NASA is canceling scientific research projects on the International Space Station until construction is complete. This may not happen before 2010 or 2012.
"Utilization of (the station) for research or technology will have to be minimized in favor of first getting it assembled," Griffin said.
Rep. Bart Gordon, a Tennessee Democrat and a senior committee member, expressed concerns that the Bush Administration underfunded its space exploration plan.
"In addition to beginning development of a new manned launch system, expenses to return the shuttle fleet to flight following the 2003 Columbia disaster and delays completing the International Space Station have left NASA with a projected shortfall of up to $5 billion over the next five years"
http://dsc.discovery.com/...
http://science.slashdot.org/...
NASA is doing its old cynical trick again. It demands more money for a flawed program. Space programs are about NASA bureaucratic survival instead of science and exploration. The current Space shuttle-ISS has produced no 'science' nor 'exploration. Now that they make it official about science, what about 'exploration?
"Meanwhile, while the Shuttle has been up on blocks, a wealth of unmanned probes has been doing exactly the kind of exploration NASA considers so important, except without the encumbrance of big hairless monkeys on board. And therein lies another awkward fact for NASA. While half the NASA budget gets eaten by the manned space program, the other half is quietly spent on true aerospace work and a variety of robotic probes of immense scientific value. All of the actual exploration taking place at NASA is being done by unmanned vehicles. And when some of those unmanned craft fail, no one is killed, and the unmanned program is not halted for three years."
http://www.idlewords.com/...
But what about those new vehicles NASA is making? Wouldn't it starts the whole thing fresh? Not so. NASA is continuing its odd design choice and stuffing it up with as many pork barrel projects as it can. The new vehicles are still about NASA and its contractors instead of sensible design.
The configuration of the Exploration Systems' launch vehicle seems inexplicable except to keep NASA engineers busy and as many engine systems in production as possible. The mixed engine choices resemble tea with the Mad Hatter.
For the heavy lifter core, a new expendable version of the SSME is to be developed using the "...hot isostatic press process developed for the RS-68.." -- why the heck not just use the RS-68, which is new technology, and a fraction of the cost of any likely expendable SSME version (True, the specific impulse is lower, but is the extra performance worth it? By my quick calculation a shuttle-type heavy lifter with RS-68's in place of SSME's would reduce the payload by around 25%, but this could be reversed in the conceptual stage by simply making the vehicle so much larger, or adding an upper stage).
Then "two J-2S engines will power the Earth-departure stage launched atop the shuttle-derived heavy lifter". Why not use a single SSME or RS-68 from the core? Where is the logic in resurrecting, reengineering (due to completely different current manufacturing standards), and putting back into production this 40-year-old design, only to cluster two of them just to get the same thrust as a single SSME or RS-68?
On the other hand, the second stage of the 'Stick' SRB launcher for the CEV will use a single, air-starting, SSME! Not the less-performing J-2S selected for the TLI stage of the heavy lifter! This seems way too much engine (indeed, the J-2s was favored in the original ATK Thiokol design for this vehicle).
Finally, "...to descend to the lunar surface the team baselined a throttleable RL10-class LOX/hydrogen engine like the RL10A-5 engine used on the DC-X and DC-XA testbeds in the 1990s.." But for the ascent stage and CEV service module a new "..dual-use methane engine in the 15,000-lb.-thrust class..." will be developed!
I understand the rationale that they want to develop the engine for use in later Mars expeditions, but why not use it for the landing stage as well (I know, the performance would be less - could it be NASA couldn't make it all work, mass-budget-wise, without using an RL10 in the descent stage? There would be a lot more margin by using it in the ascent stage as well - plus some desperately-needed experience, also necessary for Mars, in long-term hibernation, cryogenic storage, and restart of a lox/hydrogen engine).
So there you have it - five new engine developments (expendable booster SSME, J-2S, upper stage expendable SSME, 15 tf methane engine, 15 tf RL10 derivative) where two would be enough (RS-68, RL10).
Sorry, but NASA's mighty new steed looks a lot like a horse put together by a committee....
http://astronautix.com/...
My personal solution:
- ebay ISS to highest bidder. Apologize to international partners and cut the lost. It will save space science and exploration, albeit not NASA.
- Junk the Space shuttle now. stop the entire manned space program and rebuild it from ground up.
- Separate Space science and robotic probe as new independent agency.
- Dissolve NASA. Beyond #3, it's nothing more than work program and pork barrel projects.
- Rebuild human spaceflight program from ground up. New agency. New mandate. Free of pork. Otherwise, chop the whole "human spaceflight" and let it die. And Let all those NASA engineers join growing private companies doing space program. Unemployment insurence would be cheaper and result in same 'nothingness' without the hardware waste.