Friday, March 19, 2010

Mars Mission, Local Jobs Topics For Space Forum

This just in from the office of U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson:

MISSION TO MARS, LOCAL JOBS TOPICS FOR SPACE FORUM

COCOA, Fla. - NASA should be charged with continuing the testing and development of a new spacecraft and heavy lift rocket and focus on getting humans to Mars and back, which could retain many of the workers from the former Constellation program. That, at least, is the case U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson is expected to make here today.

Nelson, Florida’s senior U.S. senator and former space shuttle crew member, is slated to join Kennedy Space Center Director Robert Cabana today at a public forum on space hosted by FLORIDA TODAY and Brevard Community College ( BCC ). The forum, billed as a discussion on the future of the space program and its continuing impact on the local area, is set for 3 p.m. at the Simpkins Fine Arts Center on the Cocoa, Fla. campus of BCC.

It comes in the wake of President Barack Obama’s recent decision to cancel NASA’s return-to-the-moon program and advance the commercial rocket industry to ferry astronauts to low-earth orbit and the International Space Station. Coupled with the looming retirement of the space shuttle fleet, the plan could affect up to 7,000 jobs at KSC.

The forum also comes just weeks before a visit to the area by President Obama, a trip Nelson urged the president to make. Nelson has told the president his recently released plan for NASA has been met with a lot of skepticism, and that the president needs to more clearly outline the goals he envisions for NASA and the space program.

Earlier this week, Nelson met privately with Obama and Vice President Joe Biden to discuss, among other things, adding a fifth shuttle flight sometime next year. Right now, there are four flights remaining in the manifest. But Nelson says all the hardware including the fuel tank is available for at least one added flight that could take equipment to the space station.

More broadly, Nelson is advocating that NASA continue testing and development of a heavy lift rocket and new spacecraft as part of a mission to land humans on Mars, have them able to live there a short time, and then return to a space dock in low-earth orbit. “To achieve this goal the president needs to direct that NASA create a rocket and spacecraft that will get us there,” Nelson said.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

NASA = GLORIFIED SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAM for TEA PARTY MARXIST

Anonymous said...

Antagonist! It's YOU!! We missed you!

Anonymous said...

Lets do away with all government programs, save the tax payers money, and put those people on welfare. I know, this comment makes as much sense as the first comment.

Anonymous said...

I missed my people too, been working hard trying to keep up with and pay Medical Insurance Bills (my masters).

Anonymous said...

Space X is supposed to be a commercial or privately owned company but they are located on a Government owned or military base, and their Falcon 9 rocket is funded by the Government at a price tag of 6 billion dollars which comes from the tax payers of this nation, how is this commercial or private? NASA was only asking for an additional 3 billion to save the Ares and Constellation which would save about 43,000 jobs across the nation, and this is how this should be addressed as a national issue, not just one county in central Florida. We as a nation have spent billions of dollars over the past year and a half on two stimulus packages, bailing out the auto industry and insurance companies which failed miserably but still seem to give their employees millions of dollars in bonuses. Why don’t we save something worth saving like the space program and reward the thousands of people worthy of a bailout, and won’t expect or ask for a single dime in bonuses.

Anonymous said...

ANTAGONIST= PEAT AND REPEAT= CARBON COPY

Anonymous said...

This heavy lift launcher idea seems to have been grabbed out of the air. What possible practical benefits will it bring to the American taxpayers? If we really had a 100 ton payload, we could just procure a 100 tom booster from ULA; they already have Delta-IV derivatives up to that capacity on their website. And hey, they are entirely liquid propelled except for small SRBs like those used on the current Delta on some models. What purpose would be served by NASA involvement in the design except to force the contracotr to use Shuttle-type SRBs for political reasons? The SRBs are one part of the Shuttle that we really should abandon in future launch vehicles.

Anonymous said...

Quid Pro Quo....simple as that. What my vote on this, then give me that which I want. A the beauty is that they do it with your money and call themselves heros. It's the best con game in town.

Anonymous said...

"The SRBs are one part of the Shuttle that we really should abandon in future launch vehicles."

How do you figure? They are the cheapest cost/thrust motor that is out there! Not only that, they don't have valve problems any other problems like every liquid engine so they are the safest. Until you say stuff like that, know your facts.

Anonymous said...

NASA knows that Boeing had designed a 100t upgrade of Delta IVX Heavy rocket several years ago. This was done for NASA in 2003 by using (strapping together) more liquid tanks and the safe RS-68 engines as the booster. There also has to be an upgrade of the second stage.
This rocket has not been built yet and would take 3-4 years to place on the shuttle crawler modified for manned launches.
The Delta IV Heavy can be used to launch a 50k lb manned capsule to earth orbit using the Orion spacecraft. This modified rocket would take about 3 years to build and test. NASA has already received info from Boeing/UAL on this in 2003, well before Constellation began.
So, why would NASA do anything else with rockets that do not exist?

Anonymous said...

Regarding SRBs, its true they have fewer plumbing problems, but the Futron survey of US launch-vehicle failures between 1985 and 2004 shows that solid stages have about the same failure rate (0.7%) as liquid stages (0.4%). On top of that, when liquids fail, they usually just shut down, whereas solids often explode.

If multiple liquid engines are employed, then propellant can be cross-fed from a failed engine to those still operating, providing some tolerance for failures. This is not possible with solids, since propellant cannot be transferred from one motor to another.

About half of all liquid failures occur at ignition. If a liquid first stage is held down until proper engine operation can be verified, the engine failure rate can be roughly halved.

Looking beyond reliability, solids also suffer from some operational disadvantages. Unlike liquids, solids are loaded with propellant to begin with. They are therefore very heavy, and this makes lauch-site infrastructure more expensive. Being loaded also makes them hazardous, which in turn makes launch-site operations more cumbersome and expensive.

Anonymous said...

Regarding SRBs, its true they have fewer plumbing problems but the Futron survey of US launch-vehicle failures between 1985 and 2004 shows that solid stages have about the same failure rate (0.7%) as liquid stages (0.4%). On top of that, when liquids fail, they usually just shut down, whereas solids often explode.

If multiple liquid engines are employed, then propellant can be cross-fed from a failed engine to those still operating, providing some tolerance for failures. This is not possible with solids, since propellant cannot be transferred from one motor to another.

About half of all liquid failures occur at ignition. If a liquid first stage is held down until proper engine operation can be verified, the engine failure rate can be roughly halved.

Looking beyond reliability, solids also suffer from some operational disadvantages. Unlike liquids, solids are loaded with propellant to begin with. They are therefore very heavy, and this makes launch-site infrastructure more expensive. Being loaded also makes them hazardous, which in turn makes launch-site operations more cumbersome and expensive.