No more American manned spaceflights

[RN7]

With the decommissioning of the Space Shuttle this year American astronauts will have to go into space on Russian rockets at a price of about $40 million. I like Obama but this is not really good for America’s space programme or international image and national prestige. The cancellation of the Orion program was not a good idea and the Shuttles could realistically fly for a few more years. For the first time America Astronauts will become Cosmonauts or god forbid even Taikonauts.

Current Manned Spacecraft
Chinese Shenzou Spacecraft
Launched from Chinese Long March 5 rocket
Russian Soyuz-TMA Spacecraft
Launched from Russian Proton rocket
Soviet/Russian Buran Shuttles
Payload of 35,000-50,000 kg LEO/7,500-11,500 kg GEO
• OK-1K1-Buran (Used for unmanned flights only, destroyed in hanger collapse in 2002)
• OK-1K2-Ptichka (Never used but 97% complete, on display at Baikonur in Kazakhstan)
• OK-2K1-Baikal (Only 30% complete, currently on a barge in the Moskva River)
US Space Shuttles
Payload of 24,400 kg LEO
• Atlantis (Due for decommissioning in 2011, will be displayed at Kennedy Space Center)
• Challenger (Lost in 1986)
• Columbia (Lost in 2003)
• Discovery (Decommissioned in 2011, will be on display at Stephen F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia)
• Endeavour (Decommissioned in 2011, will be displayed at California Science Center)
• Enterprise (Never used for orbital flight, on display at Stephen F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia, will be moved to the USS Intrepid in New York)

Current and potential launchers
Chinese Long March 5
Payload of 25,000 kg LEO/14,000 kg GEO. Operational
ESA Arian 5
Payload of 21,000 kg LEO/10,050 kg GEO. Operational
Russian Angara 5
Payload of 24,500 kg LEO. Planned for unmanned launches
Russian Angara 7
Payload of 41,000 kg LEO. Planned for unmanned launches
Russian Proton
Payload of 21,600 kg LEO/6,360 kg GEO. Operational
Russian Rus-M
Payload of 35,500-54,000 kg LEO/7,500-11,500 kg GEO. Planned to replace Proton rocket for manned launches
US Atlas V
Payload of 20,050 kg LEO. Operational
US Atlas V HLV
Payload of 29,420 kg LEO/13,000 kg GEO. Under development, could be used for manned flights
US Delta IV Heavy
Payload of 22,950 LEO/12,980 GEO. Operational, used for military launches
US Falcon Heavy
Payload of 53,000 kg LEO/16,000 kg GEO. Under development
US Space Launch System
Derived from parts of Ares I and cancelled Ares V rockets and Shuttle. Payload 70,000 kg LEO. Under development

As a side note the US also has the unmanned vertical-takeoff, horizontal-landing Boeing X-37 spaceplane, operated by the USAF for reusable orbital spaceflight missions. The Chinese claim it can be used as a spy satellite or to deliver weapons into space.

There have also been rumors about an operational top secret US military orbital spaceplane for the past decade known as Blackstar. Such a military spaceplane could be used to place small satellites in orbit, launch nuclear weapons from orbit, and serve as a platform for orbit-to-ground hypervelocity weapons. For such an expensive program to exist the cost would have to borne by the US military’s black budget and owned and operated by major aerospace corporations. If Blackstar has become fully operational, it might explain the US Government cancelations of the SR-71 and the USAF satellite-launch programs. If it exists it has been one of the best kept military secrets ever and highly controversial. The British government has also released an extensive report on unexplained aerial phenomena in British airspace, which acknowledged that some unexplained sightings can be attributed to covert aircraft, listing three American programs it is aware of. The first is the SR-71, the other two have had their names withheld and photographs have been altered.

Annual Budget in US $ million
17,600. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
05,650. European Space Agency
03,800. Russian Federal Space Agency
02,460. Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
01,470. Indian Space Research Organisation
01,300. China National Space Administration

[ShadoWarrior]

I'm afraid that there is a bit of erroneous info in your post.

The Russians will be charging the US over $50 million per seat. The figure for 2011 is ~ $52 million, and the Russians have said that the price will go up every year. It's expected to be $56 million next year.

One of the rumored UFOs that are occasionally sighted is attributed to the much-discussed, never-acknowledged "Aurora" hypervelocity aircraft. Alleged successor to the SR-71.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

The Russians will be charging the US over $50 million per seat. The figure for 2011 is ~ $52 million, and the Russians have said that the price will go up every year. It's expected to be $56 million next year.

It's what we get for not sharing the stargate with then as much as they want.

[ShadoWarrior]

Who needs Russian rockets when you have F-302s?

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by RN7

I like Obama but this is not really good for America’s space programme or international image and national prestige.

If there is any future in man reaching out into space it will be when nationalistic pride is put aside and countries embrace joint ventures. Future projects like going to Mars will need to be done cooperatively, or not at all.

"Cooperative programs in the long term save money, draw upon the extraordinary scientific and engineering talent distributed over our planet, and provide inspiration about the global future."

If more world leaders would read Pale Blue Dot, we'd be living in better world and with more footprints on non-Earth bodies. A global space community is what we need.

Also, about the decommissioning, the shuttles were only designed with a 100 mission life expectancy anyways. They're time is due.

Originally Posted by RN7

For the first time America Astronauts will become Cosmonauts.

American astronauts have been in Russian rockets since the 90s too.

[Webstral]

We’ve done a really terrible job of selling the American public on the commercial opportunities of space flight. The shuttle is not a great program in terms of advancing space exploration, though certainly putting someone in space on a regular basis is much better than putting no one in space. NASA and the executive leadership need to acknowledge that private investment is going to be the driving force behind the development of the infrastructure for the purpose of exploiting space resources—i.e., for the purpose of making money. Scientific advancements can piggyback on the commercial infrastructure that capital will pay to create.

Two major sources of lunar wealth are light helium (He-3) and platinum. Given that tokamak fusion seems to be stuck near the break-even point, it’s hard to say when hot fusion will become profitable. However, having a reliable non-polluting fuel source like light helium available will definitely be an incentive to invest in getting the technology to the point at which commercial investors will be willing to take over. Lunar platinum can be the engine that drives the development of an infrastructure for mining on the Moon and returning product to Earth. The continuing need for platinum in fuel cells, combined with the growing affluence of Asian nations, the love for and need for automobiles in modern economies and lifestyles, and the energy picture of the future all point to a need for more platinum than is known to exist in the Earth’s crust. Astonishing as it may seem, it may very well be possible to mine platinum on Luna and return it to Earth profitably in the near future (Wingo, 2004). Of course, if fuel cells get sidelined by battery technology for automobiles, or if a cheap alternative to platinum in fuel cells is discovered, the financial logic for developing the lunar mining infrastructure disappears. Until something changes, though, the future demand for platinum appears to exceed Earth’s known supply by a considerable margin.

Although Luna has not been surveyed for platinum, there is good reason to suppose it exists there in some abundance. While Luna is deficient in heavy metals [relative to Earth] due to the circumstances of its creation (The StarChild Team, 2001), platinum in the crust of Earth and Luna comes from meteorites. All recoverable platinum on Earth is associated with impact craters. A bit of math suffices to give some idea of how much platinum we might expect to find on the surface of the Moon (Wingo, 2001).

Of course, the legal infrastructure for extracting resources from Luna is insufficient. A number of ideas to establish a proper legal framework have been proposed by better minds than mine. I’ve synthesized my favorites into a legal framework that (hopefully) allows for profitable exploitation of lunar resources and the sharing of the benefits of these resources with the owners of space resources: humankind as a whole. Luna needs to have a colonial government established, complete with a charter, governor-general, and so forth. The lunar colonial government, answering to the UN, then issues permits for resource extraction. The colonial government assesses fees and taxes for use of the lunar surface. The fees are used to create additional infrastructure to support ongoing and expanding operations. The taxes then go into a UN fund for distribution among the nation-states of Earth, with some taxes being retained to cover the costs of operating the lunar colonial government on Earth and, ultimately, on Luna herself. Distribution should be bicameral, so to speak. Every nation in the UN receives a uniform disbursement for being a sovereign state in the United Nations. Another portion of the taxes are divided into mills or millionths and awarded based on population. Thus small nations get a guaranteed minimum part of the proceeds, while very populous nations receive proceeds that reflect the greater share of ownership of the common resources of mankind. The corporations that fund such an operation receive no benefit whatsoever from relocating their headquarters to the Cayman Islands because taxes are paid to the lunar colonial government (the UN) regardless of which nation hosts the corporate headquarters or any portion of its administration. As an additional bonus, nations that are found to be out of compliance with human rights, democratic institutions and whatnot can have their part of the proceeds held until appropriate changes are made. Obviously, some sort of procedural safeguards will have to be put into place to minimize abuse.

Once a thriving lunar platinum business has been established, whole new vistas open up. Light helium extraction can exploit the existing infrastructure as soon as tokamak fusion appears profitable. With a permanent base on the Moon sustained by fees and taxes from resource extraction, the scientific community can conduct lunar research at a whole new level by leasing space at private or colonial government facilities (to the degree that these facilities are separate) on an as-needed basis. It’s all very exciting. Right now, though, we’re moving in the wrong direction. We’re treating the Moon as a sort of vacuum-packaged Antarctica suitable only for scientific uses paid for by government agencies. As long as we continue to go down this path, the Moon’s resources and its potential for generating fabulous wealth will go unrealized.



The StarChild Team. (2001). StarChild question of the month for
October, 2001. Retrieved from:
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/...uestion38.html.

Wingo, Dennis. (2004). Moonrush: Improving life on Earth with the Moon’s
resources. USA: Collector’s Guide Publishing, Inc.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Also, about the decommissioning, the shuttles were only designed with a 100 mission life expectancy anyways. They're time is due.

That's per shuttle, not all combined.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

If more world leaders would read Pale Blue Dot, we'd be living in better world and with more footprints on non-Earth bodies. A global space community is what we need.

I think Dr Michio Kaku is right -- if we want to survive as a species, we have to get off this planet. Expand our civilization into space. It's only way we're going to avoid running out of living room and resources, and history has shown that civilizations that stagnate die.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Also, about the decommissioning, the shuttles were only designed with a 100 mission life expectancy anyways. They're time is due.

The Shuttle was originally supposed to be replaced in the early 2000s by a new design. I remember Reagan talking about it -- he called it the National Aerospace Plane (NASP). At least he funded NASA. Every president and congress since after Reagan, as well as Carter, Nixon, and Ford, has shorted NASA in the budget. That's why we don't have any successor for the Shuttle now, and why the Shuttle isn't the design it was supposed to be. It's why the Apollo program got cut off suddenly after Apollo 17, instead of going to Apollo 21 like it was supposed to. It's why we have no permanent presence on the Moon.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

That's per shuttle, not all combined.

Yes, you are right - that wasn't very correct of me. What I was still trying to say though is that they're pushing their life expectancy.

The costs of upgrades just for safety measures alone over the years have arguably made it not worthwhile or financially proportional at all to continue with the decades old craft. A replacement has been needed for a while. Talk to retire/replace began in the 90s... almost 20 years ago.

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I think Dr Michio Kaku is right -- if we want to survive as a species, we have to get off this planet. Expand our civilization into space. It's only way we're going to avoid running out of living room and resources, and history has shown that civilizations that stagnate die.

Agree 100%. Only through international cooperation will I think that has a chance though. The resources needed are enormous and the government's focus always seems to elsewhere.

To illustrate that, the entire NASA budget is averages out to be only around 3% of the US military budget. And science often takes a backseat whenever it comes time to chopping costs. For example, when the government first cancelled the SETI program's budget, the cost of maintaining the program was that of a single attack helicopter - yet it was cancelled.

[Raellus]

Heard an interview with an author (I'll look up his name later) on NPR last Friday who pointed out that NASA is wasting literally billions of dollars on nonsensical programs. The example that jumps to mind is the huge sum being spent to refurbish the shuttle launch transporter caterpillar (which, with the retirement of the shuttle fleet, is entirely unnecessary).

He said that if all that money was redirected, a manned Mars mission would be plausible.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

The resources needed are enormous and the government's focus always seems to elsewhere.

To illustrate that, the entire NASA budget is averages out to be only around 3% of the US military budget. And science often takes a backseat whenever it comes time to chopping costs. For example, when the government first cancelled the SETI program's budget, the cost of maintaining the program was that of a single attack helicopter - yet it was cancelled.

This is why space has to be profitized in a rational manner that supports humanist goals. Representative government is a fair weather friend to any endeavor that requires a steady commitment of funds. The fate of NASA's plans should illustrate this problem abundantly. Private investors answer only to the call of profits, bounded by whatever regulations apply. Mind, I'm no card-carrying member of the Club for Growth. However, I recognize that there are sharp limitations to what the state can accomplish. The basic R&D needed for the development of lunar resources has been done or can be accomplished with the resources NASA has in hand. Now it's the turn of applied R&D (private R&D) to take over building the machines needed for the further development of the Moon. The primary role of the state is regulation and the construction of public infrastructure for developing the Moon.

I'm in favor of ongoing basic reserach, by the way. Robotic exploration of the solar system is exciting, albeit not as dramatic as manned missions. I'd be willing to see funds allocated for Dr. Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct program. Just as Ferdinand and Isabella paid for Columbus to do his thing, the state has a role in funding primary exploration--which is merely a variant on basic research. However, just as profit-minded parties took over investing in the exploration and exploitation of the New World, profit-minded parties need to build on the basic research conducted by NASA to this point and start getting materials and energy out of the Moon. We can learn from the horrible outcome of the conquest of the Americas for the indigenous inhabitants by ensuring that the state maintains a strong regulatory presence. This is why it's so imporant to create a charter for and staff a lunar colonial government in advance of resource exploitation.

Okay, I'm not very focused here. At the risk of sounding political, there are things the state does well and things capital does well. Ideally, capital and the state each support each other (unwillingly and often unwittingly) by pursuing their own interests. The state--in this case all of the states that harbor spacefaring capability--has failed to create a legal framework that clearly specifies rights of ownership, use, etc. that is an ironclad requisite for private investment on the scale necessary for the development of lunar resources. I would have thought that the US, a capitalist country, would have figured this one out already.

[Targan]

I very much applaud the above posts calling for the internationalisation of space and the sharing of space resources but I'm surpised such views are being openly expressed on this forum. In the not-so-distant past there have been shrill posts decrying UN. I had the impression that many (a significant minority or maybe even a majority) of Americans think the UN is an evil organisation intent on imposing a world government and stealing away Americans' hard won freedoms.

Personally I'm a great supporter of the UN (although I think it is perpetually hamstrung by the veto powers of the permanent Security Council members) and I'd love to see the UN used as a means to help all of humanity benefit from the bounties of space. Luna would be just a start. The asteroid belt contains absolutely vast mineral riches. The atmosphere of the gas giants could be mined for almost limitless amounts of Helium-3.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Targan

I had the impression that many (a significant minority or maybe even a majority) of Americans think the UN is an evil organisation intent on imposing a world government and stealing away Americans' hard won freedoms.

Not everybody listens to Alex Jones I guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL17ST243as

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

What I was still trying to say though is that they're pushing their life expectancy.

Not even close to it. None of the shuttles is past 40% of their life expectancy based on number of flights per.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by Targan

I very much applaud the above posts calling for the internationalisation of space and the sharing of space resources but I'm surpised such views are being openly expressed on this forum.

"Internationalization" of space has been a reality for many years. The ISS is just one example. But you're making a serious mistake in thinking that internationalization automatically equates to UN involvement or that it requires the UN to happen. It doesn't. Nor should it.

Originally Posted by Targan

In the not-so-distant past there have been shrill posts decrying UN. I had the impression that many (a significant minority or maybe even a majority) of Americans think the UN is an evil organisation intent on imposing a world government and stealing away Americans' hard won freedoms.

It's not evil. It's inept. The rest of your assertion is essentially correct.

Originally Posted by Targan

Personally I'm a great supporter of the UN (although I think it is perpetually hamstrung by the veto powers of the permanent Security Council members)

It's that power that blocks the UN from being truly abused by nations with nasty agendas. It helped check the USSR during the Cold War, and it's kept the US from being even more overbearing than it was while Bushes were in office. The problem with the SC isn't the veto power. It's non-democratic regimes having the veto power.

Originally Posted by Targan

and I'd love to see the UN used as a means to help all of humanity benefit from the bounties of space. Luna would be just a start. The asteroid belt contains absolutely vast mineral riches. The atmosphere of the gas giants could be mined for almost limitless amounts of Helium-3.

It's precisely the UN why there isn't more commercial development of space. A certain treaty destroys any incentive because individual nations, much less private concerns, cannot lay claim to anything beyond Earth's atmosphere. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as it prevented a massive "land grab" years ago. But now that technology, and commercial interest, has advanced to the point where it's feasible to begin tapping the wealth in the rest of the solar system there's no framework that permits it. It's been under discussion in the UN for well over a decade and there's little hope that any agreement will be coming out of the UN anytime in the next decade.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

I'm afraid that there is a bit of erroneous info in your post.

One of the rumored UFOs that are occasionally sighted is attributed to the much-discussed, never-acknowledged "Aurora" hypervelocity aircraft. Alleged successor to the SR-71.

Undoubtably Aurora has been one of the aircraft detected over UK airspace, and thats no suprise given the close relations between the US and British militaries and the fact that SR-71s have been frequently based in England, and Aurora and her sonic booms and contrails have been sighted, tracked and detected across the western US since the late 80's. But Blackstar seems to be a different type of aircraft that seems to be specificaly focused on orbital operations, possibly manned but more likely unmanned.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

American astronauts have been in Russian rockets since the 90s too.

And they have been on Russian spacecraft since 1975, but the point is that America has had its own space launchers, now they dont have any and have to rely on its traditional competitor in space until a successer to the Space Shuttle is determined. Do you not see the irony of it all?

I'd realy love to know what the surviving Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts realy think of all this.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Not even close to it. None of the shuttles is past 40% of their life expectancy based on number of flights per.

Afraid so. It isn't just a matter of counting up the flight time. They're nearly falling apart. There's only so many times they can be refurbished and the parts replaced. The OVs are in bad shape, leading to disproportionate maintenance costs and safety issues. Just look at the budgeting figures, the maintenance costs keep rising as do the failures. It takes on average now no less than 3 months to get a shuttle capable of a subsequent launch. Even NASA stopped defending the STS and sees them as a money pit.

They need to be replaced with a new model with a different mission design. IMO, NASA should takes some lessons from the Europeans. Their agency launches more rockets and with a better success rate and cost than anyone. It costs the space shuttle 5000$/per kilo of cargo... it costs their European competitors only about 2-3000$/ per kilo of cargo.

Old age and an expensive cost killed the STS.

I've seen nothing said differently in any journal, but if you have something that shows that they aren't past their time, I'd like to read it.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by RN7

And they have been on Russian spacecraft since 1975, but the point is that America has had its own space launchers, now they dont have any and have to rely on its traditional competitor in space until a successer to the Space Shuttle is determined. Do you not see the irony of it all?

I know what you are getting at, but I disagree to the point that future progress in space is going to require such cooperation and a merging of space programs. That's all.

[Raellus]

One possible near-future route back into space is for NASA to team up with private companies like this one:

http://www.spacex.com/

Apparently, this company can launch 3 Falcon X (or Heavy) rockets for less that it would take NASA to launch one Saturn V rocket (in today's dollars). It would take 3 Falcon's though, to carry the payload of a Saturn V. This according to the author I mentioned earlier.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Heard an interview with an author (I'll look up his name later) on NPR last Friday who pointed out that NASA is wasting literally billions of dollars on nonsensical programs. The example that jumps to mind is the huge sum being spent to refurbish the shuttle launch transporter caterpillar (which, with the retirement of the shuttle fleet, is entirely unnecessary).

He said that if all that money was redirected, a manned Mars mission would be plausible.

This is probably the reason why Obama cancelled the Orion programe, the absolute wastage of resources by NASA. NASA's budget is three times the size of the combined official Russian and Chinese space programe, yet both Russia and China have successful and operational launchers for manned space missions which are cheaper than the Space Shuttle.

Although it has to be stated that there is less distinction between the civilian and military space programmes of Russia and China than the US, and American military space launching capabilities has not been effected as its essentially unmanned (officially), NASA seems to have been punished for bad management and the squandering its resources by the politicians and bureaucracy that runs it, at the expense of its highly capable scientists, engineers and astronauts.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

I know what you are getting at, but I disagree to the point that future progress in space is going to require such cooperation and a merging of space programs. That's all.

Well that might depend on the project. A Mars mission might be one a project that requires international cooperation, but it also depends on the country and what its relative technical resources are. Cooperation might work well with the Europeans or smaller space powers, but the US, Russia and China prefer to do things independently or at least have a leadership role.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by RN7

Cooperation might work well with the Europeans or smaller space powers, but the US, Russia and China prefer to do things independently or at least have a leadership role.

My point is that maybe they should, since nobody has stepped foot on any non-Earth object in nearly 40 years.

In fact, it's been nearly 40 years since any human has been beyond Earth's low orbit.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

They need to be replaced with a new model with a different mission design. IMO, NASA should takes some lessons from the Europeans. Their agency launches more rockets and with a better success rate and cost than anyone. It costs the space shuttle 5000$/per kilo of cargo... it costs their European competitors only about 2-3000$/ per kilo of cargo

This essentially part of the problem with NASA. They had nearly 30 years to come up with a successor or cheaper alternative to the Space Shuttle, and what they came up with was the Orion/Constellation project which was only formulated in 2005 right towards the end of the Shuttle's life span, and was a hugely ambitious and vastly expensive programe to replace the Space Shuttle with what the Space Shuttle had originally been designed to replace in the first place. The Ares V rocket which was the ultimate launch system of the whole project for a manned moon shot was designed to have a maximum payload capacity of 188 tons to LEO and 71 tons to the Moon, and has variably been described as a Saturn V on steroids.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by RN7

This essentially part of the problem with NASA. They had nearly 30 years to come up with a successor or cheaper alternative to the Space Shuttle, and what they came up with was the Orion/Constellation project which was only formulated in 2005 right towards the end of the Shuttle's life span, and was a hugely ambitious and vastly expensive programe to replace the Space Shuttle with what the Space Shuttle had originally been designed to replace in the first place. The Ares V rocket which was the ultimate launch system of the whole project for a manned moon shot was designed to have a maximum payload capacity of 188 tons to LEO and 71 tons to the Moon, and has variably been described as a Saturn V on steroids.

I agree.

[Matt Wiser]

Has anyone here read the Augustine Commission report? It's available at nasa.gov (just google it and you'll get the link). They pointed out the painful truth that NASA couldn't do two things at once: operate shuttle and build the successor system. Then there was the problem with the Constellation program: behind schedule, over budget, and underfunded each year by a third, with launch dates slipping, the crew launcher (Ares I) eating up so much money that there wasn't any for either Ares V (heavy-lift) or the lunar lander and surface systems. No lunar landing was felt possible by 2040 with Constellation. Now, NASA leadership under Mike Griffin is responsible for charging ahead, assuming the money would be there when it wasn't, being overoptimistic about milestones and deadlines, and so on.

Augustine rejected the Mars first approach: too many unknowns as yet, more technology R&D needed for things like advanced propulsion systems, closed-loop life support, radiation protection, human biomedical research, etc. They also rejected the Moon first: namely because the other problem with Constellation was that you had to develop everything at once: crew vehicle, crew launcher, heavy-lift, and the lander/surface systems. And delays on one (or more) drive up the costs for all. They offered instead what MIT Professor Ed Crawley offers as the "Flexible Path" (I was a Moon first person myself, but he did a presentation at the Cape last year-try finding it on NASA's youtube channel and sold me on it when I saw the youtube video) in which he outlines a human exploration program based on two things: build things only when you need them, and there's only a handful of objects in the inner solar system that you can land on anyway (Moon, Mars, Mars' moons, and several of the larger asteroids). His approach is this: build the heavy-lift vehicle, build the crew module, and start going places. Get some basic exploration done, such as lunar orbit, Lagrange Points (both Earth-Moon and Earth-Sun), go to an asteroid like a NEO (Near Earth Object) and meet up with it-you would likely EVA over to it instead of landing-coupled with a Venus flyby to get home, and while we're doing that, develop the lunar stuff like the lander and surface systems (rover, spacesuits, etc.) so that in the late 2020s, we're ready to go back. And while lunar exploration is going, keep flying the deep space missions, because we'll need both to prep for a Mars mission. First, do a Mars flyby. Then go into Martian orbit, and land on one of Mars' moons: things like operating a Mars rover from orbit would be possible-and do it in conjunction with sample return. Finally, shoot for the big prize: a human Mars landing. By 2040.

As for LEO (Low Earth Orbit): turn the mission of supporting the ISS (crew rotation and cargo delivery) to the private sector (this was pre-Augustine: the Bush Administration got this going in '06). Every NASA spacecraft launched was designed and built by the private sector with NASA oversight, but NASA was the end user. Instead, let NASA buy seats on a commercially operated vehicle, but with NASA in charge of safety. This would enable a commercial space industry to grow-similar to the government turning air mail over to commercial air carriers back in the 1920s instead of relying on the U.S. Army Air Service-and attract not only government space agencies (ESA, JAXA, Canadian Space Agency), but research institutions, and other countries that would like to fly astronauts, but can't afford a space program of their own. It would also foster space tourism. The three leading companies for this contract are Boeing, Orbital Science, and Space X. NASA would like to choose multiple providers, so that if one runs into trouble and has to stand down (after an accident, say), the other two can pick up the slack. NASA can either handle the LEO mission or the BEO mission: it doesn't have the budget to do both. Handing the LEO mission to contractors frees up NASA resources and funds to go into exploration (that's $2 Billion a year added to the exploration side). Commercial could also support exploration with things like On-orbit propellant depots, where a rocket launched with a big payload could refuel in orbit before going to its final destination (NASA or the other agencies-DOD, the Intelligence community, ESA, JAXA, etc. would be customers: the contractor would own the facility and be responsible for restocking it).

Congress is skeptical of the Commercial sector, and Elon Musk, the CEO of Space X, is his own worst enemy: he's shot his mouth off about "retiring on Mars" and other such nonsense. He comes off as a "Rocket Boy" or "Space Hobbyist" to many. The Commercial Space Foundation last year had a symposium which said in a nutshell: "To silence the skeptics (Congressional and otherwise-count Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan, and Jim Lovell among the latter), we need to stop talking and start flying. Repeatedly." Only flying a crew and returning them home will convince the doubters (and I'm one of them-do I think they can handle the mission? Yes. But they need to prove it). Pencil in 2014 or early 2015 for the first commercial crew rotation flight to ISS.

NASA's about to announce their Heavy-Lift vehicle (the Orion capsule from Constellation was announced as the basis for their crew vehicle) in a few days. Pencil in late 2016-early 2017 for first BEO mission.

It'll be a painful few years, but there will be good times coming.

[RN7]

A manned Mars mission or even a Moon shot is unviable at the moment due to the economic problems effecting most of the world. Currently only Russia could send anyone to the Moon and it couldn't even think of affording it, while China has the money and ambition but not the technology.

America with an injection of funding has the technology to develop both Lunar and Mars capable launchers and spacecraft, but the US civilan space programe has been so badly managed that no US administration is going to fund it.

I think a Mars mission is probably a generation away and we are looking at mid 21st century at the very least. By that time its likely that the political and technological field will have changed. I can still see America as one of the leaders, but China may be the main competitor as others fall off or realign themselves. A Joint mission may be on the cards, we might even see two missions with America and China each leading a rival consortium of nations.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Afraid so.

'Fraid not.

Originally Posted by Fusilier

They're nearly falling apart. There's only so many times they can be refurbished and the parts replaced. The OVs are in bad shape, leading to disproportionate maintenance costs and safety issues.

You live in Bangkok. I live 20 miles from the shuttle launch pads at Kennedy Space Center. My neighbors and I work at KSC. You seem to know things that those of us who actually work on them don't. The orbiters are no more "falling apart" than commercial airliners with similar flight hours and frame stresses are. And commercial airliners fly for decades, thanks to similar maintenance and periodic refurbishments as the shuttles go through. Actually, a better comparison would be military cargo transports.

BTW, look up when the last B-52 rolled off the assembly line.

Originally Posted by Fusilier

It takes on average now no less than 3 months to get a shuttle capable of a subsequent launch.

That's mostly due to red tape and massively redundant safety checks in the wake of two disasters. The actual work only takes a couple of weeks.

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Even NASA stopped defending the STS and sees them as a money pit.

They've always been a money pit. It was a bad design from the get-go.

Originally Posted by Fusilier

It costs the space shuttle 5000$/per kilo of cargo... it costs their European competitors only about 2-3000$/ per kilo of cargo.

You should compare apples to apples. Such as cost to LEO of the Delta or Atlas models comparable to the ESA launchers. The STS is not used to haul commercial sats into space, and the ESA has no booster that can lift the loads the shuttle's been lifting. Hell, there is no in-production booster that can. If there was the shuttle would have been retired years ago.

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Old age and an expensive cost killed the STS.

No. Bad design, a penny-pinching pound-foolish Congress, bad PR by NASA, and bad program management by NASA (leading to two major disasters) killed the STS.

[RN7]

Matt I think Ed Crawley "Flexible Path" would be the way to go for America's space programe, however I think the US civilian space programe would become a bit chaotic if an unregulated commercial sector started taking charge or having a dominant role in it, not that NASA's hitherto management of it could be called anything but chaotic. The Russian and Chinese space programes, and in fact the US military programe seems far more ordered and practical. Maybe if you put the USAF in charge of NASA's budget and then invited the commercial sector to take a greater role and attracted foreign space agencies to participate it might work.