I was curious about this because I know that Obama has been cutting back funding on NASA programs, and this one seemed relatively new. So, in curiosity, I e-mailed my step-dad, who works at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's what I e-mailed my step-dad:
"John--
What do you know about the Constellation project in relation to the new rocket that NASA has developed? I read an article recently in the New York Times about a new rocket motor that they've developed, even though in actuality it's an older model that they've improved on. Or, as the article said, "antiquated" version. Apparently the same style was used on the Challenger, and even though there was the huge accident, they've fixed what was wrong, that it was just a segment joint problem.
Do you know about why Obama is cutting funding? I figured, since you work at HQ, you might have some insight as to what is really going on.
--Elise"
Here's what my step-dad e-mailed to me:
"That’s a lot of questions with a lot of twists and turns in the answers. I’ll try to keep it simple:
1. NASA began a program called Constellation around 2006 under the Bush administration. It’s goals were to build a new rocket and new crewed vehicle, return humans to the moon, and eventually send humans to Mars.
2. As a part of the Constellation (usually abbreviated Cx) program, there were two “new” rockets planned. A smaller rocket to left humans, and a larger for cargo/components for the moon/Mars missions. The latter wasn’t planned to be started for a couple of more years. The smaller rocket, based on the Space Shuttle’s Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) has been designed, and an early prototype has already been flown.
3. Yes, the SRBs were used on Challenger (as they have been on every Shuttle flight since it’s inception in 1981). Challenger exploded in 1986 and we haven’t had a problem with the SRBs since, so I’m surprised the article would make any kind of deal about them. TheSRBs are segmented (think of cans stacked on top of each other) and the solid rocket fuel propulsion is more like a controlled explosion, than anything else. Once the solid rocket fuel is ignited, it goes and can’t be stopped. The SRBs provide almost all the lift from launch through the first couple of minutes, and then are discarded (land in ocean and are picked up and refurbished for reuse).
4. The Cx smaller rocket uses 5 SRB segments. Space Shuttle uses four, but that’s the only difference physically.
5. The Cx program has been underfunded by Congress since its inception, which hasn’t helped the chronically over-budget and behind- schedule program. An independent committee reported to Congress, the President, and NASA last year that, without a HUGE infusion of money (which won’t happen, especially in this economy, but even in the best of times the HUGE was tooooooo HUGE), the program was going to miss its milestones by at least a decade (!!).
6. In light of the above, Obama set new goals for NASA.
a. Instead of NASA developing a small rocket, let private industry be responsible for ferrying people and cargo to low Earth orbit. NASA doesn’t need to do it anymore, and private industry is showing they can quite well.
b. Start the development of the larger of the two rockets immediately. Other than for space exploration, rockets of the size being discussed have little use, and are therefore not economically viable for private industry.
c. Stop the rest of Constellation and instead develop the key technologies that will answer the vexing technology problems that prevent human space exploration today (e.g., how to stop astronauts from losing too much bone mass when on the two year Mars odyssey; or how to prevent those same astronauts from dying from space radiation that they will be exposed to once they leave low Earth orbit).
d. When we have the answers to the technology problems, then start developing a generic human exploration capability rather than develop the point solutions planned today (i.e., today as in the past, NASA will develop a system to go to point A. When we decide we want to go to point B, we start all over again and develop a solution peculiar to getting to Point B. etc.).
e. Ensure that all of the above are funded adequately to succeed.
How’s that?
John"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I found this incredibly interesting as it shed so much more light on what's really going on with the space-program and how things are really going. I find it sad that our space-program is constantly over-budget and under-funded. Having grown up with my step-dad working for NASA, I've always felt close to the space program and have always thought that it should be in our top priority.
Think about it this way: We're a constantly expanding society...what will happen when we don't have any more room here? Where will we go? If we continue to fund NASA, then we could actually see the eventual colonizing of moons, furthering ourselves into the galaxy as we always see in science-fiction movies.
The truth is, science fiction could easily become science fact if we just step up to the plate and give NASA the funding that it truly deserves. Programs such as the Constellation program shouldn't be pushed back...they should be our now and today, instead of our tomorrows and our maybes.
No comments:
Post a Comment