With Constellation woefully over budget, what does that mean for the Ares I and Ares V rockets? If rumors are right, it could mean that the DIRECT team’s Jupiter 241 stretched heavy configuration will be NASA’s new launch vehicle of choice. Of course no one will really know until official announcements are made, and at this point it is all educated speculation.
39 Comments
so the Shuttle could live on sept not in its current body if Im getting this straight
No future without Space - its got Treasures beyond belief - people love Nasa and there work, they gave us Hope for new dreams and ambitions and I hope they stay on track, and the mars society we are so counting on you all now so much Good Luck guys
@TrueDragofox the orbiter itself would not. So the space plane portion is done no matter what. In a Jupiter DIRECT model as mentioned above the solid rocket boosters, shuttle engines and main tank would all be re-used to create this new rocket. So it would be a shuttle derived vehicle, but there would be no actual orbiter attached.
Obama should dump a few more billion into the space industry so nasa can get this important stuff done.
If hes giving away trillions in stimulus he can atleast do something meaningful with a few meazly billion.
One could also add to that argument and say that by creating a new industry in space we would be creating jobs and expanding our own economy. This could in turn do more good than the entire bailout as well as help humanity in ways we can't even imagine right now. So more money here really has little down side, IMO.
Learn Russian if you want to space.
@Nasiar99
on the other hand, less money might help to force out some newer, cheaper and better ideas - throwing money at a problem only takes you so far...
A seemingly unconstrained budget made the shuttle a reality in the first place but a constrained budget now can't pay for its constinued usage if NASA wants to do more than LEO maintenance...
I like the idea that they instead encourage and support non-government efforts...
... if they would work more (but not fully) on helping in-space industry, spin-offs will hopefully decrease costs of their scientific programmes;
Space Based Solar Power would encourage commersial LEO and GEO transfer and maintenance vehicles as well as providing electrical power.
Space Tourism and Hotels would help drive down costs of manned launches and station construction and operation for medical or material research corps.
The industry wants it, they might just need a little push...
nasa wastes too much money
I know this question is off topic.
Is a lack of funding a reason for NASA to go back to using rockets instead of a new space shuttle????
The ongoing exploration of space has done nothing but benefited humanity as a hole. From the long passed civilizations who measured the skys in many different ways to Galileo's scope, Capernicu's heliocentric universe, Kelper helping Newton's laws,Humason and Hubble's red shift and so on...And now The moon,Mars and voyages beyond.
It is vital..critical to humanity that science and astronomy be held in the highest regard.
Billion here billion there Nasa should get a 25% increase every leap year
As I recall and I may be wrong, the shuttle's funding was taken away to fund the Orion spacecraft and along with that came Aries and Altair. Something that the Bush Administration did with its "Vision for Space Exploration". I'm sure Wikipedia has it all explained.
Amen to that. I don't think many people realize how much of the thing they depend on to get through a normal day is a result of our space exploration. Be it medical, technological, whatever. Our lives have greatly been improved because of our space program. We as humans MUST continue to explore space - not just to conquer new worlds, but to also continue improving our lives here on Earth.
mrmaciejm, yes and no. But right now I believe they could use all the help they can get. Money, outside private space companies like SpaceX etc. etc.
When you have projects for vehicles that have never been made before... and the timelines keep getting messed up about every 8 years, it's no wonder they come in over budget. Especially if their budget gets slashed.
@KKM121 bc current nasa plan calls for a return by (maybe) end of this decade and mars by 2040. however, that will be a bit impossible with the shuttle (or an updated design) since it was designed for low-earth orbit, lands on a runway, and needs external fuel to relaunch. the designs now being fielded would enable travel to moon + mars, but also enable use in leo like space shuttle is.
Do you think China should have a space program???
or should they use their money to fix their other problems first??
@KKM121 I think every country should have one to some degree and i also think it would be good for all to share there data like say...linux for computers. However i know that is wishful thinking, further knowledge has a way of coming out to all at "the right time" per say. Take Grossmann or Hilbert, have you herd of them? Yet every one know the word Einstein. (never mind the debate i'm just trying to illustrate a point) So more space programs = exponential growth of knowledge for all. :-)
Thanks for your detailed reply.
May I know if it looks to you like China is spending a reasonable amount of their money on their space program???
(not too much, not too little)
@KKM121 I am no expert in this area by far but if i were to form a opinion on what little knowledge i do possess.Yes and no.China spends far less on space than we do. For military applications that's good, for science that is bad. As is my opinion for us also. China's recent attacks on google and others is profoundly worrisome, concerning transparency, Wouldn't it be nice if there was a science economy rather a military one?World wide?(again wishful thinking) So theirs to much politics involved.
Slashdot said yesterday that the SSMEs are still up for grabs. Not sure if this is true or not.
It is not the budget that is the problem it is the cost of the Constellation Program. As the Augustine Commission noted, even if NASA was given Ares I and Ares V today with no development costs,,,the cost to fly them would be too expensive. People seem to forget that Ares I was meant to be "Safe, Simple, Soon". If Safe, Simple, Soon, is a 14+ years development then something is wrong with the project. As to it being "safe"? Ares I costs so much that they have had to cut out alot of the safety features of the Orion spacecraft that Ares is meant to be able to lift. In other word--Ares I is so underpowered like a car engine, NASA has gone ahead an taken out the bumpers of the car, etc and they still call it safe???? Well if you only test and travel in it an average of once per year due to the cost anything can be called safe--but I would n want to be the first person flying on Ares I. As to the claim that is shuttle dervived--go back and look and look at all the changes NASA has proposed and is in the process of implementing for Ares I. Yes--NASA can make a PIG fly---but do we really want to fly on that PIG???? Direct on the other hands tries to use as much of the present shuttle as possible--same SRB, same engines, same external tank with some changes. If you look at the National Launch System from the late '80s you will see that Direct is closely related. Why did NLS get cancelled--NASA had to pick between shuttle, ISS and NLS and 1 was going to be cancelled since NASA did not have the money. While you are at it--look at the Mars Societys' plan to get to MARS before Dr. Griffen become NASA's Administrators. Guess what you see--the same two rockets. On the ESAS study that lead to the present POR, go and look at all the assumptions that were made to favour the Doctors plan. It is kind of funny--EELV's were good enough for the old Dr. before he became NASA Administrator. After the Dr. became NASA Admin--EELV's are not safe enough. Just maybe it is because the old Dr. had his own plan already made before he became Administrator. So let's junk the POR and and give Direct a chance. I don't want to be still here 5 years for now and be telling you--the POR is too costly and people wondering why it costs so much. I will say--you were told that in '04-10 and you still did not believe.
Pingback : uberVU - social comments
Spacevidcast forgot the other Shuttle derived launcher, the side mount throw away launcher (not Shuttle-c)
@KKM121 Because the funding for a new Space Shuttle would be immense its so improbable. And we are expecting the White House to order something that the Augustine Commission suggested.
@ralpher05 No, didn't forget. The article on NSF mentioned that the shuttle derived sidemount option (NS-C) was all but ruled out. You'll note the video is quite specific with the Jupiter-241 Stretched Heavy. That's the vehicle that is rumored to be the next gen shuttle replacement. All rumors though, we won't know for sure until an official announcement is made.
To say that Constellation is woefully overbudget is dishonest.
Constellation has been running significantly and consistently below the original cost estimates over the past several years.
The problem, instead has been schedule, which has been almost entirely the result of the Office of Management and Budget, which has effectively starved NASA of the required funding needed to pull this off. That is why, for instance, there has been gradual development work on Ares I, while no visible progress on the Altair lander or Ares V.
We could also point a finger at Obama, but he only gets credit for making things worse over the past year...
Cheers,
Nelson
The ARES projects made sense. The Only thing I would have done is make the Ares V even larger. So it could carry even greater payloads to carry things to to lower Earth orbit.
Jupiter-241 Stretched Heavy for the sake of the USA space program.
SVC, I can assure you that the staying of execution for SSME is not the only evidence for J-24x (or Ares-V light), only the most public....... ;)
How awesome is Spacevidcast? Keep up the great work you guys, I am continually inspired by your dedication and continual reporting :)
im sad about the abandoning of the ARES...damnit
A reiteration would have been nice. I didn't read the article before seeing this vid.
This proposal looks good, much better than the ridiculous Falcon 9 and Dragon.
well, the optimism re: this president was sadly misplaced. very sad regarding manned space exploration.
Falcon 9 and Dragon are a real rocket and space craft sitting on the pad waiting for launch. Both Ares and Jupiter are just theoretical concepts that will probably never actually fly. I take a ridiculous real rocket over a good looking theoretical one any day.
That said I dont think Falcon 9 / Dragon look ridiculous its a fine look vehical.
Only Falcon 9 is on the pad, the design concepts behind Ares have already been tested the recent launch. Dragon is still under development and won't be seeing a manned crew for over a year at the most. I would rather NASA headed up the research for a shuttle replacement than handing things over to an untested company that is profit driven.
If things get behind schedule or even worse things happen, the first to get the blame will be NASA and not SpaceX.
1. On top that Falcon 9 is a Dragon test article and a fully functional dragon is scheduled to fly on the second falcon 9 later this year.
2. While Ares I-X did test the basic design concept of Ares I, it had less in common with a real Ares I than a Falcon 1 has in common with a Falcon 9.
3. Yes a manned dragon is still 3 to 3 years away, but Ares I/Orion was at best 5 years away probably more.
4. Space X is not entirely untested they has had two successful Falcon 1 flights which is one more an Ares vehicle has had. It needs to be noted that NASA as not successfully designed a new manned space craft and LV in 30 years so whos untested?
5. Being profit driven is a good thing. It will prevent the stagnation government owned spaced flight has given us for the past 30 years.
Manned space exploration is not over. Its going to the private sector which is a good thing. The Government monopoly on manned space flight has resulted in stagnation. Private sector competition in space flight will end this stagnation. In business its keep more or die, so once private sector space flight is a reality competition will produce further development. This is not the end of manned space flight its just the beginning.