Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Thursday June 21 2018, @08:30AM   Printer-friendly
from the rosie-jetson dept.

NASA's Space Launch System: Rocketing Towards Cancellation?

The National Space Society recently held a conference in Los Angeles, and SLS was apparently a hot topic at the gathering. Over the course of four days of mingling with space industry muckety-mucks, Politico Space reports it heard multiple rumblings that bode ill for the Space Launch System money-pot.

For one thing, SLS has been marketed as key to NASA's efforts to eventually put astronauts on Mars. But as Politico reports, attendees at the conference expressed doubts as to "the wisdom or efficacy of a crewed mission to Mars in the next decade." California Republican and House space subcommittee member Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, for one, criticized the technology as too immature to support a manned Mars mission, saying "I think all this talk about going to Mars has been premature," and warning that NASA won't actually be ready to conduct a manned Mars mission before "20 years from now, maybe more."

Astronaut Chris Hadfield says the rockets from NASA, SpaceX, and Blue Origin won't take people to Mars

[Chris] Hadfield, who's now retired, shares his expertise about rockets, spaceships, spacewalking, and Mars exploration in a new web course on the online platform MasterClass. To follow up on those lessons, we asked Hadfield what he thinks about the future rocket ships of three major players in the new space race: NASA's Space Launch System, SpaceX's Big Falcon Rocket, and Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket.

[...] "Personally, I don't think any of those three rockets is taking people to Mars," Hadfield told Business Insider. " I don't think those are a practical way to send people to Mars because they're dangerous and it takes too long."

Response to Hadfield's remarks: SpaceX BFR can be used for massive space development, orbital, lunar and Mars colonization

Former astronaut criticizes lunar gateway plans

A former NASA astronaut used an appearance at a National Space Council meeting June 18 to argue that a key element of NASA's plans to return humans to the moon should be reconsidered.

Appearing on a panel during the meeting at the White House, Terry Virts said that the proposed Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway, a human-tended facility in orbit around the moon, wasn't an effective next step in human spaceflight beyond Earth orbit after the International Space Station.

"It essentially calls for building another orbital space station, a skill my colleagues and I have already demonstrated on the ISS," he said. "Gateway will only slow us down, taking time and precious dollars away from the goal of returning to the lunar surface and eventually flying to Mars."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Thursday June 21 2018, @09:43AM (5 children)

    by bradley13 (3053) on Thursday June 21 2018, @09:43AM (#696112) Homepage Journal

    NASA has long been conquered by Pournelle's Iron Law. They still manage the odd science missions, although even those come at enormous prices and with massive problems (Hubble, Webb). Otherwise? NASA is just another money pit.

    The best way to get people to Mars, or whatever goal we agree is worthwhile? Hang out an X-prize, and let private industry go for it.

    It will also be necessary to eliminate a lot of regulations. Space travel is dangerous, the people signing up for it know that, but private companies will still risk being sued into oblivion when (not if) the first fatal accident happens.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Thursday June 21 2018, @10:03AM (3 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday June 21 2018, @10:03AM (#696116) Journal

    New Horizons, Juno, Dawn, Kepler, TESS, etc. have had reasonable prices. What's the difference? They are part of programs that limit funding, use proven technologies, etc.:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Frontiers_program [wikipedia.org]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Program [wikipedia.org]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorers_Program [wikipedia.org]

    Kepler in particular has created a lot of excitement, and now TESS is going to multiply the number of known exoplanets at about a third of the cost.

    The ESA's approach is similar, and necessary since they have a much smaller budget:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Vision [wikipedia.org]

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @03:36PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 21 2018, @03:36PM (#696226)

      The thing is they are not manned spaceflight, they do things efficiently, directly and not waste money because of imbecillic politicos engages in money-assigning squabbles, and we all know it. I don't know what astronaut Hadfield is smoking, but it must be affecting his judgment, sorry to be nasty. Those private rockets are the only way wee will get anywhere long-term. Only nassty compertition and commercial fight will do it for us.

      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday June 21 2018, @04:18PM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday June 21 2018, @04:18PM (#696252) Journal

        GP cited unmanned Hubble and Webb as money wasters.

        As NextBigFuture notes, BFR can be used to get to Mars rather quickly. Radiation shielding mass is negotiable... with in-orbit refueling, you get to send up to 150 tons to Mars. Orion is under 26 tons. BFS empty mass is 85 tons (and I don't think that counts against the 150 tons). So feel free to add some shielding.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday June 21 2018, @05:44PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 21 2018, @05:44PM (#696319) Journal

      The Webb is sure behind schedule and over cost, but TESS won't do what Webb was(is?) planned to do.

      This is partially complexity, and partially administrative meddling, and partially legislative interference. I can't tell how much, if any, is corruption or incompetence, but I assume at least some.

      The thing is, you can't avoid corruption and incompetence, but you can avoid budgets that change every few years, and goals that change with elections.

      There are arguments in favor of shutting down agencies every few years, but that disrupts long term planning even worse than election cycles.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Thursday June 21 2018, @06:53PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday June 21 2018, @06:53PM (#696355)

    > They still manage the odd science missions

    I would prefer if they stopped funding the n+1 mission to find out if there was ever life on Mars, and stop scrubbing their probes.
    On its surface, Mars seems to have dismissed the best evolution may have thrown at it. Knowing it was there is cute, finding if something is left deep in a corner would be good, but knowing how to survive and not be the next casualty is better.