"The six-year gap between the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz mission and the 1981 debut of the shuttle damaged both the U.S. space program and the nation," Griffin said. "I don't want to do it again."
Griffin told the Senate subcommittee on commerce, justice and science that he does not know how much it will cost to accelerate development of the crew exploration vehicle, still in the early design phase. But by choosing a single contractor in 2006, rather than having two contractors competing for the contract through 2008, More than $1 billion dollars could be saved for use in the near term.
"The CEV needs to be safe, it needs to be simple, it needs to be soon," Griffin told reporters later in the afternoon.
In an age of difficult budget choices, Administrator Griffin is making the right decisions. His leadership is a breath of fresh air for the field of space exploration, and he seems to be exactly what our country needs as the Administrator of NASA.
"For America to continue to be preeminent among nations, it is necessary for us to be the preeminent spacefaring nation. It is equally true that great nations need allies and partners in this journey. That is what the Vision for Space Exploration is about."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Eric Olsen
very nice job BD, and I'm glad to hear of your confidence in NASA leadership: to infinity and beyond!
2 - Bennett
Thanks Eric. Griffin has a resume longer than my arm, and has always been committed to the space program. Things could actually get exciting in the next ten years.
3 - Eric Berlin
I'm glad to hear that there's strong leadership in place at NASA, and it seems to make sense to target a tight space budget on absolute highest priorities.
I'm equally excited about the prospects of private space operations, which I think can do more over the short-term into pouring investment and resources into space exploration.
Finally... what ever happened to Bush's Mars initiative?
4 - Bennett
Mars is a ways off. The CEV is not limited to low earth orbit like the current shuttle, and there are plans for nuclear propulsion (once in space) as part of the project.
However, for now the plan (as I garner) is to use the CEV to ferry crew and materials to the moon to establish a lunar base first, then use that intermediate base to support manned missions to Mars.
A progressive staged approach. Hope I live to see at least some of this happen. More likely now that there is a real backbone running NASA.
5 - Eric Berlin
Yeah -- I'd love to see a return to the moon. I can see that reigniting the public's imagination for sure.
Don't forget that nations like China might start to up the ante on a new space race. If it's of a peaceful nature, I think that can only be a good thing.
6 - Bennett
Are you kidding? I've been sending hundreds of copies of Heinlein's books to random scientists in China for years now!
Figured the only way to get our program going again was to have China step up to the plate.
As Heinlein wrote and said many times (paraphrased) "The Moon will be colonized someday, but the colonists may not speak English. America does not hold a lock on innovation."
Where's gonzo, he'd have the quote word for word.
7 - gonzo marx
"it may not be America that does it. We are not certain there is intelligent life in Washington, but there IS intelligent life in Peking and Tokyo"
R.A.H.
that help Bennet?
for reading by the Grand Master, which all shows exactly how to do it, cuz he was a mechanical engineer after all..
Rocket Ship Galileo ( atomic powered rocket, yep..it works)
the Man who sold the Moon ( how to do it as private industry)
soOOOoOOooo many more..
the Moon is a harsh Mistress - one of my favorites here..the Moon as a penal/farming colony..you want to see hgwo politics work..read this book..Professor Bernardo de la Paz teaches one of the best lessons about Jeffersonian democracy ever in literature...also possibly the first novel about a computer becoming self aware...
that enough for now?
sorry i was late getting to this, in-laws visiting from Alaska for the wife's college graduation on sunday...
aaaAAAaaarRRRRrrrggGGGGgghhHHHhh!!!!
soOOooOOooo busy..
heh
Excelsior!
8 - Bennett
Dead on gonzo, thanks! The book refs are for anyone else who stumbles by. Me? I've worn out a few copies of Harsh Mistress and The Man Who Sold The Moon. What a great ending that one has, as Harriman finally realizes his dream. Pure touching entertainment.
The fact that RHH blueprints "how to do it" makes these books even better.
Salut!
9 - gonzo marx
another bit ya might want to look up is the Delta Clipper project..
the individual that designed it and built a working model was trying to get a bid in on the new shuttle..
in his design document he states this is a "shuttle that works the way that God and Heinlein meant us to fly"
just google "delta clipper" and you will find it...
anybody want to form a commercial venture to finance this guy so we can go into orbit and pick up all the junk materials there, then sell it to NASA as building material for the space station and/or lunar base?
more cost effective that the 10k a pound to lift new material out there...and there IS a lot of junk in orbit at the moment...
heh
Excelsior!
10 - Victor Plenty
We don't need nuclear propulsion to get to Mars. We don't need any stations in Earth orbit, nor do we need any bases on the moon, in order to get to Mars.
Building permanent settlements on Mars can be done with the same level of propulsion technology we used to get the Apollo missions to the moon. Launching directly from the surface of the Earth to a landing on the surface of Mars is the best way to get there. Every other step added in between will only add extra costs and time to the process.
The deficiency keeping us from getting to Mars within the next decade and beginning to establish permanent settlements there is not any deficiency of technology. It is a deficiency of political will.
11 - gonzo marx
i can easily agree on the dearth of political will Voctor, but i must disagree on the differences between direct flight and the staged approach
since it requires 7 gravities of acceleration for at least 2 minutes to escape the gravity well of near earth orbit you need to consume quite the bit of fuel...hence the extra tanks for Apollo as well as the current shuttle
the old inverse square law when it comes to needing to liuft the extra mass of the fuel required to lift the payload...this limits the total size of vehicle you can effectively get off earth
by utilizing the staged approach, you need only bring the fuel required to make Lagrange point orbit...from there is it MUCH easier to either make the trip to our moon, or even direct launch to Mars
plenty of info out there that delineates this far better than my meager skills..and far better mathemeticians(including Heinlein)than me have had these very issues worked out for the last 50 years or so..
that is a large part of the problem...the rocket technology we use is indistinguishable form that used by the Penemunde scinetists that created the V2 and helped found the JPL and NASA after WW2
the upside is that we have made increadible leaps in computer tech since then, in large part due to the research done during the Apollo years..
hope that helps..
Excelsior!
12 - Victor Plenty
The issue is cost, Gonzo. You can get a bigger craft from Earth orbit to Mars than from the surface of the Earth to the surface of Mars. However, that is true only if you are willing to first spend billions and billions of extra dollars building a spaceport and launch infrastructure in Earth orbit, and then additional extra billions launching fuel up there for the Mars mission to use. This is why NASA has previously estimated total costs of up to $450 billion to get the first human bootprints onto Mars.
Launch costs for a direct mission from Earth surface to Mars surface, by contrast, have come in at estimates of between $20 billion and $50 billion.
If Mars is the goal, go to Mars. Stopping anywhere else in between here and there will only make the whole process exponentially more expensive.
13 - gonzo marx
those numbers have been worked Victor..and it is MUCH more cost effective to build the Station and launch from there
yes, i agree it does require a large initial investment, but there are quite a few advantages to it beyond making the Mars run cheaper
research and development in zero-g and total vacuum alone would more than compensate for the initial costs
add to that the fact that much of the materials needed are already there in orbit
as i pointed out previously, one could make quite a fortune cleaning up orbital debris, bringin git to one spot..and then selling the scrap as raw material for construction
add another one here, the very real possibility of asteroid collision..as any astrophysicist can tell you , it is not a matter of if, but a factor of When it will happen..
an active station can easily hold the facilities not just for early detection of such an Event, but a simple soloution
to avoid any collision all that needs be changed is either course vector or velocity...so if detected early enough, merely striking the oncoming body with a few BB's at high velocity can impact both trajectory and velocity of the object, thus avoiding a catastrophic collision
there's plenty more, but as i have said, better minds than mine have laid this al out over the years..
any wonder why over 80% of all the techs and astronauts and engineers that have ever worked at NASA clealry state that they got into it because of reading Heinlein?
check and see who got NASA's highest civilian award after his death
and on and on...
Excelsior!
14 - Bennett
If the point was getting a small craft to Mars and that was IT, then you could go direct launch. But can you imagine being in an Apollo sized capsule for the 6 month minimum it would take to drift to Mars after launching from Earth?
But the real goal is to develop the area of space around and between the Earth and Moon. Materials for construction are already UP in space, we just need to set up the infrastructure to use them. Once we have a permanent base on the Moon, we can manufacture whatever we need to grow the Lunar Base, and provide materials, not for a one-off mission to Mars, but for continued transport of technology and supplies to Mars.
Here are two viable alternatives,
Ion Engines are in the final testing phase. These are low thrust, but long haul engines that yield 20 times the thrust per kilo of fuel versus burning cryo hydrogen oxygen fuel (rockets):
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13282
NASA held an open competition for new ways to make the journey to Mars, and the winning proposal is for a plasma beamed approach to provide constant boost for a ship to Mars, with a second plasma beam generator in Mars orbit to slow the incoming ship down to orbital velocity. This is under development and would allow a round trip mission to Mars, complete with an 11 day stay on the surface, to be completed in........
90 Days! And the craft can and will be much larger than an Apollo capsule.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16826
The key is achieving thrust from Earth orbit toward your destination. Constant thrust craft change the nature of space exploration. Nothing else really makes sense for manned spacecraft.
15 - gonzo marx
the formulae for the difference in times with a low boost "coasting" trajectory and a low yield constant boost( ie: 1/10 of a g acceleration) are set out in full detail in the book "Time for the Stars" by Heinlein
the difference is almost an order of magnitute..months turn into days
a single stage craft launching from earthg orbit could take up to two years to make Mars landing...whereas a constant boost, even as small as a tenth of a g,could make the same trip in mere weeks...
lots of good stuff here folks, would that more folks got involved and this Issue really heated up
many folks say "why bother, just a money sink"
but i put it to you that History shows that pure Research ALWAYS pays off beyond the wildest dreams of investors..
without the Apollo missions, for example, we would not have the micro processor, MRI's, telemetered medical monitoring and so much more...
tell some friends and get them exited..hell, write your senators and congressmen...
nuff said?
Excelsior
16 - Bennett
Couldn't have said it better. We're painting the inside of the house and ALL my books are in storage for a few weeks. Frustrating to not have the materials at hand, but you came through like a champ.
I immediately thought of the chart in "Time for the Stars", and you nailed it! Constant boost is the only way.
The Delta Clipper info was great. Have you seen the video of the test? Vertical launch, manuvering sideways, and vertical landing. FOK!
http://www.pioneeraero.com/1-13_del_cli.htm
Thanks gonzo, hope your wife's graduation goes smoothly.
Bennett
17 - Victor Plenty
11 days on Mars is a waste of time. Who said anything about a "one-off" Mars mission? I certainly never favored that! That's exactly what I'm against, but it's exactly what NASA proposed spending half a trillion dollars to do. When they named that price tag, they effectively killed off all broad political and public support for the Space Exploration Initiative proposed by the first President Bush.
In a better designed mission plan, a vehicle traveling from Earth surface to Mars surface does not need to be as small as an Apollo capsule. A two-story habitat with ample room for a crew of four can be sent on that trip. The crew would spend 180 days in transit each way, and over 400 days on the surface of Mars.
A plan for such a crew habitat can be seen here.
Multiple missions of this type can be sent to explore large areas of the planet's surface.
When each crew leaves, using a separate vehicle for to return to Earth, their crew habitat will be left behind. Each of these can easily become the first facility of a permanent base, from which later missions can begin to build larger settlements.
Why do all of this instead of developing infrastructure on the moon and in Earth orbit? Because Mars has the mineral and natural resources to allow human settlements to become self-supporting. Earth orbit has nothing but a smattering of scrap metal. The moon has nothing but trash rocks. Mars has the geological history that creates usable deposits of mineral ores, and these are needed to support an independent branch of human civilization.
18 - Bennett
Sounds good to me Victor. So give me your fix on why this path isn't being taken. Seriously.
Me, I'm just glad to see 30 years of nothing (manned missions beyond low earth orbit) come to an end.
The Mars society layout is great!
19 - Victor Plenty
We lack the political will, at the moment, to do anything that would really establish a long term human presence off the Earth. I mentioned this earlier, but it does not need to be remain a permanent obstacle.
Missions to orbit and to the moon are politically safer, precisely because they can be halted at any time. The budgets can be slashed, the astronauts brought home, the orbiting space stations allowed to burn up on re-entry, just as was done to Apollo and Skylab and Mir.
This is also the reason I don't think small incremental goals like L5 platforms and moonbases will be able to raise the public support needed for a truly vigorous space program. Something large enough to stir the human spirit is needed. Establishing a new and independent branch of human civilization on Mars, I am firmly convinced, is the best goal available to us for that purpose.
The goal of pioneering Mars is large enough to inspire us, yet small enough to be within reach of our current technology.
20 - Bennett
Those are all very valid points Victor, and I'm with you 100% about the need to establish a permanent, self sustaining colony. In fact, there's nothing I can dispute in your post.
Political will. Damn near an oxymoron these days. Ideally, it should all happen at once. The colonies you describe, and L5, and Lunar Base, and earth orbit manufaturing, and SPSS.
As Eric noted earlier, if China decides to get while the gettin's good it could change the course of space exploration, and perhaps lead to a Mars initiative as you describe.
Strange isn't it, that we could look to China for this kind of spur?
Thanks for the ideas and input. Please continue.
Bennett
21 - Victor Plenty
Let's all continue discussing these ideas, because that is the best way to build up the public support needed for real progress in our space program.
A bit of competition has a few benefits, whether it's Europe or China, Japan or India, Brazil or somebody else taking on the role previously filled by the Soviets in the old space race. But I'd rather see us base public support for space exploration on reasoning that won't go away as soon as we win a race to plant flags and footprints on some arbitrary chunk of rock.
Right now the world's largest and most influential space advocacy organization is the Planetary Society, which favors robotic exploration over human missions in most of the solar system, which for them seems to mean just about everything beyond low Earth orbit.
Favoring robots is certainly best for the outer solar system. However, I am convinced Mars is within the reach of our current technology to establish a permanent human community there.
22 - Victor Plenty
Meanwhile, to get back on the more immediate topic for a moment, I agree that it is good policy to get a space shuttle replacement into operation sooner, rather than later. We have already made international commitments to complete the ISS, and we will need a shuttle replacement as soon as possible to keep those commitments.
In fact it would be better to have multiple spacecraft designs capable of carrying human crews into space, to reduce the risk of having to ground all human flights after discovering some design flaw in our one and only means of getting our people off the ground.
23 - Bennett
I check the Japan Space Agency site every few weeks. They have a single stage to orbit program that looks interesting. Is the ESA planning on having their own launch vehicle?
One of the reasons to go full speed with the new shuttle is the total embarrassment of having to hitch rides to get to the ISS, and our current contract with Russia runs out later this year. I agree, it would be great to have several options to low orbit for manned missions. But with the advances in technologies over the last ten years, there is finally hope that a Space Elevator can, and will, be a reality in our lifetime.
This would change everything as far as cost per kilo of materials lifted to low earth orbit, and would provide some of the excitement and inspiration, especially if elevator tourism becomes available. The link takes you to spaceelevator.com, where there's a downloadable powerpoint demonstration. 5 meg, so I'll wait till later this evening. Dial up sucks!
24 - Bennett
LiftPort plans on a privately developed space elevator by 2018. Visit their site for info.
Bennett
25 - Victor Plenty
All the places I listed were hypothetical examples of potential competitors to the American space program. As far as I know, none of them are anywhere near having the human launch capabilities of Russia or the United States. China is certainly headed in that direction, but their human spaceflight program is still about where we were around 1960 or so. Europe or Japan could catch up with us easily enough if they really wanted to.
It's true a space elevator would change a great deal. There is certainly no other way to get bulk launch costs as low as a space elevator could make them. However, I've read that the long transit times could make a space elevator too dangerous for humans, due to excessive exposure to radiation. So it may not make rocketry obsolete right away, but even if the only thing we can put on it is inert building materials, a space elevator would revolutionize our capacity to develop near-Earth space infrastructure.
But I don't think we should wait for a space elevator. Even if we do end up building such a thing, I still think pioneering Mars would be our most logical next step in space. Moonbases, orbital platforms, asteroid exploration, and other projects, cool as they all are, can wait until later.