UPI.com: Unmanned orbital vehicle lands on its own
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif., Dec. 3 (UPI) -- Boeing's X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle for the Air Force successfully left orbit Friday and landed in California following a 220-day experimental test mission.
The X-37B is the United States' first unmanned vehicle to return from space and land on its own.
Previously, the space shuttle was the only space vehicle capable of returning to Earth.
"We congratulate the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office and the 30th Space Wing at Vandenberg Air Force Base on the success of this mission," said Paul Rusnock, Boeing vice president of Experimental Systems and program director for the X-37B. "This marks a new era in space exploration, and we look forward to the launch of the second vehicle in 2011.
"By combining the best of aircraft and spacecraft into an affordable, responsive unmanned vehicle, Boeing has delivered an unprecedented capability to the RCO."
Boeing said the X-37B program is demonstrating a reliable, reusable unmanned space test platform for the Air Force for space experimentation, risk reduction and concept-of-operations development for reusable space vehicle technologies.
Friday, December 3, 2010
LIVE from SpaceX: Falcon 9 Rocket to Test Fire Engines
Space.com: LIVE from SpaceX: Falcon 9 Rocket to Test Fire Engines
SpaceX, a private spaceflight company that could become the first commercial firm to launch a spaceship to low-Earth orbit, will perform a full dress rehearsal today (Dec. 3) of the capsule's planned first launch next week.
The California-based SpaceX (Space Exploration Technologies) will webcast the static fire test of the Falcon 9 rocket engines at www.spacex.com. The webcast is set to begin at 11:00 a.m. EST (1600 GMT).
The company plans to launch its Dragon spacecraft into low-Earth orbit atop a Falcon 9 rocket for the first time on Dec. 7. The launch is also the first flight under NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program to develop commercial supply services to the International Space Station. [Illustration of Dragon re-entering Earth's atmosphere.]
After NASA's space shuttles retire, SpaceX plans to fly at least 12 missions to carry supplies to and from the orbital outpost.
SpaceX, a private spaceflight company that could become the first commercial firm to launch a spaceship to low-Earth orbit, will perform a full dress rehearsal today (Dec. 3) of the capsule's planned first launch next week.
The California-based SpaceX (Space Exploration Technologies) will webcast the static fire test of the Falcon 9 rocket engines at www.spacex.com. The webcast is set to begin at 11:00 a.m. EST (1600 GMT).
The company plans to launch its Dragon spacecraft into low-Earth orbit atop a Falcon 9 rocket for the first time on Dec. 7. The launch is also the first flight under NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program to develop commercial supply services to the International Space Station. [Illustration of Dragon re-entering Earth's atmosphere.]
After NASA's space shuttles retire, SpaceX plans to fly at least 12 missions to carry supplies to and from the orbital outpost.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
New Website Lets You Relive Early Space Exploration Missions
http://spacelog.org/
For years, NASA has had the transcripts from its epoch-defining early missions online. But their ASCII aesthetic prevented them from gaining wide distribution. Even if you were looking at the dialog from the most exciting moments in the history of science nerdery, it sure didn't feel that way.
Now, a small team has stepped forward to remedy that situation with a new site, Spacelog. Starting with the Apollo 13 and Mercury 6 (when John Glenn became the first American to orbit Earth), they've transformed the NASA transcripts into a series of searchable, linkable pages that look like Twitter conversations. It's really a wonderful translation of the original documents, and it was built in just a week.
In any case, go take
For years, NASA has had the transcripts from its epoch-defining early missions online. But their ASCII aesthetic prevented them from gaining wide distribution. Even if you were looking at the dialog from the most exciting moments in the history of science nerdery, it sure didn't feel that way.
Now, a small team has stepped forward to remedy that situation with a new site, Spacelog. Starting with the Apollo 13 and Mercury 6 (when John Glenn became the first American to orbit Earth), they've transformed the NASA transcripts into a series of searchable, linkable pages that look like Twitter conversations. It's really a wonderful translation of the original documents, and it was built in just a week.
In any case, go take
SpaceX and NASA set to launch first COTS mission
Orlando Examiner: SpaceX and NASA set to launch first COTS mission
CAPE CANAVERAL – Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) is preparing to conduct the first demonstration launch for NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, utilizing its Falcon 9 rocket. This first test flight appears to be holding solid for its targeted liftoff on Tuesday, Dec. 7. Launch will take place from the company’s launch site at Launch Complex 40 located at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.
The launch window for this first demo flight extends from 9:03 a.m. to 12:22 p.m. EST. If it is required, launch opportunities are also open on Dec. 8 and Dec. 9 during the same general time frame.
COTS 1, as this first flight has been dubbed, will be the first launch of the Dragon spacecraft, this will also mark the first commercial attempt to have their spacecraft reenter Earth’s atmosphere. The planned Dec. 7 flight is the first of three test launches currently envisioned in the Falcon 9 test flight series. This first flight is planned to check out important characteristics of both the Dragon spacecraft as well as the Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Some of these include orbital operations, launch elements of the combined Dragon/Falcon 9 vehicle, descent, re-entry and splashdown (which will occur in the Pacific Ocean).
NASA established the COTS program to obtain commercial launch services to jump start the commercial space industry. Under the Obama administration’s plans for the space agency, NASA will utilize these private space firms to send cargo to the International Space Station (ISS). More to the point, it is hoped that these commercial space companies can reduce the hefty price tag associated with sending something into orbit.
There will be a press conference held before the launch, it is currently planned to be held on Monday, Dec. 6, at 1:30 p.m. The conference will be held at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center press site. Speakers during the press conference will include, Phil McAlister, acting director, Commercial Space Flight Development, Alan Lindenmoyer, manager, Commercial Crew and Cargo Program, Gwynne Shotwell, president of SpaceX and Mike McAleenan, Falcon 9 Launch Weather Officer 45th Weather Squadron.
If everything goes off without a hitch, a press conference will be held about an hour after splashdown takes place. If this mission is a success it will go along way to reinforcing the success of the first launch of the Falcon 9, held this past June. More importantly it will prove the viability of the Dragon spacecraft.
CAPE CANAVERAL – Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) is preparing to conduct the first demonstration launch for NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, utilizing its Falcon 9 rocket. This first test flight appears to be holding solid for its targeted liftoff on Tuesday, Dec. 7. Launch will take place from the company’s launch site at Launch Complex 40 located at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.
The launch window for this first demo flight extends from 9:03 a.m. to 12:22 p.m. EST. If it is required, launch opportunities are also open on Dec. 8 and Dec. 9 during the same general time frame.
COTS 1, as this first flight has been dubbed, will be the first launch of the Dragon spacecraft, this will also mark the first commercial attempt to have their spacecraft reenter Earth’s atmosphere. The planned Dec. 7 flight is the first of three test launches currently envisioned in the Falcon 9 test flight series. This first flight is planned to check out important characteristics of both the Dragon spacecraft as well as the Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Some of these include orbital operations, launch elements of the combined Dragon/Falcon 9 vehicle, descent, re-entry and splashdown (which will occur in the Pacific Ocean).
NASA established the COTS program to obtain commercial launch services to jump start the commercial space industry. Under the Obama administration’s plans for the space agency, NASA will utilize these private space firms to send cargo to the International Space Station (ISS). More to the point, it is hoped that these commercial space companies can reduce the hefty price tag associated with sending something into orbit.
There will be a press conference held before the launch, it is currently planned to be held on Monday, Dec. 6, at 1:30 p.m. The conference will be held at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center press site. Speakers during the press conference will include, Phil McAlister, acting director, Commercial Space Flight Development, Alan Lindenmoyer, manager, Commercial Crew and Cargo Program, Gwynne Shotwell, president of SpaceX and Mike McAleenan, Falcon 9 Launch Weather Officer 45th Weather Squadron.
If everything goes off without a hitch, a press conference will be held about an hour after splashdown takes place. If this mission is a success it will go along way to reinforcing the success of the first launch of the Falcon 9, held this past June. More importantly it will prove the viability of the Dragon spacecraft.
Astronauts considered in NASA budget cuts
Los Angeles Times: Astronauts considered in NASA budget cuts
The White House has called for a 10-month study of the appropriate 'role and size' of the 64-member astronaut corps after the final shuttle mission next year.
Reporting from Washington — With NASA's budget under pressure and the space shuttle program set to retire, even the agency's most sacred cow — the 64-member astronaut corps — isn't safe from the possibility of cuts.
At the behest of the White House, the nation's top science advisors this month began a 10-month study of the appropriate "role and size" of the astronaut corps after the final shuttle mission next year.
The study, by the National Academies, reflects two realities: NASA's budget, squeezed by congressional budget hawks and its own cost overruns, needs every penny. More significantly, the United States may not need all these astronauts.
"Clearly, there won't be a lot of flying going on after the shuttle goes away," said Leroy Chiao, a former astronaut and a member of the 2009 presidential commission that examined NASA's future. "It's reasonable to say the astronaut office should be smaller. How much smaller depends on … what you want these guys to be doing."
At most, three shuttle missions remain on the calendar. Two require six-member crews; a third, a potential rescue mission, has a designated crew of four. An additional 11 astronauts are preparing for long-duration stays aboard the International Space Station — and probably will get there aboard Russian Soyuz rockets.
But that still leaves more than half of the 64 current astronauts — nine more are in training — without a mission.
NASA officials said that imbalance was a matter of timing, as there are more than 30 station mission slots available through 2020 that haven't been assigned. But critics say scientists and engineers could fill those slots without going through expensive astronaut training.
And astronauts won't be riding a new rocket beyond low-Earth orbit for years.
Under a plan approved by Congress and the White House, NASA's next spacecraft capable of carrying humans to the International Space Station won't be ready until 2017 at the earliest. At the same time, the agency's manned space plans are in flux. Under the George W. Bush administration, the target was the moon by 2020. But President Obama has asked NASA to aim for a first-ever trip to an asteroid by 2025.
Astronauts are expensive, said Howard McCurdy, a space policy expert and a professor at American University; keeping them on the government payroll isn't like "maintaining a couple of extra forest rangers."
But, he said, before resizing the astronaut corps, it's important to figure out its role. "The big question is: Where we are going and when?"
NASA officials said the size of the astronaut corps was based on a complicated series of factors that took into account things such as medical concerns, attrition rates and the skills needed for particular missions. The officials point out that the number of astronauts has dropped by more than half since a high-water mark of 149 in 2000.
Set against the rest of NASA's $18.7-billion budget, spending on the astronaut office is relatively small — in the tens of millions of dollars, though NASA wouldn't say exactly how much. The 47 civilian astronauts earn between $65,000 and $101,000 a year; the 17 military astronauts are paid by the Defense Department, which is reimbursed by NASA.
The major cost is for training, including the corps' fleet of T-38 trainer aircraft; a "negative buoyancy" water tank used to train spacewalkers; and other facilities at Johnson Space Center in Houston.
The National Academies investigators have been asked specifically to examine the T-38 fleet. More generally, they also will look into the role and size of the astronaut corps and the facilities used to support them.
The supersonic jets have been used by NASA for decades to prepare astronauts for the rigors of spaceflight. But such training may no longer be needed; NASA wants to launch future astronauts on capsules, which, unlike the winged shuttle, can't be flown once they begin reentry.
But the T-38 has a reputation as an astronaut perk. That was reinforced last year when it was revealed that astronaut Mark Kelly, who is set to command one of the remaining shuttle missions, used some of his T-38 training hours to visit his now-wife Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).
The National Academies study is not the first time the astronaut office has come under scrutiny. In 2003, NASA's inspector general found that "costs for the astronaut program were higher than necessary" and that astronauts were "not all being used in a manner commensurate with their expensive training."
The last line was directed at NASA's often-used defense: that astronauts help with the engineering of spacecraft by providing a user perspective. "We found that some astronauts worked in technical assignments that did not require astronauts and could have been performed by less-expensive engineers," the 2003 investigators wrote.
A key obstacle to cutting the astronaut corps, noted by McCurdy and others, is the immense symbolism tied to a team that once put men on the moon. And NASA tries to maximize that symbolism: Astronauts made 521 public appearances in 2009 — and 517 so far this year, with some involving more than one astronaut, NASA records show.
Rep. Pete Olson, a Texas Republican who represents Johnson Space Center, said the corps was a "national asset" that provided more than just expertise. "They are the faces of human space exploration," he said.
"There is no budgetary savings that can pay for the loss in stature," Olson said.
But one budget analyst argued that even the astronauts could benefit from a sharp reduction in the corps. Rather than work for the government, ex-astronauts could find jobs with the commercial rocket companies that are working to provide a U.S. alternative to Russian flights to the space station.
"These people obviously posses unique skills," said Tad DeHaven of the Cato Institute. "There could be tremendous opportunity for them under private manned spaceflight."
Concerns about NASA's future, however, have not diminished the appeal of being an astronaut. More than 3,500 hopefuls applied for the 2009 class; the nine remaining members, expected to finish training next year, include a flight surgeon and a CIA officer.
It's a time-honored NASA tradition to give every new astronaut class a derogatory nickname, chosen by the class that preceded it. This group is "The Chumps" — fitting for the first class in a generation without a U.S. spacecraft to fly.
The White House has called for a 10-month study of the appropriate 'role and size' of the 64-member astronaut corps after the final shuttle mission next year.
Reporting from Washington — With NASA's budget under pressure and the space shuttle program set to retire, even the agency's most sacred cow — the 64-member astronaut corps — isn't safe from the possibility of cuts.
At the behest of the White House, the nation's top science advisors this month began a 10-month study of the appropriate "role and size" of the astronaut corps after the final shuttle mission next year.
The study, by the National Academies, reflects two realities: NASA's budget, squeezed by congressional budget hawks and its own cost overruns, needs every penny. More significantly, the United States may not need all these astronauts.
"Clearly, there won't be a lot of flying going on after the shuttle goes away," said Leroy Chiao, a former astronaut and a member of the 2009 presidential commission that examined NASA's future. "It's reasonable to say the astronaut office should be smaller. How much smaller depends on … what you want these guys to be doing."
At most, three shuttle missions remain on the calendar. Two require six-member crews; a third, a potential rescue mission, has a designated crew of four. An additional 11 astronauts are preparing for long-duration stays aboard the International Space Station — and probably will get there aboard Russian Soyuz rockets.
But that still leaves more than half of the 64 current astronauts — nine more are in training — without a mission.
NASA officials said that imbalance was a matter of timing, as there are more than 30 station mission slots available through 2020 that haven't been assigned. But critics say scientists and engineers could fill those slots without going through expensive astronaut training.
And astronauts won't be riding a new rocket beyond low-Earth orbit for years.
Under a plan approved by Congress and the White House, NASA's next spacecraft capable of carrying humans to the International Space Station won't be ready until 2017 at the earliest. At the same time, the agency's manned space plans are in flux. Under the George W. Bush administration, the target was the moon by 2020. But President Obama has asked NASA to aim for a first-ever trip to an asteroid by 2025.
Astronauts are expensive, said Howard McCurdy, a space policy expert and a professor at American University; keeping them on the government payroll isn't like "maintaining a couple of extra forest rangers."
But, he said, before resizing the astronaut corps, it's important to figure out its role. "The big question is: Where we are going and when?"
NASA officials said the size of the astronaut corps was based on a complicated series of factors that took into account things such as medical concerns, attrition rates and the skills needed for particular missions. The officials point out that the number of astronauts has dropped by more than half since a high-water mark of 149 in 2000.
Set against the rest of NASA's $18.7-billion budget, spending on the astronaut office is relatively small — in the tens of millions of dollars, though NASA wouldn't say exactly how much. The 47 civilian astronauts earn between $65,000 and $101,000 a year; the 17 military astronauts are paid by the Defense Department, which is reimbursed by NASA.
The major cost is for training, including the corps' fleet of T-38 trainer aircraft; a "negative buoyancy" water tank used to train spacewalkers; and other facilities at Johnson Space Center in Houston.
The National Academies investigators have been asked specifically to examine the T-38 fleet. More generally, they also will look into the role and size of the astronaut corps and the facilities used to support them.
The supersonic jets have been used by NASA for decades to prepare astronauts for the rigors of spaceflight. But such training may no longer be needed; NASA wants to launch future astronauts on capsules, which, unlike the winged shuttle, can't be flown once they begin reentry.
But the T-38 has a reputation as an astronaut perk. That was reinforced last year when it was revealed that astronaut Mark Kelly, who is set to command one of the remaining shuttle missions, used some of his T-38 training hours to visit his now-wife Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).
The National Academies study is not the first time the astronaut office has come under scrutiny. In 2003, NASA's inspector general found that "costs for the astronaut program were higher than necessary" and that astronauts were "not all being used in a manner commensurate with their expensive training."
The last line was directed at NASA's often-used defense: that astronauts help with the engineering of spacecraft by providing a user perspective. "We found that some astronauts worked in technical assignments that did not require astronauts and could have been performed by less-expensive engineers," the 2003 investigators wrote.
A key obstacle to cutting the astronaut corps, noted by McCurdy and others, is the immense symbolism tied to a team that once put men on the moon. And NASA tries to maximize that symbolism: Astronauts made 521 public appearances in 2009 — and 517 so far this year, with some involving more than one astronaut, NASA records show.
Rep. Pete Olson, a Texas Republican who represents Johnson Space Center, said the corps was a "national asset" that provided more than just expertise. "They are the faces of human space exploration," he said.
"There is no budgetary savings that can pay for the loss in stature," Olson said.
But one budget analyst argued that even the astronauts could benefit from a sharp reduction in the corps. Rather than work for the government, ex-astronauts could find jobs with the commercial rocket companies that are working to provide a U.S. alternative to Russian flights to the space station.
"These people obviously posses unique skills," said Tad DeHaven of the Cato Institute. "There could be tremendous opportunity for them under private manned spaceflight."
Concerns about NASA's future, however, have not diminished the appeal of being an astronaut. More than 3,500 hopefuls applied for the 2009 class; the nine remaining members, expected to finish training next year, include a flight surgeon and a CIA officer.
It's a time-honored NASA tradition to give every new astronaut class a derogatory nickname, chosen by the class that preceded it. This group is "The Chumps" — fitting for the first class in a generation without a U.S. spacecraft to fly.
NASA's human spaceflight program is 'adrift' as budget cuts may doom deal
Orlando Sentinel: NASA's human spaceflight program is 'adrift' as budget cuts may doom deal
CAPE CANAVERAL — Just seven weeks after members of Congress applauded themselves for brokering a grand compromise on the future of NASA, the new law — meant to broadly benefit the aerospace industry and key NASA states — is in deep trouble.
Looming budget cuts are threatening to undermine the whole concept, especially the development of a powerful "heavy lift" rocket by 2017 that one day is supposed to take humans to the moons of Mars.
Officials are questioning whether the rocket, which is supposed to be built using key parts of the space shuttle, can be done on time and for the $11.5 billion that Congress called for — but now is unlikely to give the agency.
Without a new rocket, there is a growing fear in the space community that NASA's human space program might be grounded forever. In response, one of NASA's primary contractors is making a power play to change the terms of the debate.
"The United States' human spaceflight program is adrift," said John Karas, the general manager of Lockheed Martin's human space flight division, in a recent interview.
"Everybody's arguing, debating. We are in this giant storm with no direction, and more than likely we're gonna get hit with more waves of money cuts. So we have to have some future plan here; some future direction — or we're just going to get capsized," he said.
Lockheed Martin is proposing an alternative it says will permit deep-space exploration in affordable stages culminating in a trip to Mars on Feb. 22, 2031. Not surprisingly, it centers on the company's Orion crew capsule, on which NASA already has spent $4.8 billion as part of the now-defunct Constellation moon-rocket program.
The company is proposing to launch a test version of the capsule in 2013 aboard a Delta IV-Heavy, an existing rocket built by an alliance of Lockheed and The Boeing Corp. The company has already agreed to purchase a rocket for the test launch.
The proposal envisions initial unmanned flights as stepping stones to more-ambitious manned missions, such as a visit in 2018 to the Earth-moon "L2" Lagrange point — a place on the far side of the moon where the combined gravity of the Earth and the moon allows a spacecraft to hover over one spot – followed by trips to asteroids and then to Mars by 2031.
Karas insists that these later flights are dependent on NASA developing a "heavy-lift" rocket. But others in the aerospace industry, and the politicians who support them, fear that an initial successful launch could undermine the need for a new rocket — and cost them contracts and jobs.
"I hate to see different entities try to cannibalize the process," said U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R- Utah, a staunch supporter of his state's solid-rocket industry. "There is money to move forward on [a heavy-lift rocket using solid-rocket motors], as well as the capsule, as long as NASA budgets its money wisely and doesn't waste it on wild goose chases."
The debate over NASA's future is expected to take center stage Wednesday when the U.S. Senate commerce committee meets in an attempt to salvage a workable policy out of the NASA compromise plan.
An overriding issue is money, as almost no one thinks NASA will get the full $19 billion requested by the White House in the 2011 budget. The size of the cuts — combined with NASA's propensity to deliver projects late and over budget — could significantly impact NASA's ability to fund any future beyond the space shuttle, which will be retired next year.
With this fiscal environment in mind, Karas argues that Orion is the only NASA project far enough along to fly — and may be the only way to keep the agency's space-faring ambitions alive.
"The reason we decided not to wait for a rocket any more is because we'd be sitting on the ground until 2020 which means we would atrophy …," he said.
Putting Orion on a fast track would certainly help Kennedy Space Center, which is set to lose at least 6,000 more jobs when the space shuttle is retired next year. Orion is supposed to be assembled at KSC, and test launches would ensure more work and would attract tourists to the area.
Watching Lockheed Martin warily are commercial rocket developers, who are working on a separate track to develop spacecraft capable of delivering crew and cargo to the International Space Station after the shuttle's retirement.
Industry officials, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the subject, said they were concerned the Lockheed Martin proposal simply is a front for the aerospace giant to muscle its way into their turf — and not exploration.
For their part, NASA officials say they have not agreed either to let Orion fly on a Delta IV or to support the company's long-range exploration proposals. But internal communications last month — around the time when Lockheed signed the deal to purchase the Delta IV — show that NASA officials were looking at ways to allow the agency to reallocate Orion funds to pay for the test.
Predictably, the proposal has generated divisions between those wanting to see the rocket developed first and those who support flying Orion as soon as possible.
In meetings last week, Bishop told NASA chief Charlie Bolden he was concerned that NASA was dragging its feet transitioning from Constellation to the new heavy-lift program that ensured a role for Utah's solid-rocket motor industry. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch said he called the meeting "to explain in no uncertain terms the Utah congressional delegation's interest in ensuring that Utah's solid-rocket motor industry is protected."
However, other space boosters are backing Lockheed Martin.
"NASA doesn't need super heavy-lift to start exploring. They just need to complete Orion and use existing, proven launchers to send astronauts beyond Earth orbit in about 5 or 6 years," said Jim Muncy, a space consultant and space policy expert. "That allows voters to see some exploration payoffs from their taxes sooner, which is vital to sustainability."
Karas insists he's merely trying to give ideas about what's possible. But he warns that NASA must to something to generate a sense of movement in the manned space program or risk becoming irrelevant.
"If the rocket-first guys win, then it will die — and we will be stuck in Low Earth Orbit for the rest of our lives," Karas said.
CAPE CANAVERAL — Just seven weeks after members of Congress applauded themselves for brokering a grand compromise on the future of NASA, the new law — meant to broadly benefit the aerospace industry and key NASA states — is in deep trouble.
Looming budget cuts are threatening to undermine the whole concept, especially the development of a powerful "heavy lift" rocket by 2017 that one day is supposed to take humans to the moons of Mars.
Officials are questioning whether the rocket, which is supposed to be built using key parts of the space shuttle, can be done on time and for the $11.5 billion that Congress called for — but now is unlikely to give the agency.
Without a new rocket, there is a growing fear in the space community that NASA's human space program might be grounded forever. In response, one of NASA's primary contractors is making a power play to change the terms of the debate.
"The United States' human spaceflight program is adrift," said John Karas, the general manager of Lockheed Martin's human space flight division, in a recent interview.
"Everybody's arguing, debating. We are in this giant storm with no direction, and more than likely we're gonna get hit with more waves of money cuts. So we have to have some future plan here; some future direction — or we're just going to get capsized," he said.
Lockheed Martin is proposing an alternative it says will permit deep-space exploration in affordable stages culminating in a trip to Mars on Feb. 22, 2031. Not surprisingly, it centers on the company's Orion crew capsule, on which NASA already has spent $4.8 billion as part of the now-defunct Constellation moon-rocket program.
The company is proposing to launch a test version of the capsule in 2013 aboard a Delta IV-Heavy, an existing rocket built by an alliance of Lockheed and The Boeing Corp. The company has already agreed to purchase a rocket for the test launch.
The proposal envisions initial unmanned flights as stepping stones to more-ambitious manned missions, such as a visit in 2018 to the Earth-moon "L2" Lagrange point — a place on the far side of the moon where the combined gravity of the Earth and the moon allows a spacecraft to hover over one spot – followed by trips to asteroids and then to Mars by 2031.
Karas insists that these later flights are dependent on NASA developing a "heavy-lift" rocket. But others in the aerospace industry, and the politicians who support them, fear that an initial successful launch could undermine the need for a new rocket — and cost them contracts and jobs.
"I hate to see different entities try to cannibalize the process," said U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R- Utah, a staunch supporter of his state's solid-rocket industry. "There is money to move forward on [a heavy-lift rocket using solid-rocket motors], as well as the capsule, as long as NASA budgets its money wisely and doesn't waste it on wild goose chases."
The debate over NASA's future is expected to take center stage Wednesday when the U.S. Senate commerce committee meets in an attempt to salvage a workable policy out of the NASA compromise plan.
An overriding issue is money, as almost no one thinks NASA will get the full $19 billion requested by the White House in the 2011 budget. The size of the cuts — combined with NASA's propensity to deliver projects late and over budget — could significantly impact NASA's ability to fund any future beyond the space shuttle, which will be retired next year.
With this fiscal environment in mind, Karas argues that Orion is the only NASA project far enough along to fly — and may be the only way to keep the agency's space-faring ambitions alive.
"The reason we decided not to wait for a rocket any more is because we'd be sitting on the ground until 2020 which means we would atrophy …," he said.
Putting Orion on a fast track would certainly help Kennedy Space Center, which is set to lose at least 6,000 more jobs when the space shuttle is retired next year. Orion is supposed to be assembled at KSC, and test launches would ensure more work and would attract tourists to the area.
Watching Lockheed Martin warily are commercial rocket developers, who are working on a separate track to develop spacecraft capable of delivering crew and cargo to the International Space Station after the shuttle's retirement.
Industry officials, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the subject, said they were concerned the Lockheed Martin proposal simply is a front for the aerospace giant to muscle its way into their turf — and not exploration.
For their part, NASA officials say they have not agreed either to let Orion fly on a Delta IV or to support the company's long-range exploration proposals. But internal communications last month — around the time when Lockheed signed the deal to purchase the Delta IV — show that NASA officials were looking at ways to allow the agency to reallocate Orion funds to pay for the test.
Predictably, the proposal has generated divisions between those wanting to see the rocket developed first and those who support flying Orion as soon as possible.
In meetings last week, Bishop told NASA chief Charlie Bolden he was concerned that NASA was dragging its feet transitioning from Constellation to the new heavy-lift program that ensured a role for Utah's solid-rocket motor industry. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch said he called the meeting "to explain in no uncertain terms the Utah congressional delegation's interest in ensuring that Utah's solid-rocket motor industry is protected."
However, other space boosters are backing Lockheed Martin.
"NASA doesn't need super heavy-lift to start exploring. They just need to complete Orion and use existing, proven launchers to send astronauts beyond Earth orbit in about 5 or 6 years," said Jim Muncy, a space consultant and space policy expert. "That allows voters to see some exploration payoffs from their taxes sooner, which is vital to sustainability."
Karas insists he's merely trying to give ideas about what's possible. But he warns that NASA must to something to generate a sense of movement in the manned space program or risk becoming irrelevant.
"If the rocket-first guys win, then it will die — and we will be stuck in Low Earth Orbit for the rest of our lives," Karas said.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
What Happened in Space News December 1
Pioneer 10 - USA Jupiter Flyby - 259 kg - was launched on March 3, 1972.
Pioneer 10 flew by Jupiter on December 1, 1973, passing 132,250 kilometers from the planet's cloud tops. It returned over 500 images of Jupiter and its moons, and collected information on Jupiter's magnetic field, trapped charged particles, and solar wind interactions.
Pioneer 10 crossed the orbit boundary of Pluto on June 13, 1983.
It has now left the solar system.
Pioneer 10 flew by Jupiter on December 1, 1973, passing 132,250 kilometers from the planet's cloud tops. It returned over 500 images of Jupiter and its moons, and collected information on Jupiter's magnetic field, trapped charged particles, and solar wind interactions.
Pioneer 10 crossed the orbit boundary of Pluto on June 13, 1983.
It has now left the solar system.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
