18 ms·

Senate panel authorizes money for Mars mission, shuttle replacement

100 points by mcamaj 10y ago

TeMPOraL 10y ago
Great! > • Expand the full use and life of the space station through 2024 while laying the foundation for use through 2028. So does that mean ISS is not going to be abandoned by 2024?
- Retric 10y ago
  Keeping something launched into LEO 1998 in operation for 26+ years seems to be pushing it. Many parts have been replaced over time, but the shell is in a very harsh environment. Hopefully with the modular nature they should be able to let old sections go.
  - nickff 10y ago
    The problem with the International Space Station (ISS) is the ISS. It was an exercise in 80s and 90s design, and you could launch an equally capable science platform at a lower cost than refurbishing the current station. One of the main reasons why NASA is reluctant to replace the existing station is that they are afraid that the program would get cancelled, and they will be left with no station.
    - speeder 10y ago
      Also the I part of ISS kept the world space research orbiting around NASA. For example Brazil make every single research that requires a station (including vehicles, modules and medical science) use the ISS. Without the ISS Brazil could for example attempt its own station, or help China instead. NASA is very powerful, but if everyone help China or Russia instead, it would be bad for USA strategically.
      - rangibaby 10y ago
        "Control" of space isn't a big deal as long as nations respect the no weapons treaty. Afaik it is possible for ground-based weapons to destroy satellites too. I guess a satellite that could find submarines or hidden nuke sites would be useful in peacetime, if you were planning a first strike.
      - nickff 10y ago
        I am not sure that many countries would want to get involved in the Chinese space program, which has always been secretive, and dominated by nationalist goals rather than scientific ones. It seems that the Russians would welcome other participants in their program, though it seems unlikely that Brazil would want to fund what appears to be a struggling and lackluster Russian program. I am also not sure why a reduction in international collaborators for NASA would be strategically bad for the USA. I am a strong proponent of space exploration, but NASA is not an important part of US military strategy; NASA is mostly a luxury which allows the US to demonstrate its technological supremacy.
      - serge2k 10y ago
        > it would be bad for USA strategically Why? it would be bad the US ego.
      - 0xffff2 10y ago
        As a NASA employee, I find the phrase "NASA is very powerful" amussing in any context. That said, I think the far more likely outcome of the ISS being abandoned without a replacement would be that most countries would simply not invest at all in space-based research. The Russians just don't have the budget to build a station on their own, and I doubt the Chinese would welcome international collaboration.
      - outworlder 10y ago
        > Without the ISS Brazil could for example attempt its own station, or help China instead. Are you kidding me? Brazil does not even have launch capabilities and may never have. It's "space agency" employs 6 people, including a typist.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    My worry here is that if ISS gets shut down completely without another station being already at least partially in orbit, there won't be enough political will to start another project like that.
    - Bluestrike2 10y ago
      Historically, that's probably the most likely outcome. NASA has always faced tough political battles for funding all the way back to the middle of the Apollo program and nowhere has that been more apparent than when NASA was trying to replace one major project with another. If you're interested, John Logsdon's After Apollo? Richard Nixon and the American Space Program is a fascinating--albeit depressing--book on the politics of NASA funding. It mainly focuses on Apollo and the transition to STS (and covers some of the alternative paths people at NASA wanted to pursue), but I have no doubt whatsoever that many of the same challenges will plague any ISS replacement, whatever it may be.
      - mturmon 10y ago
        Here's a nice Logsdon essay on the interaction between NASA and the freshly-elected President Reagan -- https://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/The_Survival_Crisis.revised_Logsdon%5B1%5D.pdf https://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/The_Survival_Crisis.rev...
    - idlewords 10y ago
      That would be an ideal outcome. The ISS is a huge resource sink compared to the kinds of unmanned probes that could be launched at a fraction of its budget.
- baq 10y ago
  consider this: one full-size bigelow inflatable module has more volume than the 1/3 of ISS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B330 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B330. three launches to get a bigger ISS. think about it.
  - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
    But will it last long enough, will it be reliable? If so, great, take it.
Grishnakh 10y ago
Oh please. Sure, they'll authorize money for some big things right now, then in a year or two they'll change their minds (after new people are elected) and pull the plug on it. They've done it over and over. The only way the US can get anything done in space exploration is if it can be fully funded and completed in less than 2 years. So a little probe here and there is completely doable, but a Space Shuttle replacement or manned Mars mission or any other big project is a complete no-go. It won't ever happen.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  Not sure why you're getting downvoted for this. Congressional waffling, presidents wanting to make their own mark on space policy, etc. have all done this many times. Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program
  - nickff 10y ago
    The current president killed Constellation, it wasn't Congress. The next president is likely to kill SLS, or perhaps just 'limit' it, so that SLS preserves the jobs, but loses the missions.
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      Congress was one of two scenarios I mentioned. The other, "presidents wanting to make their own mark on space policy", is exactly what Constellation was - both in its inception, and its cancellation.
- nugga 10y ago
  Some people call SLS the senate launch system [1] because it's a blatant jobs program. It'll be inefficient and overprized project to deliver stuff that the private sector could handle much better. [1] http://www.competitivespace.org/issues/the-senate-launch-system/ http://www.competitivespace.org/issues/the-senate-launch-sys...
nickff 10y ago
The worst part of this news is the continuation of the Space Launch System (SLS), which has cost over seven billion dollars (not including Ares development costs), and is expected to end up costing forty-one billion by 2025, by which time they expect to complete a total of four launches (destination: nowhere important, and probably late). Vulcan (from ULA), New Glenn (from Blue Origin), and Falcon Heavy (from SpaceX) are all better platforms for space exploration, which could enable science (such as the Europa mission) and travel (to Mars), and cost far less than SLS (in development and $/kg to orbit). NASA should be spending money on missions, not rocket development.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  The correct acronym for SLS is Senate Launch System.
  - HillRat 10y ago
    Oh, are we planning to launch the Senate into LEO? That seems like a winner of an election-year policy proposal.
- thelambentonion 10y ago
  Vulcan, New Glenn, and the Falcon Heavy really aren't in the same league as the SLS, at least as far as lifting capacity is concerned. I think the SLS is an excellent use of NASA's time and money at the moment. They're using proven technology to build a system that they can either: - fall back on in the event that commercial companies aren't able to deliver something comparable - still act as a viable launch platform if cheaper alternatives are somehow disabled (e.g. another Falcon failure)
hacker42 10y ago
Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but space exploration strikes me as a waste of money and energy. The universe is clearly no good for space travel, otherwise we would witness aliens visiting us. It's empty and hostile. This planet is the only realistic long-term home. Sure, space stuff gets kids into science, but I wonder how many more kids we would get into science by investing billions of dollars in education instead. We know enough about space for now. We've sent robots to Mars and the photos show it's just dust. Right now we need to solve sustainability, global warming, super bugs, cancer, aging, friendly AI, pollution, global cooperation etc. Space can wait.
- bpodgursky 10y ago
  > We've sent robots to Mars and the photos show it's just dust. We sent boats into the Atlantic, it turns out it's just water. Guess there's no point looking any farther.
  - hacker42 10y ago
    Yes, I think the same about deep sea exploration.
    - zbyte64 10y ago
      Ya, because who needs to know about exotic microbes living in extreme conditions at the bottom of the ocean. /s
      - hacker42 10y ago
        It's almost certainly irrelevant for our survival, but it's also not expensive enough for me to care.
- politician 10y ago
  It turns out that one really good way to solve issues like sustainability is to set a bunch of really smart folks about the difficult task of creating a sustainable ecosystem without any outside help (e.g. an atmosphere). The payoff is a set of technologies, tools, and experiences that can be used in more abundant ecosystems (e.g. planet-side). This "spinoff" effect is very well understood and documented.
sehugg 10y ago
We expect headlines to be "truthy" these days, but this bill does not actually authorize money for any Mars mission. There is no Mars mission. There is policy, and a strategic framework, and a critical decision plan, and a Congressional goal of new propulsion tech and a new spacesuit: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/3346/text#toc-id35ffe0125e0f4c929eae4f08ea6c9a31 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/334...
Animats 10y ago
At least they want to fund the Commercial Crew project. Space-X should have sent a manned Dragon capsule to the ISS by now. There seems to be political pressure to hold them back until ULA can catch up. (Space-X now claims they know why they had a pad explosion. They're saying "breach in the helium system".[1] But what caused that? What part has to be changed? This just came out a few hours ago, so the details are lacking.) [1] http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/23/13031308/spacex-falcon-9-rocket-explosion-cause-cryogenic-helium-system http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/23/13031308/spacex-falcon-9-r...
- baq 10y ago
  the truth is that the crew dragon has significant issues still: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/09/04/spacex-crew-dragon-challenges-welds-cracks-water-seepage/ http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/09/04/spacex-crew-dragon-ch...
- SEJeff 10y ago
  Word on the street (read r/SpaceX) is it was caused by a failing COPV.
  - emp_zealoth 10y ago
    What is COPV
  - jbott 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_overwrapped_pressure_vessel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_overwrapped_pressure...
- thelambentonion 10y ago
  > There seems to be political pressure to hold them back until ULA can catch up. Source? SpaceX is innovating phenomenally quickly, especially in this industry. Nothing really seems to be holding them back at the moment.
l3m0ndr0p 10y ago
This money would be better spent on Universal healthcare (AKA Single payer). Free to all citizens of the USA. This money is only going to the contractors involved. It serves no other purpose. Send better drones to the planets.

100 points by mcamaj 10y ago

Great! > • Expand the full use and life of the space station through 2024 while laying the foundation for use through 2028. So does that mean ISS is not going to be abandoned by 2024?

Retric 10y ago
Keeping something launched into LEO 1998 in operation for 26+ years seems to be pushing it. Many parts have been replaced over time, but the shell is in a very harsh environment. Hopefully with the modular nature they should be able to let old sections go.
- nickff 10y ago
  The problem with the International Space Station (ISS) is the ISS. It was an exercise in 80s and 90s design, and you could launch an equally capable science platform at a lower cost than refurbishing the current station. One of the main reasons why NASA is reluctant to replace the existing station is that they are afraid that the program would get cancelled, and they will be left with no station.
  - speeder 10y ago
    Also the I part of ISS kept the world space research orbiting around NASA. For example Brazil make every single research that requires a station (including vehicles, modules and medical science) use the ISS. Without the ISS Brazil could for example attempt its own station, or help China instead. NASA is very powerful, but if everyone help China or Russia instead, it would be bad for USA strategically.
    - rangibaby 10y ago
      "Control" of space isn't a big deal as long as nations respect the no weapons treaty. Afaik it is possible for ground-based weapons to destroy satellites too. I guess a satellite that could find submarines or hidden nuke sites would be useful in peacetime, if you were planning a first strike.
    - nickff 10y ago
      I am not sure that many countries would want to get involved in the Chinese space program, which has always been secretive, and dominated by nationalist goals rather than scientific ones. It seems that the Russians would welcome other participants in their program, though it seems unlikely that Brazil would want to fund what appears to be a struggling and lackluster Russian program. I am also not sure why a reduction in international collaborators for NASA would be strategically bad for the USA. I am a strong proponent of space exploration, but NASA is not an important part of US military strategy; NASA is mostly a luxury which allows the US to demonstrate its technological supremacy.
    - serge2k 10y ago
      > it would be bad for USA strategically Why? it would be bad the US ego.
    - 0xffff2 10y ago
      As a NASA employee, I find the phrase "NASA is very powerful" amussing in any context. That said, I think the far more likely outcome of the ISS being abandoned without a replacement would be that most countries would simply not invest at all in space-based research. The Russians just don't have the budget to build a station on their own, and I doubt the Chinese would welcome international collaboration.
    - outworlder 10y ago
      > Without the ISS Brazil could for example attempt its own station, or help China instead. Are you kidding me? Brazil does not even have launch capabilities and may never have. It's "space agency" employs 6 people, including a typist.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  My worry here is that if ISS gets shut down completely without another station being already at least partially in orbit, there won't be enough political will to start another project like that.
  - Bluestrike2 10y ago
    Historically, that's probably the most likely outcome. NASA has always faced tough political battles for funding all the way back to the middle of the Apollo program and nowhere has that been more apparent than when NASA was trying to replace one major project with another. If you're interested, John Logsdon's After Apollo? Richard Nixon and the American Space Program is a fascinating--albeit depressing--book on the politics of NASA funding. It mainly focuses on Apollo and the transition to STS (and covers some of the alternative paths people at NASA wanted to pursue), but I have no doubt whatsoever that many of the same challenges will plague any ISS replacement, whatever it may be.
    - mturmon 10y ago
      Here's a nice Logsdon essay on the interaction between NASA and the freshly-elected President Reagan -- https://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/The_Survival_Crisis.revised_Logsdon%5B1%5D.pdf https://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/The_Survival_Crisis.rev...
  - idlewords 10y ago
    That would be an ideal outcome. The ISS is a huge resource sink compared to the kinds of unmanned probes that could be launched at a fraction of its budget.
baq 10y ago
consider this: one full-size bigelow inflatable module has more volume than the 1/3 of ISS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B330 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B330. three launches to get a bigger ISS. think about it.
- NotSammyHagar 10y ago
  But will it last long enough, will it be reliable? If so, great, take it.

Grishnakh 10y ago

Oh please. Sure, they'll authorize money for some big things right now, then in a year or two they'll change their minds (after new people are elected) and pull the plug on it. They've done it over and over. The only way the US can get anything done in space exploration is if it can be fully funded and completed in less than 2 years. So a little probe here and there is completely doable, but a Space Shuttle replacement or manned Mars mission or any other big project is a complete no-go. It won't ever happen.

ceejayoz 10y ago
Not sure why you're getting downvoted for this. Congressional waffling, presidents wanting to make their own mark on space policy, etc. have all done this many times. Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program
- nickff 10y ago
  The current president killed Constellation, it wasn't Congress. The next president is likely to kill SLS, or perhaps just 'limit' it, so that SLS preserves the jobs, but loses the missions.
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    Congress was one of two scenarios I mentioned. The other, "presidents wanting to make their own mark on space policy", is exactly what Constellation was - both in its inception, and its cancellation.
nugga 10y ago
Some people call SLS the senate launch system [1] because it's a blatant jobs program. It'll be inefficient and overprized project to deliver stuff that the private sector could handle much better. [1] http://www.competitivespace.org/issues/the-senate-launch-system/ http://www.competitivespace.org/issues/the-senate-launch-sys...

nickff 10y ago

The worst part of this news is the continuation of the Space Launch System (SLS), which has cost over seven billion dollars (not including Ares development costs), and is expected to end up costing forty-one billion by 2025, by which time they expect to complete a total of four launches (destination: nowhere important, and probably late). Vulcan (from ULA), New Glenn (from Blue Origin), and Falcon Heavy (from SpaceX) are all better platforms for space exploration, which could enable science (such as the Europa mission) and travel (to Mars), and cost far less than SLS (in development and $/kg to orbit). NASA should be spending money on missions, not rocket development.

maxxxxx 10y ago
The correct acronym for SLS is Senate Launch System.
- HillRat 10y ago
  Oh, are we planning to launch the Senate into LEO? That seems like a winner of an election-year policy proposal.
thelambentonion 10y ago
Vulcan, New Glenn, and the Falcon Heavy really aren't in the same league as the SLS, at least as far as lifting capacity is concerned. I think the SLS is an excellent use of NASA's time and money at the moment. They're using proven technology to build a system that they can either: - fall back on in the event that commercial companies aren't able to deliver something comparable - still act as a viable launch platform if cheaper alternatives are somehow disabled (e.g. another Falcon failure)

hacker42 10y ago

Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but space exploration strikes me as a waste of money and energy. The universe is clearly no good for space travel, otherwise we would witness aliens visiting us. It's empty and hostile. This planet is the only realistic long-term home. Sure, space stuff gets kids into science, but I wonder how many more kids we would get into science by investing billions of dollars in education instead. We know enough about space for now. We've sent robots to Mars and the photos show it's just dust. Right now we need to solve sustainability, global warming, super bugs, cancer, aging, friendly AI, pollution, global cooperation etc. Space can wait.

bpodgursky 10y ago
> We've sent robots to Mars and the photos show it's just dust. We sent boats into the Atlantic, it turns out it's just water. Guess there's no point looking any farther.
- hacker42 10y ago
  Yes, I think the same about deep sea exploration.
  - zbyte64 10y ago
    Ya, because who needs to know about exotic microbes living in extreme conditions at the bottom of the ocean. /s
    - hacker42 10y ago
      It's almost certainly irrelevant for our survival, but it's also not expensive enough for me to care.
politician 10y ago
It turns out that one really good way to solve issues like sustainability is to set a bunch of really smart folks about the difficult task of creating a sustainable ecosystem without any outside help (e.g. an atmosphere). The payoff is a set of technologies, tools, and experiences that can be used in more abundant ecosystems (e.g. planet-side). This "spinoff" effect is very well understood and documented.

sehugg 10y ago

We expect headlines to be "truthy" these days, but this bill does not actually authorize money for any Mars mission. There is no Mars mission. There is policy, and a strategic framework, and a critical decision plan, and a Congressional goal of new propulsion tech and a new spacesuit: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/3346/text#toc-id35ffe0125e0f4c929eae4f08ea6c9a31 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/334...

Animats 10y ago

At least they want to fund the Commercial Crew project. Space-X should have sent a manned Dragon capsule to the ISS by now. There seems to be political pressure to hold them back until ULA can catch up. (Space-X now claims they know why they had a pad explosion. They're saying "breach in the helium system".[1] But what caused that? What part has to be changed? This just came out a few hours ago, so the details are lacking.) [1] http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/23/13031308/spacex-falcon-9-rocket-explosion-cause-cryogenic-helium-system http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/23/13031308/spacex-falcon-9-r...

baq 10y ago
the truth is that the crew dragon has significant issues still: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/09/04/spacex-crew-dragon-challenges-welds-cracks-water-seepage/ http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/09/04/spacex-crew-dragon-ch...
SEJeff 10y ago
Word on the street (read r/SpaceX) is it was caused by a failing COPV.
- emp_zealoth 10y ago
  What is COPV
- jbott 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_overwrapped_pressure_vessel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_overwrapped_pressure...
thelambentonion 10y ago
> There seems to be political pressure to hold them back until ULA can catch up. Source? SpaceX is innovating phenomenally quickly, especially in this industry. Nothing really seems to be holding them back at the moment.

l3m0ndr0p 10y ago

This money would be better spent on Universal healthcare (AKA Single payer). Free to all citizens of the USA. This money is only going to the contractors involved. It serves no other purpose. Send better drones to the planets.