NASA Authorization Bill of 2013

[NASAFanboy]

Congress is trying to cut Obama's plan. Again. Think the REAL Space Act of 2011, and the zombified version in 2013 was not enough? Well then, check out this new piece of legisalture that wants to cut our asteroid mission. Think cutting this is'nt enough? Think of all the missions that had been cut in the past few years, and the programs. Missions that coud've produced very interesting information on Europa. Missions that could have sent us to Mars. Missions that could've built our first moonbase.

Lets have a quick look at the programs, shall we?

2010- Constellation Cut

2011- REAL Space Act introduced. Shot down in flames.

2011- Space Shuttle's cut. There was talk of extending them to 2015, but, oh well.

2013- Congress tries to cut funding for the Commerical Crew Program.

2013- Zombie REAL Space Act introduced. Probably merged with the new bill.

2013- This.

And, I'm only including the big, manned spaceship programs. Meanwhile, the robotic ones get shotdown like flies, and noone notices. I wonder how Europa Clipper is doing. So, I get Congress is pissed to hell over Obama, since he cut the program without consulting with them. So, now, what does this new bill offer?

1. Probably necro' the Altair lander. Go and develop stuff for a manned moonbase, around 2022. Use the SLS to go to the moon, and fund missions on the lunar surface. Build an backup system for the ISS and extend lifespan past 2020. Technically, Project Constellation with the Space Launch System

2. Fund the Commercial Crew Program, and increase the budget by 200 million.

3. Launch the Webb telescope in 2018. Probably will cut a few missions here and there, but keeps the science mostly intact. I'm pretty glad.

So, any thoughts?

NEWS: The bill will recieve a Congressional Hearing on June 19, in the House.

Edited June 15, 2013 by NASAFanboy

[JelloTickles]

Awesome! Atleast NASA is now getting serious. Still hope one day the Space Shuttles come back.

[Kerbface]

Awesome! Atleast NASA is now getting serious. Still hope one day the Space Shuttles come back.

If you want NASA to get serious, you really don't.

[jwenting]

Awesome! Atleast NASA is now getting serious. Still hope one day the Space Shuttles come back.

the Shuttle killed NASA. Bloated, massively expensive, launch cycle way too slow. All it did was provide secure employment for several tens of thousands of bureaucrats, which led to every program that could replace it and do the job more efficiently and cheaper being sabotaged so those several tens of thousands of bureaucrats would not be shown to be the waste of money that they were.

[astropapi1]

Still hope one day the Space Shuttles come back.

I hope you're not talking seriously.

[M5000]

Remember, while NASA is losing funding, the private sector is doing some cool stuff. And NASA isn't completely gone. Let's take a look at the stuff we're doing right now, instead of what we're not doing...

-SpaceX is testing their grasshopper system and getting it ready for regular use. If this happens and is successful as planned, it will bring a whole new view on how we look at rocket launches. No longer will they be horribly expensive, especially when you can re-use about 90% of the vessel's structure.

-SpaceX is also working on the Falcon Heavy, which will take even larger payloads to orbit. Less launches means less money.

-We're also taking names for a one-way mission to Mars.

-By the way, we still have two functional Mars rovers, if I'm not mistaken. Certainly we have one. Curiosity is doing quite well, and I believe Opportunity is still kicking somehow, though Sojourner died long ago, and of course Spirit broke its wheel. Why send more stuff to Mars if the ones we have are working perfectly well?

-Oh, and remember Voyager? Still beaming back all kinds of stuff.

-As you said, we will be launching the James Webb Space Telescope which will offer an immensely improved view over Hubble.

-Let's not forget the city in the sky, the ISS is still going. Likely nearing the end of its life, but the world is cooperating to keep the thing running. We just returned three people from it. Canadian and American men, being returned onto Middle Eastern soil, in a Russian craft, from a city in the sky built by the world. This isn't just about America, space exploration should be something for the world to do together. It should be no less cooperative and unifying than the Olympics.

-We have Ion engines and Aerospikes, too. Those have been around a while.

I don't know what else you could ask for right now. We have so much going on, why add more chaos until the service lives of current missions give out?

[Brotoro]

...We have so much going on, why add more chaos until the service lives of current missions give out?

You can't wait for one project to drop dead before you start the next one. There is a very long lead time on designing, building, testing, and finally flying spacecraft to faraway places. If you wait for the previous probes to give out before starting anything new, you'll end up with gaps of many years where we don't have anything going on (except data trickling in from equipment that was funded back when our leaders thought space exploration was important).

[jwenting]

if we'd never done anything until the previous thing stopped working, we'd still be waiting for the pyramids to crumble to dust...

[tek_604]

Meanwhile, the robotic ones get shotdown like flies, and noone notices.

I'm part of the planetary science community, and I can tell you, the community noticed a while ago. Caused a hell of a stink. Some of my colleagues went to the hill in order to try and save some of the budget, but, neither the Congressional Committee or NASA itself were that interested in restoring the planetary science budget. And although I am part of this community, and my job relies partly on NASA funding, I am actually pleased they didn't restore the planetary science budget, and I'll tell you why in a bit.

I wonder how Europa Clipper is doing.

Cancelled. That's how its doing. This I know because the original plan was for two orbiters to go to Jupiter. The NASA orbiter was due to travel to Europa, and the ESA orbiter was due to go to Ganymede. NASA decided, about 18 months ago (if I remember rightly), that their probe to Europa was not happening. This put ESA in a bit of a tight spot, as they had expected to work together. ESA however, continued alone, and now have the mission JUICE. Still, JUICE is running on a fine line, we're hoping it flies.

And so, now as to why I think its a good thing NASA decided against reinstating the planetary science budget. Its gives a once in a generation chance for the manned program to move ahead. We haven't seen this kind of push since the Apollo days, and while the new program won't be run in the same way as Apollo (I doubt they'll get a blank chequebook!), its good to see the manned program get a chance. The only decision NASA really need to make now is, where they want to go. You have two sides currently; you have the Moon people, and the asteroid people. The asteroid people want to capture a small asteroid, and work with it in near-Lunar orbit.

To me personally, while it is cool that we can even consider moving a small asteroid, the point is... why? There's nothing more we can learn about small asteroids that we couldn't do with a robotic mission, within the Discovery or New Frontiers programs, at a fraction of the cost of what is being proposed right now. Basically, I'm hoping we go back to the Moon.

This argument between Moon & asteroid missions needs to be resolved quickly. Otherwise, the fractional infighting will go on too long, and will cost NASA money in the short term, impacting everything. So, to any interested Americans reading this; I suggest you pick your side, and contact your Congressman, Senators or whatever, and make your case. If the people can force their politicians to make a decision, this can only be a good thing.

My final thought is, while the budgets are getting smaller, it is certainly an exciting time for space in general.

[Henri von Braun]

About aerospikes, I think they currently are just in testing. The X-33 uses one if I'm right.

[Karriz]

I'm not an American but this all seems so weird. They just go back and forth, and cannot get a solid plan of what they want to do. At least in the sixties there was a clear goal.

Going back to the Moon would indeed would be great, but who knows, maybe it'll get cancelled again... and again...

[NASAFanboy]

I'm part of the planetary science community, and I can tell you, the community noticed a while ago. Caused a hell of a stink. Some of my colleagues went to the hill in order to try and save some of the budget, but, neither the Congressional Committee or NASA itself were that interested in restoring the planetary science budget. And although I am part of this community, and my job relies partly on NASA funding, I am actually pleased they didn't restore the planetary science budget, and I'll tell you why in a bit.

Cancelled. That's how its doing. This I know because the original plan was for two orbiters to go to Jupiter. The NASA orbiter was due to travel to Europa, and the ESA orbiter was due to go to Ganymede. NASA decided, about 18 months ago (if I remember rightly), that their probe to Europa was not happening. This put ESA in a bit of a tight spot, as they had expected to work together. ESA however, continued alone, and now have the mission JUICE. Still, JUICE is running on a fine line, we're hoping it flies.

And so, now as to why I think its a good thing NASA decided against reinstating the planetary science budget. Its gives a once in a generation chance for the manned program to move ahead. We haven't seen this kind of push since the Apollo days, and while the new program won't be run in the same way as Apollo (I doubt they'll get a blank chequebook!), its good to see the manned program get a chance. The only decision NASA really need to make now is, where they want to go. You have two sides currently; you have the Moon people, and the asteroid people. The asteroid people want to capture a small asteroid, and work with it in near-Lunar orbit.

To me personally, while it is cool that we can even consider moving a small asteroid, the point is... why? There's nothing more we can learn about small asteroids that we couldn't do with a robotic mission, within the Discovery or New Frontiers programs, at a fraction of the cost of what is being proposed right now. Basically, I'm hoping we go back to the Moon.

This argument between Moon & asteroid missions needs to be resolved quickly. Otherwise, the fractional infighting will go on too long, and will cost NASA money in the short term, impacting everything. So, to any interested Americans reading this; I suggest you pick your side, and contact your Congressman, Senators or whatever, and make your case. If the people can force their politicians to make a decision, this can only be a good thing.

My final thought is, while the budgets are getting smaller, it is certainly an exciting time for space in general.

Yeah, while I do agree that it is nice that the human part is catching up, it's sort of sad to see it come at the expense of the interesting stuff like the Europa Clipper.

I support a return to the moon and a moonbase, but I'm afraid that a sudden change will further delay our plans. The old date was 2018, but with all this trouble and such, Congress moved it to 2022, with a moonbase starting in the same year.

But it's sort of sad. In four year's since 2009, and all we have is a soon-to-be-cancelled asteroid plan and a soon-to-be-vetoed-and-overridden Project Constellation with the SLS...

The proposal will probably make it, a stunning majority of Congress are the "Moon" people.

[NASAFanboy]

I'm not an American but this all seems so weird. They just go back and forth, and cannot get a solid plan of what they want to do. At least in the sixties there was a clear goal.

Going back to the Moon would indeed would be great, but who knows, maybe it'll get cancelled again... and again...

It probably will not. When Obama took office, even if he served two terms, a moon landing would not happen. But, since the date for the moonbase is 2022, if his successor served two terms, it would go to 2024. Now, if Obama didn't cancel Constellation, his name would be another footnote in space history.

But meanwhile, which President would'nt want to go down in history as the man who's term built the first moonbase?

[GJames]

I'm not an American but this all seems so weird. They just go back and forth, and cannot get a solid plan of what they want to do. At least in the sixties there was a clear goal.

Going back to the Moon would indeed would be great, but who knows, maybe it'll get cancelled again... and again...

Welcome to politics.

[sanity]

no matter what country your in, its still the same, there is no creature in the universe more lost to honor than a politician

as a species they are generally selfish and self serving

[metaphor]

You can't really compare the asteroid retrieval plan with a return to the Moon. They're different orders of magnitude.

The original plan was for the SLS/Orion to have their first manned flight test in 2021 with a crew orbiting the Moon and then coming back to Earth. The asteroid retrieval plan only changes that slightly. The astronauts would still go into an orbit (a higher orbit) around the Moon, it's just that there will be an asteroid there for them to study. The main benefit of the asteroid mission would not be the manned part, but the development of the Solar Electric Propulsion stage which would move the asteroid. That technology could later be used on other things like sending heavy cargo to Mars for a manned Mars landing. It's also nice to practice moving asteroids around if we want to use them for something like extracting resources from them, or redirecting an impactor.

The cost of the asteroid retrieval mission is about $2.6 billion over 10 years. That's about the same as the cost of the Curiosity Mars rover, or 1-2% of NASA's budget over that period. In order to land on the Moon, we need to develop, test, and build a lander, which is estimated to cost about $8-10 billion. And if we want to stay on the Moon for long periods of time, like having a base, we would also have to develop some kind of habitat and associated infrastructure, which would also cost many billions of dollars. So building a Moon base is not really comparable to the asteroid retrieval mission in terms of cost.

The problem with this bill is not that it redirects NASA to make a Moon base, it's that it doesn't give NASA any additional funding to do that. In fact it cuts NASA's budget and caps it (doesn't allow it to increase) for the next few years. Telling NASA to do something and then not funding it is probably the worst way to go, because it's going to result in massive schedule slips and cost overruns, and probably a lot of cancelled missions.

The discussion should be more about the overall architecture, not a single mission like the asteroid retrieval. There are two basic paths for future manned spaceflight that people are talking about. One is the president's plan which is about going to Mars as the main goal. To do that, you would need to develop some capabilities first, such as a heavy lift rocket, a deep-space habitat, a Mars EDL (entry, descent, and landing) system, and maybe some better propulsion options like SEP or nuclear thermal rockets, which would be big cost savers in the long run. The asteroid retrieval mission would demonstrate the SEP stage very well, which could later be used for cargo flights to Mars without having to spend billions more designing one. Later, around 2025, there would be a long duration flight to a large "free range" asteroid (~1km size). This flight would develop the capability of a deep-space habitat which would be virtually the same as the one needed to go to Mars. This would lead to a Mars mission in 2033 or 2035.

The other main path, which Congress seems to like, is a return to the Moon. We would start with developing a lander which would lead to short duration Moon landings around 2022 or so. Then we would start longer duration Moon surface missions in the late 2020s and build a permanently manned base in the early 2030s. This would demonstrate a low-gravity surface habitat similar to one that could be used on Mars, but we would still need to develop a deep space habitat and Mars EDL system. This would lead to a Mars mission around 2040.

The second option would have higher costs simply because it takes a lot to get to the Moon. The delta-v required to reach the surface of the Moon is greater than the delta-v required to reach the surface of Mars. ( 9500 m/s Earth surface to LEO + 3000 m/s LEO to Moon transfer + 700 m/s Moon transfer to LLO + 1600 m/s LLO to Moon surface = 14800 m/s Earth surface to Moon surface. 9500 m/s Earth surface to LEO + 3200 m/s LEO to Earth escape + 600 m/s Earth escape to Mars transfer + 0 m/s slowing down in Mars' atmosphere + 500 m/s retrorockets Mars atmosphere to Mars surface = 13800 m/s Earth surface to Mars surface. ) Because of the rocket equation this means that putting a certain mass on the Moon requires more mass to LEO than putting the same mass on Mars. Granted a mission to Mars would take a lot more mass on the surface than a mission to the Moon, but if we wanted to build a base on the Moon the costs would be similar to a base on Mars.

[Spaceisbeautifulul]

Let's not forget the city in the sky, the ISS is still going. Likely nearing the end of its life, but the world is cooperating to keep the thing running

This, this is important!

[Grove]

It's not like space exploration gives ANY profit for it to be valuable in anyone's eyes.

[ShachonianX]

Hope the moon base stuff will allow mining.

[Themohawkninja]

It's not like space exploration gives ANY profit for it to be valuable in anyone's eyes.

That's basically just it. There is no direct profits to be had with space exploration until mining operations begin. Until then, it's all the technologies that result from space missions that create profit, which is too indirect for the public to grasp the connection.

[Festivefire]

It's not like space exploration gives ANY profit for it to be valuable in anyone's eyes.

on the contrary, there are several private companies discussing tethering an asteroid in LEO, and mining from it.

[RedDwarfIV]

Hope the moon base stuff will allow mining.

Asteroids are generally richer in resources. I'm in favour of the asteroid plan because A) It means we'd have a fricken' asteroid as a second moon [which is cool] and because it means once we get to the asteroid belt we'd have developed the technologies neccesary to use the resources that are there. A moon base would probably work just as well on Ceres.

[The Jedi Master]

Do YOU have the billions?

This is my response to these kinds of threads.

[Kerbface]

Do YOU have the billions?

This is my response to these kinds of threads.

That's a stupid question... You're not a billionaire so you have no right to discuss what would be a good use of NASA's budget, because your monetary status is what gives you understanding of space exploration and engineering?

[Themohawkninja]

That's a stupid question... You're not a billionaire so you have no right to discuss what would be a good use of NASA's budget, because your monetary status is what gives you understanding of space exploration and engineering?

He's making the point that if you don't have the money to fund massive projects, you can't understand the problems involved. It's like yelling at any professional outside of your profession for doing a bad job, when can't make any educated critique of it.