NASA's Bolden Touts Mars by 2030s as Space Exploration Goal

a ^ | February 10th 2010 | Mark R. Whittington

[Marcus]

NASA administrator Charles Bolden recently sat down with the editorial board of the Houston Chronicle and opened his mind about what he thought whatever exploration plan that replaced Constellation would send NASA and the United States.

[tatsinfla]

bolden didn’t get the memo..??...bammy cut funds to nasa...

[KarlInOhio]

Mars? I doubt that NASA could now send a man to Jupiter, Florida and safely return him to Cape Canaveral.

[Jack Hydrazine]

SpaceX will be there by 2020.

[oh8eleven]

NASA =

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Since this is the last year for the shuttle, and funding for the replacement has been cut, how is he planning on getting there?

[cripplecreek]

SpaceX will be there by 2020.

Why would they bother?

[jmcenanly]

If we put this guy, Robert Zubrin, in charge now, we could be going there by 2020

Here is a link explaining how he intends to do this http://www.rps.psu.edu/0305/direct.html

[The_Victor]

bolden didn’t get the memo..??...bammy cut funds to nasa...

0bama actually increased NASA funding, specifically for "earth science" (Re: environmental whackoism), what he cut was the Constellation Program.

[GonzoGOP]

You are not going to Mars if you don't even have a rocket that can put a man into LEO. Despite all the Hope and Change you can't build a government funded high speed rail line to Mars, no matter how many billions you spend on it. You need rockets, and probably fairly big ones. Since you arn't building those any more you are going to have to deal with being rooted to the ground like an oak tree.

I understand that Ares was a great cash and time wasting dog and needed to be scrapped. It is not the scrapping of Ares that is telling, but the fact that no new system is being developed. DIRECT would have done the job quite nicely and could have been flying within the existing budget by 2015. Or they could have continued the development of Orion and used a commercial HLV to launch it. But they killed Orion along with Ares so they will not have any ship to put on top of the commercial launchers.

And before the SpaceX guys start chanting Dragon, Dragon, Dragon I will point out that the Dragon cannot be used for the high speed reentry's necessary for a return from a Lunar Landing, asteroid intercept or Mars mission. The sidewalls are nearly vertical and would burn through no matter how strong you made the heat shield. That's why Apollo was shaped the way it was with steeply angled side walls to keep them out of the hot plasma. Orion wasn't shaped the way it was for nostalgia. It was shaped that way because Werner Von Braun knew his physics. None of the commercial launch vehicles being seriously developed can make the high speed reentries necessary for beyond LEO missions.

[Names Ash Housewares]

“bolden didn’t get the memo..??...bammy cut funds to nasa...”

More Orwellian Obama-speak.

Bolden is in utter denial or he is drinking Kool-ade.

My question to him would be...

In what??? with what???

Magical propulsion unicorns and space fairy carriages no doubt farted out of Obama’s ass.

Obama just proposed GUTTING NASA’s only project that could do the job!

[Favor Center]

“SpaceX will be there by 2020.”

Funded how and with what?

[Favor Center]

“It was shaped that way because Werner Von Braun knew his physics.”

While he did know his physics, that’s not why the Apollo capsule was shaped the way it was.

[LastNorwegian]

Then enlighten us...

[cripplecreek]

The private space boosters are ignoring one pesky little fact that will forever render the idea of private firms in space a fantasy. I’m all for corporations doing all the work in space they want but I’m a realist.

The international space treaty doesn’t allow claims to be laid on any natural body in space which means no money can be made. No money to be made means no money will be wasted on exploration. As things stand, space has the same basic status as Antarctica.

If Obama were the great visionary the left claims him to be he would ask congress to ditch the outer space treaty and open space up to prospecting and profit making. Instead he thows industry a very small bone by inviting them to play taxi and freight hauler to government facilities.

[GonzoGOP]

While he did know his physics, that’s not why the Apollo capsule was shaped the way it was.

Enlighten me. There was an entire chapter in Vision for Space Exploration design study (2005) that went over all of the different space capsule designs. And the conic shape with a steep side wall angle was declared superior for beyond LEO missions specifically due to its ability to avoid side wall heating. The shock waves keep the plasma off of the capsule and hence allow for much lighter ship. And the design studies of the Apollo program were foot noted in the text.

The alternatives had better volume, but lost much of their usable mass due to the need for advanced TPS. And it was the TPS failure that took out Columbia, making NASA a bit wary of designs that had to rely on TPS more complex than just a blunt body heat shield.

[Favor Center]

“Enlighten me. There was an entire chapter in Vision for Space Exploration design study (2005) that went over all of the different space capsule designs. And the conic shape with a steep side wall angle was declared superior for beyond LEO missions specifically due to its ability to avoid side wall heating. The shock waves keep the plasma off of the capsule and hence allow for much lighter ship. And the design studies of the Apollo program were foot noted in the text.”

The primary reason for that design (Apollo) was to allow a lifting reentry so you could avoid truly massive heating rates, g-loads, and have some control over trajectory. You’re going to have a pronounced bow shock with any shape. Apollo even had some crossrange capability due to that.

The TPS for a capsule is always a much simpler proposition than STS. More extensive sidewall insulation wouldn’t require an Orbiter-level complexity at all.

[Favor Center]

“Then enlighten us...”

Lifting reentry, not sidewall heating.

[Favor Center]

“The private space boosters are ignoring one pesky little fact that will forever render the idea of private firms in space a fantasy. I’m all for corporations doing all the work in space they want but I’m a realist.”

If Orion actually does get canceled, American manned spaceflight is over for at least a generation.

There are many Proxmires here who are fine with that.

[GonzoGOP]

The primary reason for that design (Apollo) was to allow a lifting reentry so you could avoid truly massive heating rates, g-loads, and have some control over trajectory. You’re going to have a pronounced bow shock with any shape. Apollo even had some crossrange capability due to that.

Syouz, Shenzhou and Dragon shape will give you the same ability. The cone shape was all about keeping the plasma shock wave from rejoining (not sure that's the right word but you know what I mean) the side of the capsule. Note that Syouz, Dragon, Apollo, and Shenzhou all use the same basic shape for the heat shield. The difference is in how steep the angle on the side walls. Note on the attached picture how there is an area of turbulence between the secondary pressure wave and the side of the Apollo shaped capsule.

The primary shock wave (the dark line) is the one you use to fly the capsule. The secondary wave (light gray line) is the one that keeps the heat away from the sides.