Bush Administration to Fund Nuclear Mars Rocket

[Sam_Stone]

In any event, the new space plane initiative is a replacement for the X-38, but one that is much more capable.

[ElvisL1ves]

Sam, the knee-jerk Bush adoration is getting awfully tiresome, OK? NASA is hardly a priority for him, as shown by his total lack of expressed interest in anything they’ve done or are doing, much less providing any inspirational, broad-sighted initiatives as you said in your OP.

Facts, m’boy. Facts.

[carnivorousplant]

Grey:

Soyuz can only hold three guys, so they are limited to the number of people that can be on board the space station. Sort of like the Titanic.

[GOM]

*Originally posted by carnivorousplant *
**Grey:

Soyuz can only hold three guys, so they are limited to the number of people that can be on board the space station. Sort of like the Titanic. **

hmmm

That’s quite a comparison…

Except the Russians didn’t build the Titanic. They did build Mir. It worries me when we are forced to depend on the Russians.

[carnivorousplant]

I meant that having learned from the Titanic and it’s dearth of lifboats that only three guys per Soyuz can be on the station at the same time.
They’ve had accidents with Soyuz, but don’t forget Challenger.
I do hope they’ve improved Soyuz; I recall that in the Apollo era, their navigation computer used paper tape.
BUt you can get into it injured or sick and ride the parachute home.

[Grey]

Well I thought the call to scrap the X-38 tied into the ISS crew compliment dropping to 3. I’ll check, because now you’ve got me thinking. Damn you.

That being said, an expanded Soyuz is likelier cheaper to design, build etc than a whole new orbit to earth platform.

[GOM]

*Originally posted by carnivorousplant *
**don’t forget Challenger.
**

Did you have any type of premonition? I can’t get your words out of my head…

[Avalonian]

*Originally posted by GOM *
**Except the Russians didn’t build the Titanic. They did build Mir. It worries me when we are forced to depend on the Russians. **

Why are you worried about the Russians? They’ve been right there on the forefront of space exploration since the 1950’s, and have beat us to the punch on many important landmarks:

• First orbital unmanned spacecraft
• First animal in space (a dog named Laika)
• First man in space
• First woman in space

The list goes on… they’re not perfect, but as we already know, neither is NASA. The Soyuz craft hav proven to be reliable and relatively inexpensive. Personally, I’m glad to have the Russians along with us in space. We can benefit a great deal for their cooperation and experience, as they can benefit from ours. I don’t see why it has to be an antagonistic relationship.

I’m somewhat curious what the Columbia tragedy is going to do to the Prometheus project… I hope that it doesn’t delay it by too much, though some delays are probably (and rightly) inevitable.

[Sam_Stone]

It might actually accelerate it. I don’t think anyone is going to recommend building a new shuttle to replace Columbia. That means all the funds that were used to maintain and fly Columbia will be freed up, and that there will be a greater need for a new spaceplane.

The new initiative that the Bush administration was going to announce involved building a new spaceplane in conjunction with Prometheus. The case for doing that just got a lot stronger, IMO.

[Sock_Munkey]

In light of recent events (ahem) its’ likely a good thing Bush didn’t mention a nuclear rocket in his SotU adress since it would have become emotionally linked with the current incident in peoples’ minds and they would be imagining all kinds of horror from a nuclear rocket coming down.

[Sofa_King]

Well, NASA shitcanned the '04 budget unveiling originally scheduled for 3pm today. However, the broad brushstrokes of the President’s budget can be found here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/nasa.html

There are some new plans which absolutely disgust me (waving away one of the most successful programs ever, the Commecial Technology initiative, by saying, “[a]lthough it is important to make NASA’s technologies available to others, the government does not need to spend $30 million to $40 million per year just to make companies aware of these technologies”), but fortunately they’re not germane to this conversation. I’ll stick to the mildly alarming highlights instead.

Here’s part of what NASA was going to say. This is public domain and can of course be quoted liberally, so I have.

NASA will develop tools to track the impact of investments on the Shuttle’s operational life, flight safety, and facilities conditions. NASA also will strengthen capital investment cost controls.

…and…

*Next Generation Launch Technology Investments.*  NASA had planned to develop a new Reusable Launch Vehicle to replace the Space Shuttle by early in the next decade.  However, current cost estimates for the vehicle, which range as high as $20 to $40 billion, are significantly beyond the program goal of $10 billion, and, thus, NASA is not ready to commit to the vehicle’s development.  The President’s Budget continues to invest in next generation launch technologies for the potential development of a Reusable Launch Vehicle or other launch systems.

*Orbital Space Plane Acceleration*.  The budget funds design, risk reduction activities, and development of the Orbital Space Plane, which would be launched on commercial rockets, to transport astronauts and some cargo to and from the Space Station.  It would supply the first-ever crew transport backup for the Space Shuttle, flexible access to space, and also provide emergency crew-return from the Space Station.  Due to its unique system characteristics, the Orbital Space Plane is expected to be safer and less expensive to fly than the Shuttle.  Validating the performance requirements, development cost, and anticipated operational costs will be a major activity over the next year. 

*Space Shuttle Service Life Extension*.  With deferment of a Reusable Launch Vehicle to replace the Space Shuttle, NASA will need to operate the Space Shuttle longer.  The budget provides additional funding to extend the Shuttle’s service life. However, past management of Shuttle investments has suffered from unclear planning and cost overruns.  In the coming year, NASA will reform its approach to Shuttle investment planning and management.

*Space Shuttle Competition*.  With the Space Shuttle flying longer, NASA is examining options for introducing greater competition for work that is currently performed directly by the federal government and federal contractors.  A competition plan will be incorporated in next year’s budget.

So the plan was to not fully fund a next-gen reusable launch system, but instead figure out a way to keep the Orbiters running. The backup system is of course supposed to be just that–a backup, but you can almost bet that it’s that system which will get the nod to act as a replacement.

Moreover, if I read that chart at the bottom of the page correctly, the news being reported on CNN that the President allocated an extra $500 Million to the Shuttle (actually, “Space Science,” a far broader category) is balanced by the fact that they offset that increase in part by slashing the R&D department (“Space Flight Capabilities”).

It’s all water under the bridge now. Whatever they were going to do is going to radically change. At least I hope so.

[Sofa_King]

Aw, jeez. I don’t know where the hell I was going with that post.

Let’s just forget I said it and instead focus on the topic at hand:

Improving the Efficiency and Scientific Return of Space Missions

The President’s Budget invests in three technology areas that hold significant promise in overcoming the limitations of robotic- and human-led research in space. These technologies are critical to improving the efficiency and scientific return of space missions.

Better Science at Distant Planets.  NASA’s new mission places a high priority on the search for life beyond Earth.  Recent discoveries at Mars and the moons around Jupiter indicate that there may be or have been habitable environments on these worlds that supported the development of life in the past and may support primitive lifeforms today.  Understanding the evolution of our solar system lends new insight to developments on our planet.

Increasing the scientific return from missions to these planets requires new power and propulsion technologies.  For example, using existing propulsion technology, it can take half a decade or more for spacecraft to travel to Jupiter and other planets in the outer solar system.  Once there, it is difficult and sometimes impossible for spacecraft to enter orbit around one or more of a planet’s moons.  In addition, power on a spacecraft is a scarce resource.  Science instruments on these spacecraft often run on the same amount of electricity as a light bulb.  High radiation and extreme temperatures in some of these worlds also limit the lifetime of spacecraft power sources to a few months or less. 

To develop and demonstrate new power and propulsion technologies to overcome these limitations, the President’s Budget proposes $279 million; ($3 billion over five years) for Project Prometheus, which builds on the Nuclear Systems Initiative started last year. Project Prometheus includes the development of the first nuclear-electric space mission, called the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter. This mission will conduct extensive, in-depth studies of the moons of Jupiter that may harbor subsurface oceans and thus have important implications in the search for life beyond Earth. In addition, it will prove new technologies for future NASA missions.

[GOM]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**1. I don’t think anyone is going to recommend building a new shuttle to replace Columbia. That means all the funds that were used to maintain and fly Columbia will be freed up, and that there will be a greater need for a new spaceplane.

2. The new initiative that the Bush administration was going to announce involved building a new spaceplane in conjunction with Prometheus. The case for doing that just got a lot stronger, IMO. **

1. My understanding is that we could not build another Shuttle, even if we wanted to. Not enough spare parts are available. Besides, one Congressman says it’s 40 year old technology. We’ve been lucky, imo, that we made them last this long. We ave ignored the warnings about the safety of the Shuttles:

"I have never been as worried for space shuttle safety as I am right now," Dr. Richard D. Blomberg, the panel’s chairman, told Congress in April. “All of my instincts suggest that the current approach is planting the seeds for future danger,” the Times reported.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30837

2. The problem is: We’re looking at 10 to 15 years before the next generation will be ready. As often is the case, we have waited until an emergency to take action. I hope we get our manned space program back on track, but right now we are parked on the side of the road. The ISS is the more immediate problem to solve. I think this horrible accident will delay any manned mission to Mars. I could be wrong, of course.

[GOM]

Sheesh. Have ignored, not “ave ignored”.

[Grey]

So we’ve come to this then; all manned space science will be done on the ISS, all access to the ISS will be through classic rocket launches just as the Russians have been doing for years.

The problem is, as far as I know, only the Russians have a manned launch capability (forget the Chinese for now). The questions are; will it be cheaper that way? And will NASA safety needs be met by the Russians. There were interworking issues during the shuttle/Mir program, will they re-appear?

Still the focus would move finally. Science on the science platform, space plane development to get us ready to get to the in-orbit 2nd generation (human rated) interplanetary platform that Prometheus promises.

[carnivorousplant]

The Russians can take peple and supplies, but there can be no construction on the station without the shuttle.

[Grey]

So the remaining shuttles do nothing else but ferry up the ISS components. There are still 3 shuttles, put them through a yearly cycle. Increased down time for maintenance and a minimal crew (2).

sigh…Just when I was hoping for more civilians in space…

[Sam_Stone]

Well, on the good side it looks like they are tripling the budget for Prometheus (last year its funding level was set a 1 billion over 5 years. 3 billion is quite a lot for a research program). And the Jupiter orbiter I already knew about - it’s supposed to get 3 billion as well, as I understand it.

NASA’s overall budget was increased this year by $500 million dollars.

But since they’ve put the budget announcement on hold, I wonder if that means there is going to be a change to Shuttle funding, or a re-think of the new Shuttle replacement program?

[GOM]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**

1. NASA’s overall budget was increased this year by $500 million dollars.

2. But since they’ve put the budget announcement on hold, I wonder if that means there is going to be a change to Shuttle funding, or a re-think of the new Shuttle replacement program? **

1. That’s not enough to make much difference.

2. Interesting point. They need to re-think several things right now. Unfortunately we often seem to only take action after a disaster forces us to look at reality. To replace the Shuttle is reportedly going to take 10 to 15 years.

[RickJay]

*Originally posted by GOM *
1. That’s not enough to make much difference.

That’s silly; of course it makes a difference. $500 million is 7% of NASA’s budget. Even in the world of government finance, $500 million is a pretty large sum of money. For research purposes you can definitely get a lot of bang for those bucks.