If our society or economy or world needs newer and bigger crisis to spur growth then we are all screwed.

I realize the benefits that come along with great challenges but the mindset that jumps to that conclusion has always bothered me.

Finding a peacetime challenge may be more difficult but I'm sure it can be done.

Maybe an imminent danger of a natural disaster, like an asteroid strike?

Detroit,

Asteroid strikes are going to happen and you and I (and others) would like to be prepared and test our ability to alter this fate. But there are actually many folks who think that preparing an asteroid defense network is a waste of money. I've actually seen folks on the vine talking about how we just shouldn't interfere with that kind of thing. Apparently those people think that it would "go against nature" to prevent an asteroid strike. I've talked with some of these people and they are entirely willing to let humanity go extinct rather than do whatever it takes to stave off the kind of massive destruction that comes with a space rock impacting Earth. It's crazy talk if you ask me. You wouldn't go outside in a blizzard without a coat and gloves (hopefully) so what's different about asteroid strikes.. Nothing. You see the danger and you do what you can to mitigate that danger. It just makes sense to me. I think it is extremely unwise to not prepare ourselves for the inevitable impact event. Whether it happens in 5 years or 500 years, it is worth it to me to invest in a way to prevent a space rock impact event.

Then there are the people that don't mind setting up such a network or framework or system, but they don't want America to be the only ones footing the bill. To that argument I say, If we don't do it then we can't count on it being done "right" and to our specifications. Frankly I think every government should be involved but we can't control them, we can only control ourselves, and so we need to get started ASAP in preparing for the inevitable.

In any case, it is a "peacetime challenge". It is man vs. nature (in literary terms). And it wouldn't have the same impact on human life that a war would (although, there wouldn't be any casualties if it were actually a "fake threat of an alien invasion".) When I was talking about the problems with the "mindset that jumps to that conclusion" I was referring to the "need for a new Pearl Harbor event", but I was hoping to steer clear of the political side of that whole thing.

How about a minor asteroid strike, just enough to cause some damage and make people wake up to the fact that our little corner of the solar system isn't exactly without peril. The shock alone could be enough to spur larger investment in scientific endeavors, as well as the resulting offshoot technologies.

I think a 20m NiFe object in sub-saharan Africa or Siberia would do the trick. Minimal loss of life, if any, and a large enough impact crater that people will take notice.

Antarctica.

My fear is that we would argue how best to handle the threat and what would be the most cost effective route, and be the time we had an answer, SPLAT.

A combined threat (asteroid will strike the ocean and cause 50 meter tsunamis in the North and South America, either Europe or Asia (Atlantic or Pacific Strike) and everyone gets together, OR confirmed sea shells found in a low lying area of Mars (lets find out how we can profit on this new life).

I would hope that pursuit of knowledge would prevail, but alas...

I'm glad someone else caught that.

On another note, when looking at the picture of the capsule: THAT'S IT?!

After so much time and money, the only thing NASA could come up with is regurgitated Apollo designs?

NASA...come on. Hire some people with imagination along with the engineering know-how.

Some would bitch about getting anything. Should the sceintists asked you about the looks?

Some would bitch about getting anything. Should the sceintists asked you about the looks?

Save the ignorant rebuttals for someone with half a brain.

It's not about the looks, it's about space. The limited space in that capsule for a trip to Mars looks physically dangerous.

There have been plenty of great designs for inner-system travel that solve that issue and more.

Some would bitch about getting anything. Should the sceintists asked you about the looks?

It's not about the looks, it's about LIVING space! Would you want to go to Mars in that tiny little thing? And it's not even that great of an escape pod design... honestly, Space X's dragon capsule (which will have a built in launch abort system that can double as landing/maneuvering thrusters) is a much better option than this thing. Dragon is completely reusable, and you don't have to ditch the launch abort system every time you go up - saves a lot of money that way.

The limited space in that capsule for a trip to Mars looks physically dangerous.

OH MY GOD YOU PEOPLE ARE DENSE!

Do you not even look into this stuff before making such asinine statements?

This capsule is for liftoff and reentry, the capsule is the perfect design for this, that is undisputed WORLD WIDE.

We will have all the heavy lift to take up all the modules we need for any mission.

Do you not realise that the Apollo package to the Moon was FOUR modules?

The Command Module(Similar to this craftbut much smaller), The Service Module, The Lunar Lander, and the Lunar Module. That's FOUR components just to the moon.

NASA's plan for Mars involves using TWO of these capsules for lifeboats and a large habitat module, plus landing hardware and whatever else is needed.

PLEASE actually understand what you are posting on or JUST DONT POST!

Deep space is not exactly a technical term, but I believe it generally means anything beyond low-earth orbit, in which case the author used the term appropriately.

Regarding habitable space in the Orion/MPCV, it is 1.5x larger than the Apollo capsule to begin with. For a mission to a NEO (near-earth asteroid), likely two Orions docked together would be used for 3x the space of an Apollo capsule. Missions to Mars moons or Mars itself would utilize an additional "Hab" module. All missions will also utilize a service module.

Indeed ScoMata is correct. Orion is NOT a regurgitated Apollo design. Even the brand that the Bush administration gave it wasn't quite right, it's much more than "Apollo on steroids". Other than being a capsule shape it's vastly superior.

But, the point here is that the Orion/Multi person crew vehicle is NOT designed to be the only thing taking people to places beyond Earth orbit. Orion will take people to Earth orbit and then it will link with the other mission modules, which will vary depending on the mission. One thing is for sure here, Orion is not a stand alone space craft for use beyond Earth. It will take other modules in every trip whether it's to the Moon, asteroids, or Mars, or anywhere else.

The "limited space" found in the Orion/MPCV is purposeful and is very efficient in terms of a reentry capsule. Would you really want a 24 seater huge mammajamma coming into the atmosphere at 20,000+??

It's basically a government employee welfare program for highly paid civil servants. It should be obvious to everyone that NASA doesn't have any Rocket Scientist left, only Astronauts who want to fly in space on backs of taxpayers. That's why NASA is in a time warp and building a 60s Wernher von Braun capsule, because he is the only Rocket Scientist left at NASA, and he died in 1977.

You are so full of it!

NASA is the ONLY agency other than the militaryn that can manage such operations, and they do it very well.

THis is bleeding edge stuff and that is just how it works. GET OVER IT!

Keep in mind, the Shuttle was $450 billion per launch (and as much as $1.5 billion per launch if you tally lifetime costs), and we were limited to low-earth orbit.

The costs to date of SLS/Orion are mostly inherited from Constellation (CxP), which was poorly conceived, badly underfunded by congress (the lowest NASA funding levels in it's 50+ year history), and consequently ran into a variety technical issues, delays, and cost over runs.

With the new approach of SLS/Orion for mission beyond-earth orbit, and COTS/CCDEV for low-earth orbit, we are finally on a more feasible, cost-effective, flexible, and technically sound path.

What, $5 billion and no hardware to show?

Actually there is quite a bit of hardware to show for that 5 billion dollars.

Also, I'm surprised that folks don't give NASA more credit to do the big projects. Do you really think anyone else could pull off the Apollo program? Perhaps you'd rather a commercial entity do it? And then you'd see Starbucks and McDonalds signs on the full Moon.

Really, the first line of the NASA act of 1958 says that the main purpose of NASA is, and I quote, "Sec. 102. (a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind."

(section 101 is the short title of the act, so this is actually the first line)

I am all for getting commercial space efforts into space, I am a capitalist American after all, but I also realize that companies exist solely to generate profit. NASA has a more lofty purpose and for that I'm thankful.

If it were not for NASA it would not be nearly as safe to step on an airliner, ANY airliner, or any plane for that matter. The lives they have saved with their aeronautical research has saved COUNTLESS lives.

As I said, no government agecy except the military has ever produced more than it consumed.

Our leader failed us with the cancellation of the Constellations program.

The implementers of Constellation (CxP) were solely responsible for it's failure. CxP was the most ambitious project in the history of spaceflight, yet leadership of the time dealt NASA their lowest funding levels since the 1950's (about 0.5% of GDP). It was doomed to failure from the get go.

By the time 2009 rolled around, CxP's cancellation had become a forgone conclusion (see the 2009 Augustine Commission findings). Manned spaceflight on Ares I would have been 2017-2019 at the earliest. No real chance of Ares V or the Altair lander.

This new compromise effort is weak.

70mt to LEO is weak? Ultimately scaling up to 130mt to LEO (by far the most powerful launcher, EVER) is weak??

The launch rate is too low.

It's better than zero, which is what the BEO launch rate would have been under CxP.

They are Trying to use satellite rockets that were not designed for safe human spaceflight.

Not true. SLS is a primarily Shuttle-based launcher, except no Shuttle, and an Orion/J-2x powered upper stage and LAS. The design is inherently much much safer than the Shuttle actually.

There is not a clear attainable mission, destination or supporting mission hardware.

The mission(s) follow a "flexible path" as hardware scales up from now thru the mid-2030's, starting with a manned mission to cislunar space this decade, a manned mission to an NEO in the 2020's, then Mars in the 2030's.

I'll take the new model any day. I particularly like the aspect of low-earth orbit opening up to a variety of promising commercial providers, which hopefully leads to commercial deep-space activity as well. Under Constellation, NASA was still required for LEO access.

I think he confuses Boeings plan to use the Delta, and another companies plan considering the Atlas for thier comercial LEO rockets.

Both are man ratable, just have never been man rated because no one ever needed one for manned use until now. Its that simple.

Ok gotcha. Yeah, the MPCV (can we just call "Orion") / Delta IV test launch that the article discusses is just an initial test. Ultimately, Orion will be launched from the SLS, which is in development.

For ongoing low-earth orbit launches, my understanding is that most of the competing commercial LEO providers outside of Orbital Sciences and SpaceX (for example, Boeing for their CST-100 capsule, and Sierra Nevada for their "Dreamchaser" spaceplane) are looking at the Atlas V launcher.

The Atlas V rocket has an excellent launch record, and minimal changes are necessary to meet man-rating requirements (i.e., it needs an Emergency Detection System upgrade along with some modification to the ground/launch infrastructure.)

My understanding is that man-rating the Delta IV would be more expensive, but there seems to be some debate around that.

It would be great to have all 3 of these as man-rated launchers; Falcon9, AtlasV, and SLS. Flexibility, capability, and greater control over costs... and competition (it's a wonderful thing).

And again... the design of these launch vehicles is inherently safer that the Shuttle. A capsule launched atop a booster (with no chance of debris impacting the heat shield) and with an LAS is naturally going to be safer than a bird with an exposed TPS underbelly and no LAS whatsoever.

(That being said, the shuttle was an amazing vehicle and I will miss it.)

Thank you CJSKS for injecting reason and facts into this thread.

those are hemorrohoids...

I'll go, sign me up!! (You do realize that there will be additional hab modules on deep space missions beyond the earth-moon ;) Plus at 316 cu ft of habitable space, it's 1.5x larger than the Apollo capsule.

Also, private companies will be handling LEO... so not sure what you're saying there.

How bout you actually know what you are talking about before commenting? That would be nice?

Not having a clue is the new norm apparantly

Not having a clue is the new norm apparantly

As is out rightly insulting people rather than constructively correcting them I guess....

Cjsks - Eh, 3 times the volume of the Apollo capsule STILL isn't much. Even if we had something the size of the ISS to go to Mars, I would still feel cramped. You ask me, we ought to just tell Bigelow Aerospace to go ahead and build us one of their BA 2100 modules (2100 cubic meters of space, more than doulbe the ISS) and use THAT to move around the system - just strap on a propulsion module and a nuclear reactor and you're all set!

I'm thinking they'll have some sort of crew quarters attachment, kind of how they had the command module, service module, and lunar lander attached for Apollo. Which, in my opinion, is a bit lazy and wasteful. Why not design a ship that is meant to STAY and travel in space and nothing else, and then we can use capsules like these for escape pods/landers? Or would that make too much sense?

besides the physical issues of space, the psychological issues of being in a capsule that size for a trip to Mars don't make it a very good choice. The first "Taco Tuesday" they have and the crew will be dead.

Why not design a ship that is meant to STAY and travel in space and nothing else, and then we can use capsules like these for escape pods/landers? Or would that make too much sense?

It does make sense, but the development timeline and costs would most definitely make it unworkable in this economic climate. Also, seperate modules allow you build and adapt hardware that is best suited for the mission at hand.

It would make sense if you wanted to go to the moon and back 100x for example, but does not work for the variety of missions on the table for the foreseeable future.

Detroit-Storm

We have not learned how to construct something that can withstand the conditions in space for more than a decade or MAYBE two cost effectively. This is one reason the space "station" is so important. It is actually a spaceship with no propulsion that lets us see how long habitation modules last. MIR proved one thing.....not that long.

Each module has a 10-15 year lifetime, and that is with it being inside the protection of the Earths magnetic field. Space is the harshest environment short of the deep sea for hardware. Things just don't last unless you way overbuild, and even then its not enough. Alvin is rebuild and inspected just as much as the Shuttles were. The argument can still be made for expendable vehicles.

The Aries capsule will be resuable though, but unless a craft can last for several missions, its single use anyway.

I would think you could design the vessel to be fairly multi-purpose, or even modular. Using Bigelow Aerospace's inflatable modules would be a cheap and easy option....

You hit the nail on the head. The real reason Obama shyed away from Mars is the habitation module, the lander, and the man rated rover. Notice his missions involve minimal hardware. THe HARDWARE is choosing the mission, not the other way around.

That is not leadership, that is phoning it in.

He just has no balls like Kennedy did.

Just my opinion.

only Marilyn Monroe can verify...

That may be why she is dead.....seems like the ONLY Marilyn conspiracy theory never discussed was First lady revenge.

The Kennedys were a crime family no different than the Sicilians except skin tone.

Come on ScoMata...you were making so much sense in your other responses, now you want to blame Obama for being a realist? Congress would never fund a more ambitious program...they certainly didn't fund Constellation, and that was under a Republican president. No. President Obama's vision focuses on what we can afford to do in pragmatic terms at this time.

Sorry dude, not buying what you are selling. NASA is .05% of the federal budget, we could tripple thier budget and not feel a thing.

Besides Obama has grown the federal government a whopping 20% since taking office, and we cant put some of that towards NASA? COME ON!