NASA and Mars Topics

Not open for further replies.


Staff member
Jun 5, 2002
Iowegia - USA

NASA puts focus on science
Trips to moon, Mars will do more than leave flags, prints

Denver Rocky Mountain News 04/07/05
author: Jim Erickson
(Copyright 2005)

COLORADO SPRINGS - This time around, it'll be more than flags and footprints.

When the U.S. sends astronauts back to the moon and then on to Mars, science will go along for the ride, NASA's top scientist said Wednesday.

The goal of NASA's Vision for Space Exploration, announced by President Bush early last year, is to return humans to the moon by 2020.

A sustained presence is envisioned, unlike the Apollo missions, which were executed mainly for political reasons and sometimes derided as costly flags-and-footprints ventures.

"The trick to this vision is for the science to be there at the outset to inform how we go to explore," Chief Scientist James Garvin said.

Garvin and four other panelists discussed NASA's plans for human space exploration Wednesday at the annual National Space Symposium. Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of New York City's Hayden Planetarium, moderated.

Bush has said his plan would cost $12 billion over the next five years, but only $1 billion in new funds. The rest of the money would come from existing funds reallocated within the NASA budget.

The word "reallocation" troubles many researchers funded by the space agency. Astrophysicists, for example, are concerned they'll end up on the losing end of the Bush vision, Tyson said.

Garvin said there's no reason to panic.

"Look, we're not going to abandon astrophysics," he said in an interview following the session. "Our whole job is to understand our place in the universe."

The first steps toward implementing the Bush vision have been taken, said Craig Steidle, NASA's associate administrator for exploration systems.

A Crew Exploration Vehicle is being designed to ferry moon-bound astronauts into low Earth orbit. From there, the CEV would dock with other vehicles that would propel the crew moonward.

The unmanned Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is scheduled to launch in 2008 on a mission that blends science with scouting. It will look for potential landing sites for astronauts.

The $400 million orbiter will include a Boulder-built device called LAMP that will search for ice in permanently shadowed craters at the moon's poles.

Two years after the orbiter's launch, another probe will set down on the lunar surface to study a potential astronaut landing site, Steidle said.

"And then we'll be on our way," he said.

"There is no doubt in my mind that we are going to go," Steidle said. If the funding flows unimpeded, the space agency is on track to return humans to the moon between 2015 and 2020, he said.

But Northrop Grumman vice president Maureen Heath said the funding issue keeps her awake at night. Aerospace giants Northrop Grumman and Boeing teamed up to compete for the Crew Exploration Vehicle contract, along with other lunar exploration systems.

"How are we going to make sure this country maintains the political will to implement this vision?" Heath said.

"NASA is underfunded, and we're underfunded to do this mission," Heath said of the moon-Mars initiative.


Let the Rovers Rove
New York Times 04/07/05
author: Kenneth Chang
c. 2005 New York Times Company

As long as the Mars rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, keep rolling, NASA will keep using them. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration said it was extending their mission as much as 18 months. That follows two previous six-month extensions to the original mission, which was intended to last just three months. Except for problems with a couple of instruments, both rovers remain in good operating condition, NASA said. The Opportunity, left, has almost reached a mottled terrain, where scientists hope to find rock layers exposed by wind erosion, while the Spirit continues a climb through ancient hills on the other side of Mars.


NASA’s Prometheus: Fire, Smoke And Mirrors

By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 06 April 2005
06:51 am ET

NASA’s Prometheus program to employ nuclear reactors in space is a work in progress – viewed as a key building block of the space agency’s vision for space exploration.

Shortly after the programmatic liftoff of Prometheus, NASA had its eyes on the Jupiter Icy Moon Mission (JIMO). This premier outing pushed by electric-propulsion engines would study three ice-covered Galilean moons -- Ganymede, Callisto and Europa – with JIMO relaying oodles of data about the moons’ origin, evolution, and to scope out any potential for faraway life.

But JIMO has now been deferred. With a launch date of 2015 and a mission design life of 20 years, the flagship mission was lowered to half mast.

Prometheus officials are now looking at other targets to showcase a space nuclear power system. Less demanding in terms of overall lifetime, this Prometheus mission would happen sooner and likely journey to a closer-in target.

Still ahead, however, are daunting technical and safety challenges. Keeping the financial tap on full throttle to harness space nuclear power will also be taxing – an investment reality for Congress and the public.

Planet hopping

The NASA Exploration Initiative is a multi-mission, multi-decade, human and robotic effort to explore the Moon, Mars and beyond using a spiral development process to introduce important new technologies as they mature.

In this regard, space nuclear fission reactor systems could reset the way the reconnaissance of our solar system has been done over the decades. Prometheus planet hopping is part of this "new age of exploration" that’s being promised.

The Prometheus Project is managed by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). But a visit to JPL’s web site on the work mirrors the still-to-be-determined nature of the high-profile endeavor.

What’s the mission and science for Prometheus? "Information coming soon", the web site advises. That’s another way of saying that harnessing nuclear power for space voyaging has long been an elusive task.

Cycle of boom and bust

"If one stood on top of a pile of all the studies of space nuclear power that have been performed over the past 20 years, one would be several feet closer to Mars…at least during some hours of the day," explained Steven Aftergood, head of the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, D.C.

Aftergood noted in a recent newsletter that, as a technology enterprise, space nuclear reactors have been "subject to a remarkable cycle of boom and bust over the past 50 years."

Start-stop work has dead-ended ambitious programs every decade or so, Aftergood said, noting the SP-100 program – a NASA, Department of Defense, Department of Energy initiative -- that was killed ten years ago after some $400 million had been doled out.

Move up to today: "Proponents note that space reactors hold the promise of dramatic enhancements in the scope, lifetime and effectiveness of space exploration activities," Aftergood said.

Ocean of space

Under an agreement signed last August, the reactor for Prometheus is being developed for NASA by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Naval Reactors in Washington, D.C. They are no newcomers to nuclear power plants. But not for space missions.

Naval Reactors provides nuclear propulsion plants for the Navy’s fleet of aircraft carriers, as well as attack and strategic submarines. The Naval Reactors organization brings to the table an unabashed track record spanning 50-plus years of expertise in developing powerful, safe, rugged, reliable, compact and long-lived reactor systems for use in unforgiving environments.

Naval Reactors declares that over 130 million miles have been safely steamed on nuclear power. They currently operate over 100 reactors and have accrued more than 5,500 reactor-years of operations. Because of their demonstrated reliability, the organization salutes the fact that U.S. nuclear-powered warships are welcomed in more than 150 ports of call in over 50 foreign countries and dependencies.

The dual-agency Prometheus partnership also involves Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory in Schenectady, New York, as well as Bettis Laboratory in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and other supporting Department of Energy national laboratories.

Infinite heat sink

"There’s a lot of enthusiasm. They have staffed up vigorously," said John Casani, Prometheus project manager at JPL.

Sailing Earth’s ocean or plying through the ocean of space under nuclear power – there’s a difference, Casani explained. For one, the space reactor has to be smaller and more compact than on submarines.

"Running a reactor…you reject heat to the ocean and that’s an infinite heat sink. Space, you’ve got to reject heat through radiators. And the radiation environment is not from the reactor so much, but the radiation of space itself," Casani told in an interview during February’s Space Technology & Applications International Forum (STAIF), held in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

So simply bolting in a sub’s nuclear power plant into a spacecraft isn’t in the cards.

Naval Reactors didn’t sign up for space reactor work without forethought about putting at risk their record of success. Getting hooked up with another agency, security issues, and over commitment of their work force also had to be taken into account.

"Yes, they do things differently than we do," Casani added. "But they are driven by the same imperative for success, safety, and doing it right. I think we’ve integrated very well with them."

The Prometheus space reactor system would provide more electrical power than available for past missions. That added energy can greatly enhance the capability of electric propulsion, the number and variety of scientific instruments on the spacecraft, the rate of data transmission, and orbital maneuvering.

Template spacecraft

Last September, JPL selected Northrop Grumman Space Technology of Redondo Beach, California as the contractor for co-designing the proposed Prometheus spacecraft. The contract award is for approximately $400 million, covering work through mid-2008.

"Prometheus is the project name, not the destination," said Peggy Nelson, Northrop Grumman vice president and project manager for Prometheus 1. "Prometheus is a template spacecraft that will explore a number of different locations," she told in a phone interview.

Nelson’s group is working on aspects of JIMO, as well as alterative first missions. Those new missions would be shorter in duration, on the order of three to five years, she said.

There’s a big difference in short-duration Prometheus hardware, Nelson advised, contrasted to JIMO’s life expectancy of 20 years. Redundancy issues are reduced. Also, less propellant has to be toted. And that impacts the overall scale of the Prometheus-class space vehicle.

The key now is having a space nuclear reactor design for the first Prometheus mission that, in fact, is a design that can be utilized for a second mission.

Empowered by the Prometheus

JPL’s Casani said that a shorter-duration Prometheus mission, done in the 2014 time frame, is a lot easier to do. Not only are reactor requirements reduced, but so too is the wear and tear on the craft’s electric engines. Telecommunication demands are also lessened.

Last year, an early list of possible Prometheus demonstration missions included treks to the Moon or Mars, perhaps multiple asteroids, even a visit to cloud-veiled Venus. A final study result for a first-time "out of the shoot" Prometheus demonstration is expected shortly.

"The one that’s most attractive, at least to me…is go to the Moon. It is close and you get there soon. But it remains to be seen if that survives the analysis of alternatives," Casani said. Such a lunar polar orbiting mission, he said, could fit well into the human return to the Moon activities now being scripted by NASA.

"Let’s say that everything is still working after three years. You spiral out of the Moon’s orbit on an extended mission. If everything is working…go on to an asteroid," Casani speculated.

Casani said another set of Prometheus alternative missions is longer-range.

Going back to Titan, as follow-up to Europe’s recent landing success there with the Huygens probe, is reasonable to consider. Neptune’s Triton might also be a target. A scouting mission to Saturn’s rings, jumping from asteroid to asteroid, or comet chasing – all these ventures could be, quite literally, empowered by the Prometheus program, Casani said.

Designing in safety

Soon facing Prometheus and use of nuclear fission reactors in space is preparing what’s termed a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, or PEIS.

Later this month, NASA plans to hold two public scoping meetings – one in Cocoa, Florida, the other in Washington, D.C. -- to provide information on the Prometheus PEIS and to solicit public comments.

Also to be considered is the outlook that Prometheus may need new facilities such as a land-based prototype reactor to test the reactor design before actual use. Launch site support facilities for final assembly and testing of the spacecraft before launch would also likely be a must.

"It is everybody’s responsibility on this project to have safety as their highest priority…designing in the safety into the architecture and manufacturing for safety," said Northrop Grumman’s Nelson.

New spectrum of opportunities

A report released in February by the General Accountability Office (GAO) noted that Prometheus 1 will surely undergo budgetary conniptions over the years. The project will compete for funds with other space missions, such as returning the space shuttle to flight and tidying up the International Space Station program.

In their report, GAO pointed to a 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office that pegged the JIMO cost estimate at around $10 billion.

The GAO report, NASA’s Space Vision: Business Case for Prometheus 1 Needed to Ensure Requirements Match Available Resources, emphasized the need for "a sound business case" for the effort. To do so, a project must have well-defined requirements, realistic cost estimates, as well as mature technology.

"However, in the past NASA has had difficulties developing the realistic requirements and cost estimates needed to develop a sound business case," the GAO report explained. Historically, therefore, some NASA projects have cost more, taken longer, and achieved less than originally planned, the report cautioned.

"We all recognized from the beginning that this is expensive," explained JPL’s Casani. "This is a major investment in the capability. Unless there’s more than a single application for it, you can’t justify it. It can only be justified on the basis of opening up a new spectrum of opportunities," he concluded.

[ April 07, 2005, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
I have lost all patients and respect for NASA as an orginization! They have wasted tax payer dollars (can you say social security) for far to long! The space shuttle program should have been over hualed at least 15 years ago! We should already have had return flights to the moon to experiment with off world colinies etc....... Their are two many cheaper way to launch a satlite then NASA. If the Army,Navy and Airforce need a way to luanch sat. let them pool their money or ask for larger budgets to get it done!

I always thought a major part of their charter was space EXPLORATION and for the most part we have been hanging out in the same general location for a long long time!

NASA need to go on a diet and be more accountable for every dollar they spend! They also need to turn a profit on some operations to force them to be competitive!!

I have been disapointed with NASA for a long long time! I figure I was probably in HS when I first became disapointed with the whole NASA program!

I do not pretend to have the answere but their has to be a better solution then what we have in the current NASA orginization!
Never gonna happen.. NASA has devolved into another failed government agency.

Lots of talk to keep budget. No action. I noticed they have now found cracks in the insulation of the Shutttle. Anything to avoid doing anything.
"Give a man a fish and feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime..."

The intangible benefits of space exploration are difficult to quantify,however the tangible ones are all around in things you count on every day. This is particularly true in cutting edge medical technologies such as Computed Tomography, as well as minaturized heart monitors, insulin pumps, etc.
It's also true in terms of satellite communications, lightweight materials, electronics systems for passenger vehicles, personal computers and other technologies too numerous to mention.

If anyone wants to see what their tax dollars are actually being spent on, please contact me off line and include your snail mail address. I think you'll be very surprised.

By the way, counter to what you might think, you can't simply lock a bunch of engineers and scientists in a windowless room and tell them to innovate. You have to give them real world challenges and seemingly unsolvable problems to work on. The environment of space is cold and extremely unforgiving and meeting those unique requirements involves thinking well out of the box. The solutions to meeting these problems are often unique as well and can't be developed in the sterile environment of a classroom or boardroom.

You'd never get the ROI by taking the entire NASA budget (less than we're spending each month in Iraq) and giving it to some private think tank. To put this in perspective, the space program costs every American about 15 cents a day or $1.00/week. So we can have a viable space program or you can buy one more pack of smokes or six pack a month - it's your choice.

I honestly don't think that's too much to spend to help maintain the technological leadership that is vital to the economic future of this nation.

My issues are not with the scientist or engineers! My problem is with the management and buracrcy with in the program! We havenot been back to the moon! We have not sent anyone past the moon. We do not have extensive space stations floating in space. We do not have an afforadable quick turn around space craft. We do not have space tourism yet. We do not have hypersonic commercial airlines yet..........

When you look at all the money we spend on the program I think we should be getting a biger bang for our buck!

Originally posted by JohnBrowning:
My issues are not with the scientist or engineers! My problem is with the management and buracrcy with in the program! We havenot been back to the moon! We have not sent anyone past the moon. We do not have extensive space stations floating in space. We do not have an afforadable quick turn around space craft. We do not have space tourism yet. We do not have hypersonic commercial airlines yet..........

When you look at all the money we spend on the program I think we should be getting a biger bang for our buck! knock on the fine folks who work there. And to be honest..even the top guys at NASA would suffer 6 Congressional investigations if a worker slips on the office floor. I can't blame them for doing nothing. Our bureaucracy demands that kind of action. We have truly lost our way since the 60's. Folks there (at all levels) realize no mistakes..let alone a lost life are acceptable. And the amount of money that the administration/president proposed to go to the moon is a joke.

A study would require more than that.
Not open for further replies.