
Tomorrow morning (AEST), weather depending, the Space Shuttle Atlantis will blast off from Kennedy Space Centre in Florida, marking the end of NASA’s 30-year-old Space Transportation System. But as the curtain closes on an era of manned space flight – with thousands of estimated job losses – what’s next for NASA? What will space flight look like in a post-Shuttle era?
Well, we could do worse than to look to Stanley Kubrick’s 1968 classic 2001: A Space Odyssey.
In between the mind-bending visual effects and the classical music, this cinematic classic includes some beautiful and intriguing images of a possible future for human space flight.
Early in the film we follow an American scientist into Earth orbit and then to the moon, to investigate the finding of an alien artefact. He travels to an orbiting space station on a commercial spaceliner (Pan American, no less), in much the same way we might fly across the Pacific with Qantas today.
Once he arrives at the station, which is spinning very slowly to create an artificial gravity, he goes to the Hilton – Space Station, next door to the Howard Johnson Space Hotel.
So at this stage in our “future” (the year 2001 in the movie), travel to Earth orbit is a completely commercial affair.
In 2011, and in real life, NASA is taking the first steps towards something like this.
In 2009, the Obama administration commissioned the Augustine Report to map out possible scenarios for the United States’s future in space. There were many issues to deal with:
- The space shuttles were reaching the end of their operational life.
- The new system for transporting both astronauts and cargo to low Earth orbit was well behind schedule.
- The exploration program put in place by the Bush administration to go back to the moon as a precursor to manned flights to Mars had not been properly budgeted for.
The Augustine Committee that authored this report (chaired by Norman Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin) delved into these issues in a very forthright and open-minded way.
The essence of their finding was that NASA’s future exploration plan was both scientifically meaningful and inspiring, but that it was severely underfunded.
If the US wanted NASA to conduct such a program, then a major increase in funding was required over a period of at least two decades. Without this extra funding, the program was considered dysfunctional and doomed to failure.
With the US economy reeling from the global financial crisis, there were only two possible responses the Obama administration could have:
1) Cancel the ambitious exploration program and significantly curtail NASA’s activities.
2) Find a more efficient way to continue to explore space.
While it’s still not completely clear exactly what the future US space program will be, some tentative first steps towards reducing the cost of space exploration have been made.
This has involved embracing, for the first time, the emergence of commercial carriers for lifting both cargo and astronauts to low Earth orbit.
In the 1920s the US Government stimulated the growth of the commercial airline industry by awarding a series of guaranteed contracts for carrying airmail.
It was suggested in the Augustine Report that NASA could do a similar thing for a range of space-related activities, such as taking cargo to the International Space Station, or lifting fuel to low Earth orbit for use in deep space missions.
They also raised the possibility that astronauts could be taken to the International Space Station by commercial carriers.
The inherent assumption behind this suggestion is that competition between emerging companies would drive the cost of getting to low Earth orbit significantly lower than it is today.
One great benefit of this approach is that it would also allow NASA to concentrate on the more challenging role of exploring space well beyond low Earth orbit, a role much more suited to a government agency.
Giving up the capability to get to low Earth orbit might be the hardest thing that NASA could do. But it could be the only thing that will allow NASA and the US Space Program to thrive well into the future.
Maybe then you and I could fly to orbit with Qantas in, say, 2031?
What would you like to see NASA do next? Leave your thoughts below.
Michael Smart is the professor of Hypersonic Aerodynamics at University of Queensland.

This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.



















Nodeity
Friday, July 8, 2011 at 12:59 PMWell, they just cancelled the “James Web” telescope, so it’s not looking too bloody good! Here’s an idea America, poor a very large portion of the defence budget into the space budget,..! Maybe then you’d regain some of the respect you lose when spending money on bombs, instead of spending it on helping your own citizens,…read, Hurricane Catrina, BP, and much more… :(
olearymo
Friday, July 8, 2011 at 3:59 PMTime has never moved quite so slowly as when I tried to endure the first half hour of that movie.
Yes. He’s in space. Yes, he’s eating an in-flight meal. Yes, there’s no grav… GET ON WITH IT!
Nodeity
Friday, July 8, 2011 at 4:40 PMYeah, that was interminably slow, in-fact the whole movie was,… still, it brings back memories though, I was 15 when it came out and I’m pretty sure it was the driving force for my love of all thing tech and space and SciFi, and……….
SmilingAhab
Saturday, July 9, 2011 at 7:25 PMSo… we let the “creative destruction” of a bunch of self-obsessed thieves take over? We let the guys that charge the USG $17000 for an aluminum caster and build planes designed to wear out so the buyers would have to replace them at a premium regularly? The same guys that ruined American competitiveness with a draconian, almost police-state IP system? The same guys that can’t meat 1980s telecommunications deployment goals when the second and third worlds are moving ahead of us? The same guys whose fortunes come from stealing their ideas from government experiment, making cheap toys out of them, then charging both their own markets and the government?
No, if we leave something as important as this to the private market, we will never leave this planet. Competition won’t make better, more efficient spacecraft, they’ll just make them cozy or armed to the teeth or out of cheap parts, and still just as expensive. The only time we will get a more efficient mode of transportation is through leaving the responsibility, the monopoly, the utility in the hands of people who are concerned with more than “How can we charge people an arm and a leg for superficial comfort ‘upgrades’ for the next century?”
Yeah, talk about Virgin Galactic all you want, a billionaire’s hobby does not an industry make. The money hole that is figuring out how to push thousands of tons of metal and plastic against the pull of Earth is the reason private space-faring doesn’t already have an industry ready to cheat and defraud our money.
Even if we were to go the ‘procurement’ route (which is the bulk of our military costs today), what’s to stop these companies from violently ripping off NASA like they already do the military? It would be more responsible to re-fund NASA and give it the resources to find fresh blood that would otherwise go to building brown-people bombers and ultra-deluxe multistory super-jumbo jets with jacuzzis. We would pay ten times more for sub-par work on a voluntary time frame, which means don’t expect us to have a spaceship viable enough for the everyman to ride on within the next 70 years at least.
SmilingAhab
Saturday, July 9, 2011 at 7:29 PM‘Charge’ in the first paragraph should be overcharge. Feel free to mock my grammar and spelling, but I dare you to look at the evolution of procurement and private airline ‘upgrades’ and tell me I’m wrong.
andronicus
Sunday, July 10, 2011 at 3:03 PMI just hope that they exist let alone have stuff to do.
Nodeity
Monday, July 11, 2011 at 8:22 AMErm, I doubt anybody was too bothered by grammar,.. If they read it all like me, no doubt they were applauding, like me… So what’s the cure..?
Lillee
Monday, July 11, 2011 at 11:23 AMWake me up when we can do Warp 1… engage