybe NASA needs to take a 5 year break and work toward fixing what's wrong here before we try to go to Mars. We haven't made much use of technology on earth- considering what could be done if our values were shifted to humans over martians.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
COPerez
10:50 AM on 02/25/2010
See "spin-off."

e.g.: computers, medical monitoring, advanced composites, miniaturization, weather satellites, GPS, fuel cells, improved batteries, solar cells, improved synthetic fabrics, and etc.

Oh. And VELCRO!!!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FerrisValyn
03:37 PM on 02/25/2010
Spin-offs are the weakest justification for spaceflight - many of those same spinoffs could've been gotten by directly investing in the related technology
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:43 PM on 02/25/2010
I didn't say shut it down, I said take a money consuming break until we can justify the spending. Or have Nasa redirect their priorities for a few years and pitch in. Planet earth is rather screwed up and we need to be more fiscally responsible. If they created velcro then why turn it over to a commercial manufacturer and let private citizens make money off of it? Their discoveries should be sold by them until they are solvent and not a money pit.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FerrisValyn
03:38 PM on 02/25/2010
You wanna know how much we are investing in space development, as opposed to investing in earth development? More to the point, what if the only option to save the earth was to invest in space?

Because there are a lot of things that would be helped on earth by investing in space
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:46 PM on 02/25/2010
so far no good. Like what? And how much will it cost in real numbers? Or will they then turn their discoveries over to private citizens and let them profit? How much does NASA cost/spend and what's the return in real dollars.
10:15 AM on 02/25/2010
NASA TO CONGRESS: Give us enough money to design and build a new rocket!
10:39 AM on 02/25/2010
No!!

NASA should not design a new rocket. NASA is terrible at designing launch vehicles. It has failed so many times, from NLS and SLI to X-33 and OSP to Ares I and Ares V.

NASA has NEVER built a launch vehicle, and it certainly shouldn't start now. Saturn V was built by a half-dozen contractors, all of which are now called Boeing. The Shuttle orbiters were built by Rockwell International (now Boeing). The external tanks are built by Lockheed Martin. The solid rocket boosters are built by Alliant Techsystems (ATK). NASA robotic missions launch on Atlas V (Lockheed) or Delta IV (Boeing). Soon we'll have ISS cargo on SpaceX Falcon 9.

What NASA should do is establish mission requirements and evaluate competing designs.

Industry is so far ahead of NASA that it's frustrating to work with them. Lockheed was particularly pissed off when NASA kept downwardly revising the Orion spacecraft design because Ares I wasn't meeting performance expectations. NASA didn't know how to design a common bulkhead propellant tank for the upper stage, and Lockheed had been flying them for 50 years!

Under the proposed budget, NASA is getting more money than it expected to get for new rockets and spacecraft. The thing is, they won't be allowed to design or build them. They'll only get to define the requirements and choose the best solutions from industry.

And that's a good thing!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:08 AM on 02/25/2010
How about exploring the deepest parts of our own planet.
09:44 AM on 02/25/2010
Send robots to Europa and melt through the ice to find life in the ocean below. That would be the most rewarding mission ever. There is life on Europa.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:26 AM on 02/25/2010
I agree with this!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:31 AM on 02/25/2010
That would be thrilling if they'd come down and destroy the Federal Reserve Bank~ otherwise we have enough work to do here on earth before we go looking for intelligent life... as any intelligent life out there has so far avoided contact with us-- probably due to our hostile and egotistical nature.
09:21 AM on 02/25/2010
NASA Chief to Senate: Fund us!

The federal government plays games with NASA's funding, giving and taking away, changing the direction they want NASA to go. Commit to the funding and then NASA can set a course. Then get out of NASA's way.

So much of the technology we have today is due to the original NASA programs. It's not just in aviation but communications, medicine, etc.
09:43 AM on 02/25/2010
Global warming. NASA will now be tasked to measure and study Global Warming. I thought the EPA was already charged with that task. What will happen to NASA's funding if their studies do not back up what the AGW proponents or the White House want? By-by funding. Neat little trick to get the results wanted.

NASA is the only government agency that HAD a positive ROI. Go figure.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:54 PM on 02/25/2010
Ummm.... you may want to have someone rework your talking points. (hint: NASA is one of the bigger players in climate science.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
acmeaviator
H@ll is other people.
09:20 AM on 02/25/2010
The problem of going to Mars is really a simple one - radiation shielding. Spacecraft in LEO (including the ISS) are protected by the same mechanisms that protect us on the ground. The only manned spacecraft to penetrate the Van Allen belts and move into less protected areas of space were the Apollo missions, whose light radiation shielding was adequate to see the astronauts through the short missions with minimal radiation danger. However even on these short missions the astronauts reported radiation induced physical effects and received radiation doses equivalent to numerous chest xrays.
Mars missions will take far longer - 12 to 18 months in highly radiated space - and ultimately the shielding technology to protect a human crew does not yet exist. NASA should continue to focus on its effective programs - unmanned probes, rovers, and space-based telescopes. There simply is no reason, other than romantic ideas of adventure, to send humans into space. For a prime example of the reasons why I suggest watching the excellent PBS documentary "Astro Spies" which looks closely at the shadow space programs of the US and USSR during the Cold War. Programs that had began as manned spy stations on both sides quickly turned to unmanned craft that were far simpler, cheaper, and effective.
09:49 AM on 02/25/2010
Cosmic radiation is a major issue, but we have the technology to mitigate it. The problem is that it's never been tested in space. This is the so-called technology readiness level (TRL) barrier: we can't fly it because it isn't ready, and it isn't ready because it hasn't been flown.

Reinforced plastic spacecraft provide much better shielding than metal. Because of its high hydrogen content, polyethylene is an excellent radiation barrier. Another technique is to surround the habitation module with liquid hydrogen propellant and/or water tanks, both of which are superb radiation shields.

Administrator Bolden specifically mentioned that NASA would seek to develop in-space propulsion capable of making the Mars trip in weeks rather than months. This is most likely a reference to the Ad Astra proposal to do LEO to Mars orbit in 39 days using a 200MW solar or nuclear VASIMR electric propulsion bus.

Of course, on the surface on Mars, we'd almost completely bury the habitat in regolith to provide radiation shielding. This is one of the reasons why it makes sense to preposition surface hardware such as a regolith mover and power plant before sending the crew. The Constellation plan didn't allow for such common sense, but the new approach lets NASA take a more flexible and progressive approach to tackling such a complicated and risky mission.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:37 AM on 02/25/2010
How do you get the heavy earth moving construction equipment to mars to "completely bury the habitat in regolith to provide radiation shielding."

I'm no expert but from what I understand there in no technology on the horizon that can protect a human crew from the massive levels of radiation emitted during intense solar activity. Something almost assured to happen during the round trip to mars.

There are an awful lot of flip answers to very difficult problems. None of which will be solved without spending obscene amounts of money.

NASA's goal is simple. ROBOTS! Thousands of them! All over the solar system. Voyager 1, launched in the '70's is still functioning! and is now beyond our solar system! Less romantic than the Apollo program but in the long run probably more significant.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:55 PM on 02/25/2010
Seriously! Just look at what we're already able to do with avatar technology. There's no reason to send living humans when we can send their avatars, instead.
09:09 AM on 02/25/2010
NASA like most of our government has been hijacked by corporate America. Ever wonder why most of its resources have been put into the Space Shuttle over the last 30 years? The Space Shuttle serves only one main purpose: to put hardware into orbit around the Earth. What does most of that hardware do? Supports our media, intelligence and information structure. Most of that hardware is a freebee to the corporations. They use it most and the tax payers paid for it. Do we charge these corporations to use the hardware our tax dollars put in space? No! It’s another way our tax dollars are taken from us without our permission. The real rub is that these corporations then turn around and charge us for the media and information content they pump to us from our tax paid satellites. Also the potential for exploring our solar system and benefitting from new discoveries have been squandered on these hand outs to the rich. I say take the rich off welfare.
09:29 AM on 02/25/2010
Um... no. Shuttle hasn't orbited a comsat or spysat since 1992. Between Challenger and Columbia, Shuttle mainly did science experiments, and since Columbia, it has only done ISS assembly and supply missions other than one mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope.

Comsats mostly launch on Russian Proton-M or European Ariane 5 launch vehicles. Sirius, XM, DirectTV, etc. all launch on foreign rockets. American military and weather satellites launch on Delta IV and Atlas V, which are part of the U.S. Air Force Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
gutenmorgen
a.k.a. poopdeck
08:54 AM on 02/25/2010
The Moon is by far the safest military base because there are no insurgents with IED's around.
09:45 AM on 02/25/2010
That we know of...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chuck prebys
11:23 AM on 02/25/2010
Just the propensity to get smacked by a pebble traveling at 20,000 mph that can ruin your whole day.
jerryatthebeach
Till Death Do You Barrier Island...
06:22 AM on 02/25/2010
Concentrate on protecting us from terrorists. Spy missions in space. We'll worry about seeing other planets later.
08:46 AM on 02/25/2010
Get out of the water. You've been at the beach too long.
photo
RealityBaseCamp
My micro-bio did not meet someone's guidelines!
04:07 PM on 02/25/2010
They all have projects they'd like to fund with money taken from NASA. I've been explaining since my teens that it doesn't work that way. And it always seems to be from people who for their own reasons just don't like the space program, or at least the sending-people part.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnSawyer
arglebargy
11:12 PM on 02/27/2010
The Defense Department and its spy agencies (NSA, NRO, etc.) already do that. They have plenty of spy satellites in orbit, some put up there by the Space Shuttle, but mostly launched through their own space program.
02:04 AM on 02/25/2010
NASA's goal for human spaceflight has been Mars even since we landed on the moon. The thing is that it's not so simple, there are substantial disagreements about the approach and steppingstones we should employ to get there, and there has been an institutional fetish about big giant launch vehicles to the exclusion of serious investment in spacecraft and in-space propulsion.

Under O'Keefe and Steidl, NASA had a concept of going in spirals instead of circles (a reference to being stuck in low earth orbit). We would gradually built out our space infrastructure and capability from LEO to Lagrange points to the moon, Phobos, and Mars, with orbital propellant depots and robotic precursor missions to lead the way for manned missions.

This strategy was thrown out the window with Bush's Vision for Space Exploration, built on a monolithic architecture called Constellation that sought to recreate Apollo at double scale. The plan had conceptual shortcomings as well as technical problems.

This is counter-intuitive, but the faster we try to get back to the moon or go to mars, the longer it will take, because we'll run into problems and cancel the programs repeatedly, and if/when we do succeed, we'll have developed nothing that makes it any easier to grow on that success. We'll only have developed a one-trick pony that has already done its thing.

We have to go in spirals to prevent going in circles, even if we do not know how long it will take.
09:46 AM on 02/25/2010
NASA is a DOD project and nothing more. They don't exist for human advancement, they exist to defend the US. NASA was created in the late 50's to compete with the Russians in aeronautical defense, not for space exploration. We can thank Sputnik for that.

Read up on their charter: http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html
10:05 AM on 02/25/2010
DoD has its own space program. NASA was and to a certain extent still is an instrument of American nationalism, but in this capacity they exist to defend the image of the U.S. rather than the homeland or the empire.

NASA reached out the Soviet Union in its final years to conduct joint research on Mir, and they extended the international cooperation in peaceful civilian space activities with Russia, Europe, Canada, and Japan on the International Space Station.

In the parlance of our time, NASA is "soft power". We put representatives of the great military powers together on a space station so that we have another reason not to shoot missiles at each other or at our satellites.

It's Congress that still wants to use NASA to compete with the Russians and now the Chinese. NASA would rather we work together on space exploration.