NASA should move forward with the development of a new heavy-lift launch vehicle in order to maintain world leadership in space exploration, but the establishment of a lunar base "is extremely expensive and can wait, at least for now," legendary astronaut John Glenn said in a paper released today.Commercial companies, meanwhile, should be required to prove a capability to launch cargo to the International Space Station before NASA relinquishes the responsibility of launching astronauts to the outpost.
"This is a very unforgiving business, and when you turn this over to people who have not been in the business very long, who are building brand new spacecraft, you are going to have a developmental period where it won't be as safe as it is to continue the shuttle right now. And I'd rather go the safer route," Glenn told Florida Today.
"I am not against commercial spaceflight," he added. "I think the commercial companies may come along sometime and be good enough to provide manned space flight. But I think they should develop that through the use of their cargo-carrying capability -- demonstrate that and demonstrate a reliability before we trust them to go with the manned flights."
Glenn, 88, became the first American to orbit Earth in 1962 and the oldest astronaut to fly in space when he launched on Discovery in 1998 at age 77. He laid out his vision for the future of the U.S. human space flight program in a white paper released today. He spoke with Florida Today in advance, advocating continued shuttle fleet operations.
Check out the full story HERE
Glenn, a Democrat who served four terms in the Senate before retiring from politics in January 1999, also said he agrees with President Obama's decision to forgo the establishment of a lunar base.
"The principal rationale for establishing a base on the moon, aside from international prestige, was to gain experience in extra-terrestrial living in preparation for future space destinations. Those deeper space travels are far enough in the future that I agree with postponing a lunar base," Glenn wrote.
Instead, Glenn believes that the nation should keep the shuttles flying and maximize return on taxpayer investment in the $100 billion International Space Station.
"The life-extension of the ISS from 2015 to 2020 -- with further extensions possible -- is the right direction," Glenn wrote.
The nation's future in space beyond the station rests on the development of a heavy-lift launch vehicle that can replace the capabilities of the shuttles, which are the world's most advanced spacecraft.
"We need a heavy-lift capability as good or better than the shuttle to build up a Mars vehicle in low Earth orbit and do the other things we want to do," Glenn told Florida Today. "If we're going to be competitive further down the road, with other nations building their own space vehicles, to have a heavy-lift capability is necessary."
5 comments:
.
.
.
.
the "stellar expensive" ($200 billion R&D) Constellation program has been deleted, despite many ARES.lobby blogs and forums STILL talk about them!!!!
.
the Direct.LOBBY's rockets [ http://bit.ly/bh0YeY ] has been DEFINITELY AND COMPLETELY IGNORED despite many DIRECT.lobby blogs and forums STILL talk about them!!!!
.
and, now, NASA suggests/wants to develop a new shuttle-derived HLV rocket:
.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/06/shuttle-derived.html
.
that is EXACTLY the SAME concept of the shuttle-derived FAST-SLV that I've proposed over FOUR YEARS AGO (and in ALL these 4 years!) on my website [ http://bit.ly/9cbsFB ] and on (several hundreds!!!) threads, posts and comments on space and science forums and blogs, worldwide!!!
.
please note, that, this "new" NASA proposal (in its inline version) isn't "similar" to my FAST-SLV concept but E-X-A-C-T-L-Y THE SAME of MY four-years-old idea!!!
.
FOUR YEARS LOST AND $9 BILLION BURNED FOR NOTHING... :[
.
and also MANY ideas and suggestions for a smaller, lighter and cheaper Orion has been already published in my www.ghostNASA.com www.gaetanomarano.it and www.NewSpaceAgency.com sites and blogs, where you can read (from past 3-5 years) WHAT Boeing, LM and NASA will do in the next 5 years!!!!!
.
.
.
.
It is SO frustrating to me that opponents of commercial companies providing orbital taxi service, like John Glenn, use the false argument that SpaceX is the only company under consideration for providing that service and then use their inexperience as the reason to not do it until much later.
SpaceX is only one of the potential providers of an orbital taxi service. It's true that they don't have much experience yet, so it is prudent to not depend on them. However, the United Launch Allience, the makers of the Atlas V and Delta IV rockets, have MORE experience than anyone else. In fact, it's those companies (Lockheed Martin and Boeing) who are the main contractors for Constellation. If they are good enough to build the hardware for Constellation, then they are good enough to provide their own orbital taxi service using their proven existing rockets.
I would like to see SpaceX and one of the ULA companies funded to provide commercial taxi service. That way we'll have at least one if not two commercial providers, one of which will be much cheaper if successful.
Having commercial providers opens up low earth orbit to commercial enterprises and development, something that Ares I would not do. Bigelow is trying to create private space stations but can't go forward until their is commercial access to orbit. I think that our government should help facilitate commercial use of space by backing commercial taxi services.
John Glenn, at least make a rational argument that includes the ULA rockets in your rationale. Otherwise, it just looks very self-serving.
"The principal rationale for establishing a base on the moon, aside from international prestige, was to gain experience in extra-terrestrial living in preparation for future space destinations. Those deeper space travels are far enough in the future that I agree with postponing a lunar base," Glenn wrote.
Glenn demonstrates that he doesn't understand the reason for going back to the Moon under the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) any better than NASA or the President does.
The objective of returning to the Moon is to learn how to use the resources there to create new space faring capability. This goal is clearly documented in both the original VSE speech and documents as well as later elaboration by former OSTP head John Marburger. We now know that the Moon contains abundant water ice, making it a prime logistics base not only for travel beyond the Moon to the planets, but more importantly, for routine travel throughout cislunar (greater Earth-Moon) space, where all of our satellite assets reside. Thus, a lunar return to harvest water provides scientific, national security and economic value, something one-off, Apollo-type stunt missions to distant destinations does not.
Dr. Spudis:
Thanks for weighing in. I appreciate your reminder on the reasons for going back to the moon, which is being dissed as a destination by the current administration. The close proximity of the moon and the water-ice make it a perfect proving group for the technologies needed to explore further into the solar system.
Todd and paul i agree completely with your comments there.To my mind,constellation was a long term plan that would have achieved those goals. Maybe Mr Glen hadn't quite grasped what they were aiming at.
Post a Comment