News NASA's Future: The News and Updates Thread

[N_Molson]

The country that once had a space program...

 

[richfororbit]

It still does..

While the missions ended may be Earth related, I think the employees who may be let go are in other areas of the space agency.

 

[GLS]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1903220088951779627

 

[GLS]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1910031028556546434

 

[GLS]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1910685981918847052

A two-thirds cut to astrophysics, down to [imath]487 million; a greater than two-thirds cut to heliophysics, down to[/imath]455 million; a greater than 50 percent cut to Earth science, down to [imath]1.033 billion; and a 30 percent cut to Planetary science, down to[/imath]1.929 billion.

Although the budget would continue support for ongoing missions such as the Hubble Space Telescope and the James Webb Space Telescope, it would kill the much-anticipated Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, an observatory seen as on par with those two world-class instruments that is already fully assembled and on budget for a launch in two years.


Other significant cuts include ending funding for Mars Sample Return as well as the DAVINCI mission to Venus. The budget cuts also appear intended to force the closure of Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, where the agency has 10,000 civil servants and contractors.


Fierce opposition to some of these NASA cuts is likely in Congress.




meanwhile

https://twitter.com/x/status/1910483011625246866

U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Thursday (April 10) introduced the "Bring the Space Shuttle Home Act," which directs NASA to take Discovery from the national collection and its Virginia home of the past 13 years and deliver it to official visitor center for NASA's Johnson Space Center.


The "Bring the Space Shuttle Home Act" provides 90 days from the date of its enactment for NASA to submit a report about how it would conduct the move and then 18 months to complete the transfer.


"One problem is that we have no ground support equipment remaining on the planet to lift it, to install a tail cone or do anything else to prepare for its move. All of that hardware was destroyed after space shuttle Endeavour was stacked," said Jenkins, who today is director of Endeavour's exhibit at the California Science Center in Los Angeles. "We also have no meaningful method of transportation, since neither of the shuttle carrier aircraft are currently operable."


Moving Discovery by land would require a tremendous undertaking — if is even possible.


Partially disassembling Discovery is also not an option.


"In an open barge, it wouldn't survive the trip," Jenkins said, "and in an enclosed barge large enough to hold Discovery, you would probably stand some risk of losing it in a storm.




And, given the previous budget news, the pièce de résistance
Were it possible to overcome some or all those obstacles, there would still be the matter of the cost. The bill leaves funding of the move to the NASA Administrator using the agency's existing budget without any guarantee of additional allocations by Congress.

 

[GLS]

Nice bug: italics + the dolar sign = "[ imath ]487 million"

 

[GLS]

White House budget seeks to end SLS, Orion, and Lunar Gateway programs​

https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/...-to-end-sls-orion-and-lunar-gateway-programs/


$2.265 billion reduction in Space science and a
$1.161 billion reduction in Earth science

The budget would cancel the Lunar Gateway that NASA has started developing and end the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft after two more flights, Artemis II and Artemis III.

"SLS alone costs $4 billion per launch and is 140 percent over budget. The Budget funds a program to replace SLS and Orion flights to the Moon with more cost-effective commercial systems that would support more ambitious subsequent lunar missions."

"By allocating over $7 billion for lunar exploration and introducing
$1 billion in new investments for Mars-focused programs, the Budget ensures that America’s human space exploration efforts remain unparalleled, innovative, and efficient,"

the budget seeks to reduce the agency's commitment to the International Space Station, while still flying it until 2030. "The Budget reduces the space station’s crew size and onboard research," the document states. "Crew and cargo flights to the station would be significantly reduced. The station’s reduced research capacity would be focused on efforts critical to the Moon and Mars exploration programs."

 

[Kyle]

SLS and Orion being cancelled was inevitable. Just sucks I got a job working for it before it happened.

 

[Urwumpe]

Can't they just cancel things before other countries deliver the first hardware to the Cape? I wonder how you can even cooperate with NASA today, if the USA have so little commitment.

 

[francisdrake]

I have to confess, I am a bit lost now.
How to reach the Moon, when all of the Lunar flight architecture is cancelled?

While I fully understand the dire economic situation requires the termination of the most expensive programs, it would have been better to make this decision eight years ago. Technically it is back to square one, and all the years and efforts in between are lost.

Alternative scenarios include the Starship which - to me - is a shaky option. It will be many years before a crew can fly with it, let alone have 8 consecutive successful launches for a Moon mission, and somewhere between 16 - 60 launches to return from there. (1 tanker + 6 refills @ 100 ton fuel + 1 Starship for a single trip to the Lunar surface, and a second Starship waiting in Lunar orbit for the return flight. Or a fully fueled tanker waiting in Lunar orbit, which require 6 refills in Lunar orbit, which require 8 launches each ...)

 

[GLS]

Alternative scenarios include the Starship which - to me - is a shaky option. It will be many years before a crew can fly with it, let alone have 8 consecutive successful launches for a Moon mission, and somewhere between 16 - 60 launches to return from there. (1 tanker + 6 refills @ 100 ton fuel + 1 Starship for a single trip to the Lunar surface, and a second Starship waiting in Lunar orbit for the return flight. Or a fully fueled tanker waiting in Lunar orbit, which require 6 refills in Lunar orbit, which require 8 launches each ...)

Destin hits the nail in the head on how many launches are needed.

No question SLS is messed up, but IMO using Starship to land is also messed up, with that vertical aspect ratio requiring a very leveled surface to land.
Should have a reusable, horizontal, lander (eventually more than 1) making trips between the Gateway in LLO and the surface. Send tankers to the Gateway to refill the lander, and add a comm sat behind the Moon to close the comm gap.

This is all mute, as probably what happened is that Musk convinced Trump that he can get to Mars in 4 years, which IMO is impossible, plus landing Starship on Mars is equally messed up as landing it on the Moon. So the only thing that might happen in the next 4 years is China landing on the Moon.

 

[STS]

...
No question SLS is messed up...

Maybe I missed one or two chapters here, but, why exactly SLS is messed up?

I completely agree on all the other points of the post,

 

[Urwumpe]

Maybe I missed one or two chapters here, but, why exactly SLS is messed up?

Lets start by it being a VERY expensive expendable heavy-lift booster using very expensive infrastructure, that further more became more expensive during development. Also it wasn't really a NASA favorite, but US politics forced it to like SLS.

Next came lots of development problems and technical issues (And Boeing), that didn't really help to make it more likeable.

 

[GLS]

Maybe I missed one or two chapters here, but, why exactly SLS is messed up?

Using existing parts should mean less cost, and SLS costs much more than the Shuttle, and flies much less. The SSMEs existed, the 5-segment SRBs were first fired back in 2003, the Core should be somewhat simpler to build than the External Tank, because it doesn't have the Orbiter hanging on the side... yet, all the metrics are worst that what existed before. Plus, nothing comes back (well, Orion does, but that is the payload), while the Shuttle would only expend the External Tank.
Another thing that I think was a mistake was using SSMEs instead of a simpler engine. Not only are expensive, reusable engines ending up in the ocean, but they require several systems to support their operation, which means a Shuttle aft compartment needs to be built for each SLS... and then tested from scratch.

This is not just criticism at NASA, but also (or mostly) at Washington, which decided to build a rocket from existing parts (to keep their friends in business and voters happy) ignoring if it can perform "the mission", instead of starting with the requirements and then building something that fulfills those requirements.
A good example of how this program is managed is that some politicians mandated a Propulsion Test Article to be built after the first Core was test fired.

 

[barrygolden]

Nothing good to say here , back in the early 2000's with the cancelation of Constellation this whole endeavor seemed doomed. Back then NASA seemed to have a goal and a legitimate plan. With a simple but robust lander Altair and a bigger service module for Orion it was the plan NASA chose . Wow !!! here we are back to square 1 . Maybe if they would have picked the Alpaca lander witch was far ahead of the others in the race we might be landing on the Moon right now. I look back at those pictures of about 4 Saturn 5's at the factory and today we don't even have one there.. That should tell us something. I think it was Jim Lovell who said we just lost the Moon, that hold true today as well .
When they put Artemis on a decadal survey and had funding through Artemis 8 I said here we go I think we will make it but Doge found most of the money spent elsewhere now gone and most of these guys are now retiring and moving to Fisher island with a big check and a pat on the back " Job well done""

This reminds me of Kelly Johnson who dreamed and built the Flying wing only to see them all cut up untill close to his last days who was wheeled into the Skunk Works to see the B 2. I think the same think will happen to Elon that 30 years from now he will be taken to see his Dream of Starship come to life. Well I'll be 100 so I won't see it maybe if I do someone will be making Egg Fu Young on the Moon and share share a plate of it with me..

I still dream of Apollo's 18, 19, and 20 and thanks to many here I was able to see them fly. Many thanks to 4th rock for his work on those. Sadly he is not on here but he did keep the dream alive .
thanks to BrianJ for the STS DOD missions way back in 2010

And too my fellow Texan gattis for all he does with his update shuttle stuff new Skylab update and maybe just for me the Venture Star missions and his massive work on the Artemis missions I don't know how to thank you enough God Speed my friend

 

[GLS]

Back then NASA seemed to have a goal and a legitimate plan.

IMO, Constellation also suffered from the same issue of building the rocket first, and then the spacecraft. Ares I could barely put an empty Orion into orbit (plus the abort issue), so eventually it was going to end up in the Ares V, which is pretty much the SLS.
Also, the lander with the ascent engine inside the descent stage was a... uh... unusual design option, which would make for an interesting stage separation if the vehicle had some angular rates.

 

[barrygolden]

I think Aries 1 maybe a stronger Aries 1B might have been able to get the Orion into orbit but there was that Abort issue during early ascent. Thanks to gattis we see a single engine SLS with the size of the shuttle ET looks like it could get the Orion into LEO.
As for the Altair lander I am sure the descent stage would be well vented as was the LM descent stage

 

[GLS]

As for the Altair lander I am sure the descent stage would be well vented as was the LM descent stage

It is not a venting issue. With the ascent engine inside the descent stage, if a mid-"air" abort is needed, and the vehicle happens to be pitching a bit, the nozzle will very likely not slide out cleanly = game over.

 

[richfororbit]

The democrat politicians obviously will oppose the budget change, may be a few from the party in power. I find the Mars sample return mission cancellation quite a sad realisation.

Perhaps the budget won't be cancelled outright as proposed, the six billion dollars.

For the least, the Rocket and craft are scheduled for the moon, so it isn't bad news entirely.

 

[barrygolden]

Surely they had thought about that and had a separation system in place to deal with that.