The debate over NASA's future continues - SpacePod 2010.07.19

The debate over NASA's future continues... for your SpacePod for July 19, 2010.Late last week the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee had unanimously approved a new NASA Authorization Act of 2010. Keep in mind that this is not yet law which means it could all change yet again. The bill modifies much of what the Obama administration had proposed for NASA.OK, so we have a radical departure of what the White House had proposed for Fiscal Year 2011. What does that actually mean?So it sounds like we're not to continue with Ares I or Ares V but we will immediately move to new rocket development. This could end up to be a modified version of the Ares V vehicle or for all we know NASA will decide on a Jupiter DIRECT configuration to utilize old Space Shuttle components Or maybe something completely different. At this time we really have no idea how NASA will proceed other than to work within the conditions of the bill. So what restrictions does NASA have to work under for their new rocket design? Well that's interesting. Experts in Utah have had written in to the bill one of the most controversial parts of the shuttle remain: the solid rocket fuel. That's not to say that the statements are untrue or that solid fuel can't play a pivotal role, but even from the beginning of the STS program solid fuel has been debated and directly led to the loss of Space Shuttle Challenger. Solid fuel is one of the most dangerous if not *the* most dangerous components of the Space Shuttle system, and that extreme danger will remain for the next generation NASA rocket. Assuming of course that this is signed in to law. One item that wasn't really a surprise was adding an additional space shuttle flight in the form of STS-135While Senator Nelson doesn't come right out and say it, he is talking about Space Shuttle Atlantis which is the Launch On Need vehicle for the current final slated mission of STS-134. That means that if this bill passes, the most powerful, charismatic, energetic and dynamic shuttle ever built would be the one to take the Space Shuttle Program in to the sunset.Of course everything is still up in the air. The bill still needs the approval of the full senate, it has to reconcile with legislation from the house and of course President Obama needs to agree with it as well. However, given it's full bi-partisan support it seems like a much better starting place than Obama's proposed Fiscal Year 2011 plan. All of this is moot if we don't have the money to fund the program though.We'll see how well this all works out. Let us not forget that the Constellation program was originally designed to use off-the-shelf shuttle components to be faster, cheaper and safer than what we have today. 7 years later, billions of dollars spent and we have a vehicle that was none of those things.Only time will tell. Before we close, I think it's important to understand the meaning behind the bill. Why did the committee not like the Fiscal Year 2011 plan and want to change it? What is the point and what was the vision behind their new plan? To get the big picture, you can watch the full press conference by going to the URL at the bottom of your screen.Remember to keep the conversation going. Not just in the comments on Spacevidcast and YouTube but at the office, around the water cooler. Get people excited and engaged with space again. Sometimes that starts with a simple comment about the space shuttle retiring. The next natural question is, what will replace it. How will you answer that question?

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• nasa
• constellation
• shuttle
• rocket
• senate
• obama
• fy2011

[meatwadgunit]

How bout we just give space exploration unlimited budget and call it a day.

[Ro13167]

@spacevidcast Get your facts straight. Challenger was lost because NASA management decided to launch outside the temperature range of the SRB o-rings. NOT because the SRB's were dangerous or designed wrong . As a result of the Challenger accident they were made even more reliable. Listen to Scott Horowitz, who flew the shuttle 4 times, on episode 1380 of the spacehow (dot com). Go to 23' 50" where he talks about solids and safety.

[MrDiddydodd]

i think NASA really ought to move away from rocket tech and look more at nuclear fusion, because nuclear fusion gives us a almost unlimited amount of feul and it is required in smaller amounts (No need for large feul containers).

[TokiKatChannel]

Space exploration is a part of life, I WILL PISS MY SELF IF PEOPLE CAN LIVE ON THE MOON FINALLY! Plus, when Apothisis or wutever happends we can move to the moon but the moon is smaller so the moon will be over populated. :/

[omega4chimp]

Why would you have so many deep space missions anyway it reminds me of the bible build your foundation first then your house like build moon cites and moon space ports before you do stuff like that

[omega4chimp]

Building a moon city is nasa future.

[Ro13167]

@ti994apc That's interesting. I'll see if I can find the drawings of the connections between the segments. See how it works.

Tnx.

[ti994apc]

@Ro13167 I kindly disagree in part. I think it was at least 70% design failure. Not the O-rings themselves. It was the pressure/flexing the O-rings must endure when Shuttles 3 main engines start. The mains push against the tank to counteract its weigh of being strapped on the side. On the pad the O-rings have to bear all the stress and weight. Management should not have been put in the position to make the call.

[ti994apc]

@dobiehub The point is you definitively can get the capacity to go in that direction with out solid rocket motors. First of all SaturnV was never taken to its capacity. Then there was the SaturnV Nova that was never built which was more powerful that SaturnV. Then there was Russian Engeria which lifted almost as much. None of which used SRB's. If you look at Titan III, IV, and Shuttle, SRB's on large rockets have a poor track record.

[dobiehub]

@ti994apc

Who is the idiot ? He did not say- "you cannot lift high capacity rockets with out solid rocket motors" He did however say- "No matter how you try to create it, you can not get the capacity to go in that direction without solid rocket motors." His comment is taken out of context so it is unclear what "..create it" and "..capacity" or "..that direction" refers to. These people are trying to save the jobs and program that Obama decided to cancel.

[BigLonn]

can only be achieved using solid rocket motors? nope thats B.S. SRB's are the most dangerous part of the Space shuttle, Congratulations ATK, you b.s.'d your way into the game again.

[Ro13167]

@ti994apc How is it bad if a SRB cannot be turned off?

If a rocket must be turned off in it's climb to orbit there is a problem for the crew anyhow

because a rocket that loses engine power before it reaches orbit is only going one way,

which is down.

Please give me the source of your information regarding rocket malfunctions.

I'm very interested in in that. TIA