Comments on: Obama Orders a Review of NASA’s Human Space Flight Program

By: Mike Mullen

Mike Mullen — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:10:07 +0000

Two things, if an alternative to the Ares rocket is sought there is a better option than the Russians in the shape of the ESA Ariane V, already slated to launch the James Webb telescope.
Surely expanding ESA/NASA co-operation is a good thing NASA can develop the Orion and ESA can work to man rate the Ariane.
Also for the sake of sanity start working on the one alternate power source that is already technically possible; dust off the research material and restart NERVA, at least as a starting point for nuclear propulsion development, we can’t continue to let green hysteria cripple continued space development.

By: michael johnson

michael johnson — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:38:42 +0000

One thing is for certain…………however it is accomplished, we must insure the continuation of the human endeaver to explore……………..I would remind the skeptics of a time when the whole world collectively prayed for the return of three men returning to Earth in a broken ship………..yes Apollo 13…………can you imagine even congress calling for prayer today as it did then? Yes, my words are simple, perhaps too emotional………but even the poor, the deprived, or the most average of men, are lifted up by the actions of those men and woman who have the courage and the will to strap themselves into these immense and complex machines and ride them into the cosmos. When I was a child……no one would have dreamed that one could stop at the local drug store, go to the magazine rack and pick up a magazine with images of the birthing of stars, or the surface of mars…………..thank you Nasa……..thank all of you Americans with the dream beyond the selfish self serving, who wallow in the mindset of victimization.

By: 2552

2552 — Tue, 12 May 2009 11:37:28 +0000

JW,

That’s what the Department of Energy is for (and they get more money than NASA anyway, $24.1 billion for DoE vs $17.6 billion for NASA)

By: StevoRaine

StevoRaine — Mon, 11 May 2009 12:51:54 +0000

D’oh! Italics were meant to stop after the “Sky at Night’ … :-(

By: StevoRaine

StevoRaine — Mon, 11 May 2009 12:51:04 +0000

Whatever happened to the space elevator concept?

The idea is still around. The British ‘Sky at Night’ astronomy magazine recently covered the topic in an article.

Notsure if we have the technology to build it yet – or whether anyone’s actively attempting or planning to attempt it.

It would be very costly and difficult to construct but an awesome idea if it can ever be done.

By: StevoRaine

StevoRaine — Mon, 11 May 2009 12:47:52 +0000

Rockets can never reach light speeds. NOTHING can ever reach light speed. Its the law of physics as we know it.

By: Lisette Root

Lisette Root — Mon, 11 May 2009 05:13:49 +0000

Each day that goes by brings new knowledge in every concievable field. Just think what we could do if we made war, povery, and disease obsolete! The emerging technologies using carbon fibers and other amazing materials such as aerogel( I think that is name of the amazing clear material used by NASA) will surely with time be able to overcome many of these engineering problems. Together, the stars are the limit.

By: JW

JW — Sat, 09 May 2009 18:52:36 +0000

I think space exploration is great and all, but I believe a large portion of the money would be better spent trying to solve our energy problems. Alternate fuels could drastically change things to the point requiring redesign anyway.

By: ARad

ARad — Sat, 09 May 2009 15:50:44 +0000

Whatever happened to the space elevator concept?

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 09 May 2009 01:06:25 +0000

So what is the Obama team looking at?

Is this a radical rethinking? Maybe supporting Jupiter Direct? Maybe abandoning manned deep space missions and going back to automated ones?

Or is this more of slight pause and readjustment kind of thing?

NASA published an interesting document, “The NASA-ESA Comparative Architecture Assessment”. They looked at doing some coordinated development with the Europeans, mainly around the lunar missions. It was all very early assessment stuff, like where cooperation looked promising and what did not.

By: Gerry Wood

Gerry Wood — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:53:50 +0000

It would be better to stop sending rockets up and use the money to find and develop a totally different type of propulsion system. What we have now is inefficient and unusable for any type of really long distance exploration. Rockets can never reach light speeds.

By: Nick

Nick — Fri, 08 May 2009 16:50:16 +0000

You know, Russia already has the basic technology that we’re trying to replicate with Constellation and Orion – they can send up huge, though conical, payloads – we just have to design a new crew module.

Look, this rocket can loft the same weight payload as the Space Shuttle – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angara_(rocket)

And the Proton is almost as capable – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_(rocket)

The only difference? These rockets weigh a fraction of what the space shuttle weighs. The shuttle weighs 2 million kilograms (presumably with all rockets attached? Wikipedia doesn’t specify). The Proton, sans payload, weigh under 700,000 Kg, the other one just over a million Kg.

So sure, the shuttle may be big, but it’s kinda inefficient, and because it can take up HUGE objects, it’s slowing down innovation on small-payload-building-itself-into-larger-structure technology like Bigelowe Airspace is working on.

Re-usable craft are pretty awesome on paper – but the harsh reality is that it makes them ticking time-bombs. Ever since that last shuttle blew up on my birthday, well, every subsequent flight makes my heart go out to the astronauts, doing their brave duty sitting on thousands of tons of explosives waiting to ride them into space, and hoping to glide back without completely disintegrating.