Just months after reaching a deal with NASA to build an inflatable space room, local entrepreneur Robert Bigelow is working with agency officials to find ways for business executives to take part in human space missions.
His company, Bigelow Aerospace, signed a deal with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration last month to explore how the private sector can contribute to missions beyond the area known as “Low Earth Orbit,” about 1,200 miles above sea level.
That could include missions to the moon, which is about 240,000 miles away, and Mars, which is at least 33.9 million miles from Earth.
The deal with Bigelow, based in North Las Vegas, is the first of its kind for NASA. The entities will work together to determine which companies can contribute to such missions, what expertise they would bring to the table and what types of missions they could work on, said Mike Gold, Bigelow’s director of Washington, D.C., operations and business growth.
No money will change hands between Bigelow and NASA. The study is expected to be completed this fall.
What kinds of projects might be pursued?
The private sector potentially could get involved with attempts to extract helium-3 from the moon, Gold said. The gas, which is scarce on Earth but believed to be in abundance on the moon, is viewed as a possible source of cheap, clean energy.
NASA spokesman David Weaver said the agency is “intensely focused on a bold mission to identify, relocate and explore an asteroid with American astronauts by 2025" and an even more ambitious human mission to Mars in the 2030s. NASA has no plans for a human mission to the moon, he said.
Just months after reaching a deal with NASA to build an inflatable space room, local entrepreneur Robert Bigelow is working with agency officials to find ways for business executives to take part in human space missions.
His company, Bigelow Aerospace, signed a deal with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration last month to explore how the private sector can contribute to missions beyond the area known as “Low Earth Orbit,” about 1,200 miles above sea level.
That could include missions to the moon, which is about 240,000 miles away, and Mars, which is at least 33.9 million miles from Earth.
The deal with Bigelow, based in North Las Vegas, is the first of its kind for NASA. The entities will work together to determine which companies can contribute to such missions, what expertise they would bring to the table and what types of missions they could work on, said Mike Gold, Bigelow’s director of Washington, D.C., operations and business growth.
No money will change hands between Bigelow and NASA. The study is expected to be completed this fall.
What kinds of projects might be pursued?
The private sector potentially could get involved with attempts to extract helium-3 from the moon, Gold said. The gas, which is scarce on Earth but believed to be in abundance on the moon, is viewed as a possible source of cheap, clean energy.
NASA spokesman David Weaver said the agency is “intensely focused on a bold mission to identify, relocate and explore an asteroid with American astronauts by 2025" and an even more ambitious human mission to Mars in the 2030s. NASA has no plans for a human mission to the moon, he said.
NASA has been "talking big" about going beyond "low earth orbit" for decades. Every Apollo Anniversary there is renewed talk.. and big anniversaries like the 20th and 30th anniversaries of Apollo 11 have met with big talk and big promises... and still nothing.
so i don't think we'll see man going beyond low earth orbit until medical science solves the problem of "real low gravity". as opposed to the "apparent weightlessness" of low earth orbit.
outside of "low earth orbit" when real gravity substantially decreases the basic mechanics of the human circulatory system and the lymphatic system fail badly.
until this is solved.. look for humans to remain in low earth orbit for the next few decades.
That PBS video was from last year. But I did like the characterization of SLS as a "rocket to nowhere." It's the same problem for decades now. There's no commitment or not enough funding to move forwards to a well-defined goal so we get stuck with the status quo.
On May 05 2013 06:58 oBlade wrote: That PBS video was from last year. But I did like the characterization of SLS as a "rocket to nowhere." It's the same problem for decades now. There's no commitment or not enough funding to move forwards to a well-defined goal so we get stuck with the status quo.
In my opinion, it's not a matter of funding. The segment with the Florida senator was telling. He was proudly proclaiming that NASA is not getting any less money than it used to with no reference as to what that money is achieving.
The political coalition that NASA is relying on requires it to be inefficient. Of course contractors prefer to build new systems every few years. And of course politicians loved the Shuttle, which required a huge number of people to run and service. People who just happened to live in their constituency.
There's a lot more stuff NASA could do with a higher budget. Unfortunately a higher budget would come with a lot of strings attached, ultimately stopping them from using the extra money effectively.
The main issue with SLS seems to be its ridiculous cost (both development and per launch) which is basically consistent with the view of NASA as a vehicle to siphon money out of the federal budget. Giving NASA more money wouldn't solve the problem. Indeed, it might make it worse.
I believe its generally accepted that much of NASA spending gets lost in the bureaucracy. All of NASA's biggest projects become phenomenally overbudget, just look at JWST, Curiosity, Orion. SLS will be no different. You can take good odds that SLS might be NASA's most expensive project ever, even if you don't count all the money originally spent on Constellation/Orion. Hell, I would be surprised if SLS even makes it original launch targets.
On May 05 2013 10:45 a176 wrote: I believe its generally accepted that much of NASA spending gets lost in the bureaucracy. All of NASA's biggest projects become phenomenally overbudget, just look at JWST, Curiosity, Orion. SLS will be no different. You can take good odds that SLS might be NASA's most expensive project ever, even if you don't count all the money originally spent on Constellation/Orion. Hell, I would be surprised if SLS even makes it original launch targets.
At our current rate of progress, I think we will be able to hit the 2017 planned launch date of the first SLS configuration, assuming the budget doesn't get slashed before then (which it shouldn't, but you never know). The largest version of the rocket won't be ready for a while after that.
Orion is coming along nicely from what I've seen, it has the advantage of being salvaged from the Constellation program afterall, whereas the core stage had to be started from scratch. Reusing SRBs and main engines from the shuttle also helps to speed things along.
There is always a possibility something goes bad in the tests adding long delays to the program, but I am optimistic.
In the meanwhile, the military/DoD has been doing their thing,
* "The X-37 began as a NASA project in 1999, before being transferred to the U.S. Department of Defense in 2004. It conducted its first flight as a drop test on 7 April 2006, at Edwards Air Force Base, California. The spaceplane's first orbital mission, USA-212, was launched on 22 April 2010 using an Atlas V rocket. Its successful return to Earth on 3 December 2010 was the first test of the vehicle's heat shield and hypersonic aerodynamic handling. A second X-37 was launched on 5 March 2011, with the mission designation USA-226; it returned to Earth on 16 June 2012.[1] A third X-37 mission, USA-240, launched successfully on 11 December 2012."
The private sector has been plundering NASA day in day out too, for pennies on the dollar and even the government has been relocating NASA dollars to regional interests than have little to nothing to do with space research or even basic science research.. (no links provided, people are going to have to do their own research on this one)
So, yes everything has consequences..
And then there is this (and the irony of it should not escape anyone):
Bottom line in the near future we are going to keep seeing NASA get gutted, and space "exploration" (cough) will continue to go the private or the military route in the US, towards more exclusive programs, further away from the public domain, away from prying eyes and of course, as usual, how are tax dollars are spent will also go that way too.. so basic science and pure space exploration will have to increasingly take a back seat to vested interests.. (I do hope end up being wrong though).
On the flip side, such tribulations and changes in US policy has got the Russians back into the race and the Chinese pushing even harder (zergling rush) and hey, even the Japanese and India are getting into the game.
On May 06 2013 13:53 JimmyJRaynor wrote: unfortunately, so many promises have been made since 1972 about "going beyond earth orbit"...
it won't happen by 2017.
there will just be more well documented excuses.
Im no expert but to me we're just not technologically advanced enough to do much beyond earth orbit. Leaving earth orbit is still to expensive. Traveling to another planet takes to long for human expeditions.
Until we have a more efficient way of leaving earth then giant rockets I don't see humanity doing much more then sending robots beyond earth orbit.
smart move by NASA to let other companies fail at going beyond earth orbit.
that way they don't look like morons and everyone can just forget all the failed milestones, broken promises and cancellations.
stuff like this just makes me laugh.. they can't even get a human 500 km away and they are talking so big
"NASA spokesman David Weaver said the agency is “intensely focused on a bold mission to identify, relocate and explore an asteroid with American astronauts by 2025" and an even more ambitious human mission to Mars in the 2030s. NASA has no plans for a human mission to the moon, he said."
i'd be impressd if they could handle the lower gravity of 500km of distance.... i mean its been over 40 years according to most... and never been done at all according to some others.
On May 07 2013 22:22 JimmyJRaynor wrote: smart move by NASA to let other companies fail at going beyond earth orbit.
that way they don't look like morons and everyone can just forget all the failed milestones, broken promises and cancellations.
stuff like this just makes me laugh.. they can't even get a human 500 km away and they are talking so big
"NASA spokesman David Weaver said the agency is “intensely focused on a bold mission to identify, relocate and explore an asteroid with American astronauts by 2025" and an even more ambitious human mission to Mars in the 2030s. NASA has no plans for a human mission to the moon, he said."
i'd be impressd if they could handle the lower gravity of 500km of distance.... i mean its been over 40 years according to most... and never been done at all according to some others.
Progress sometimes requires many failures before advancing. Edison didn't invent the lightbulb over night; he went through hundreds of failures before finding the right filament. No, failure is never something to shoot for, but the fact that they're trying and that they want to try is noble in my book. Waiting for others to fail before advancing may be wise, but being willing to take the risk of failure in the hopes of advancing is very brave.
Governor Susana Martinez today announced that Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, or SpaceX, has signed a three-year agreement to lease land and facilities at Spaceport America to conduct the next phase of flight testing for its reusable rocket program. The company will be a new tenant at Spaceport America, the state-owned commercial launch site located in southern New Mexico.
"I am thrilled that SpaceX has chosen to make New Mexico its home, bringing their revolutionary "Grasshopper" rocket and new jobs with them," Governor Martinez said today. "We've done a lot of work to level the playing field so we can compete in the space industry. This is just the first step in broadening the base out at the Spaceport and securing even more tenants. I'm proud to welcome SpaceX to New Mexico."
SpaceX has completed its first series of successful, low-altitude tests of the "Grasshopper" vehicle in McGregor, Texas and is proceeding to the next phase of development that includes testing in New Mexico. With Grasshopper, SpaceX engineers are creating technology that will enable a rocket to return to the launch pad intact for a vertical landing, rather than burning up upon reentry in the Earth's atmosphere.
SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell said, "Spaceport America offers us the physical and regulatory landscape needed to complete the next phase of Grasshopper testing. We are pleased to expand our reusable rocket development infrastructure to New Mexico."
The New Mexico Spaceport Authority has been readying the world's first purpose-built, commercial spaceport specifically for leading-edge programs like Grasshopper.
Christine Anderson, the NMSA Executive Director, said, "We are excited that SpaceX is coming to Spaceport America, where our first-class service will empower them to focus their full attention on their mission."
On May 05 2013 10:45 a176 wrote: I believe its generally accepted that much of NASA spending gets lost in the bureaucracy. All of NASA's biggest projects become phenomenally overbudget, just look at JWST, Curiosity, Orion. SLS will be no different. You can take good odds that SLS might be NASA's most expensive project ever, even if you don't count all the money originally spent on Constellation/Orion. Hell, I would be surprised if SLS even makes it original launch targets.
I think it's more than bureaucracy. NASA has been actively avoiding the number one barrier to large scale exploration: the cost of getting stuff out into space.
The space shuttle didn't cost as much as it did because of bureaucracy. It cost so much because the design was too complicated and the spacecraft required extensive amount of maintenance between missions to keep them half safe. And it couldn't fly nearly as often as originally hoped making the fixed cost more significant.
Most people in the shuttle program weren't bureaucrats - they were technicians or engineers doing real work. Work, which would have been unnecessary had the Shuttle been replaced by something simpler and more reliable 20 years ago. I mean, I'm sure there were bureaucratic losses too, but the whole direction was wrong. Once it became obvious the Shuttle wouldn't mean cheap access to space it should have been scrapped and work started on the next generation.
Which is my main issue with the SLS too. Even if it is on schedule and on budget, which miraculously it seems to be, it will still be a failure, strategically. It won't decrease the cost significantly, so in practice it can't lead to an expansion of space exploration.
To some extent JWST has the same problem. Even if it cost only 4 billion dollars it would have been a questionable investment. Projects like the European Extremely Large Telescope or the Square Kilometer Array cost ~$2bn with comparable or higher science return over their lifetime. Not to mention excellent projects like the LSST which are underfunded and would cost a fraction of what the JWST will.
So on the one hand NASA is taking on projects with significant development costs for low scientific return (compared to the best options). But worse these projects aren't even serving some long term goal. They are one-offs which aren't quite good enough now and will be completely outclassed in the future.
The Expedition 35 crew (Chris Hadfield, Roman Romanenko, and Tom Marshburn) are currently descending to Earth in the Soyuz capsule, landing in Kazakhstan in approximately 30 minutes. (It's about 7pm PST now.)
On May 05 2013 10:45 a176 wrote: I believe its generally accepted that much of NASA spending gets lost in the bureaucracy. All of NASA's biggest projects become phenomenally overbudget, just look at JWST, Curiosity, Orion. SLS will be no different. You can take good odds that SLS might be NASA's most expensive project ever, even if you don't count all the money originally spent on Constellation/Orion. Hell, I would be surprised if SLS even makes it original launch targets.
I think it's more than bureaucracy. NASA has been actively avoiding the number one barrier to large scale exploration: the cost of getting stuff out into space.
The space shuttle didn't cost as much as it did because of bureaucracy. It cost so much because the design was too complicated and the spacecraft required extensive amount of maintenance between missions to keep them half safe. And it couldn't fly nearly as often as originally hoped making the fixed cost more significant.
Most people in the shuttle program weren't bureaucrats - they were technicians or engineers doing real work. Work, which would have been unnecessary had the Shuttle been replaced by something simpler and more reliable 20 years ago. I mean, I'm sure there were bureaucratic losses too, but the whole direction was wrong. Once it became obvious the Shuttle wouldn't mean cheap access to space it should have been scrapped and work started on the next generation.
Which is my main issue with the SLS too. Even if it is on schedule and on budget, which miraculously it seems to be, it will still be a failure, strategically. It won't decrease the cost significantly, so in practice it can't lead to an expansion of space exploration.
To some extent JWST has the same problem. Even if it cost only 4 billion dollars it would have been a questionable investment. Projects like the European Extremely Large Telescope or the Square Kilometer Array cost ~$2bn with comparable or higher science return over their lifetime. Not to mention excellent projects like the LSST which are underfunded and would cost a fraction of what the JWST will.
So on the one hand NASA is taking on projects with significant development costs for low scientific return (compared to the best options). But worse these projects aren't even serving some long term goal. They are one-offs which aren't quite good enough now and will be completely outclassed in the future.
I don't mean this as an argument, but are there other viable or at least feasible methods of getting into space that are cheaper? I am interested.
On May 14 2013 10:57 HackBenjamin wrote: The Expedition 35 crew (Chris Hadfield, Roman Romanenko, and Tom Marshburn) are currently descending to Earth in the Soyuz capsule, landing in Kazakhstan in approximately 30 minutes. (It's about 7pm PST now.)
On May 05 2013 10:45 a176 wrote: I believe its generally accepted that much of NASA spending gets lost in the bureaucracy. All of NASA's biggest projects become phenomenally overbudget, just look at JWST, Curiosity, Orion. SLS will be no different. You can take good odds that SLS might be NASA's most expensive project ever, even if you don't count all the money originally spent on Constellation/Orion. Hell, I would be surprised if SLS even makes it original launch targets.
I think it's more than bureaucracy. NASA has been actively avoiding the number one barrier to large scale exploration: the cost of getting stuff out into space.
The space shuttle didn't cost as much as it did because of bureaucracy. It cost so much because the design was too complicated and the spacecraft required extensive amount of maintenance between missions to keep them half safe. And it couldn't fly nearly as often as originally hoped making the fixed cost more significant.
Most people in the shuttle program weren't bureaucrats - they were technicians or engineers doing real work. Work, which would have been unnecessary had the Shuttle been replaced by something simpler and more reliable 20 years ago. I mean, I'm sure there were bureaucratic losses too, but the whole direction was wrong. Once it became obvious the Shuttle wouldn't mean cheap access to space it should have been scrapped and work started on the next generation.
Which is my main issue with the SLS too. Even if it is on schedule and on budget, which miraculously it seems to be, it will still be a failure, strategically. It won't decrease the cost significantly, so in practice it can't lead to an expansion of space exploration.
To some extent JWST has the same problem. Even if it cost only 4 billion dollars it would have been a questionable investment. Projects like the European Extremely Large Telescope or the Square Kilometer Array cost ~$2bn with comparable or higher science return over their lifetime. Not to mention excellent projects like the LSST which are underfunded and would cost a fraction of what the JWST will.
So on the one hand NASA is taking on projects with significant development costs for low scientific return (compared to the best options). But worse these projects aren't even serving some long term goal. They are one-offs which aren't quite good enough now and will be completely outclassed in the future.
I don't mean this as an argument, but are there other viable or at least feasible methods of getting into space that are cheaper? I am interested.
Good question. In terms of cost to low earth orbit/kg Falcon 9 is cheaper than the SLS will be. The Falcon Heavy will be significantly cheaper though it will fly in 2014 earliest. Russian and possibly Chinese launchers are cheaper too.
But that's not even my main issue. The issue is that NASA is ignoring the problem completely. They said: let's build a rocket with these capabilities and not really worry about the per launch cost. Even though they know full well that the high per launch cost will mean it will fly very rarely (even in a much more favourable budgetary environment).
It's not like they gave it their best shot and came up short against cheaper, better organized or more motivated competitors. They didn't even try.
Less than a couple of hours after announcing its plan to crowd source a space telescope, the Planetary Resources Kickstarter campaign has already reached 10% of its goal of $1,000,000.
From the press release issued by Planetary Resources:
Planetary Resources, Inc., the asteroid mining company, has launched a campaign for the world's first crowdfunded space telescope to provide unprecedented public access to space and place the most advanced exploration technology into the hands of students, scientists and a new generation of citizen explorers.
Planetary Resources' technical team, who worked on every recent U.S. Mars lander and rover, will provide direct access to an ARKYD space telescope making space widely available for inspiration, exploration and research. "I've operated rovers and landers on Mars, and now I can share that incredible experience with everyone. People of any age and background will be able to point the telescope outward to investigate our Solar System, deep space, or join us in our study of near-Earth asteroids," said Chris Lewicki, President and Chief Engineer, Planetary Resources, Inc.
Using Kickstarter, a platform for supporting innovative projects, Planetary Resources has set a campaign goal of US$1 million. The company will use the proceeds to launch the telescope, fund the creation of the public interface, cover the fulfillment costs for all of the products and services listed in the pledge levels, and fund the immersive educational curriculum for students everywhere. Any proceeds raised beyond the goal will allow for more access to classrooms, museums and science centers, and additional use by individual Kickstarter backers.
EPT
