NASA technology chief: We'll decide what rocket we want to build

October 5, 2010 By Robert Block

NASA engineers -- not Congress -- must determine the design of America's next big spaceship to take humans beyond the moon, according to the agency's top technology official.

Robert Braun, NASA's chief technologist, told The Orlando Sentinel that even though Congress last week passed legislation demanding that NASA use parts of the space shuttle and its now-defunct Constellation moon-rocket program to make a new heavy-lift rocket, sound engineering and not politics should ultimately determine the way to go.

"I think it remains to be seen what heavy lift will be," Braun said. "I would like to believe now that we are making progress in Washington towards the 2011 plan that the engineers ... will weigh in and that we will move towards the technically correct choice."

The bill now awaiting President Barack Obama's signature pushes NASA to incorporate the technology and workforce from existing programs into the design of the rocket that eventually will replace the , which is due to retire next year. The bill requires that the new rocket be built by Dec. 31, 2016.

Braun, appointed by Charlie Bolden earlier this year to advise the agency on technology issues, is the first NASA official to raise publicly the prospect that Congress may not get the rocket it wants.

To build a new heavy-lift rocket and its companion crew capsule that is supposed to fly humans into space by 2017, Congress recommended that NASA receive about $11 billion during the next three years -- less money that what the over-budget Constellation program (which already has cost at least $9 billion) would have received during the same time period.

The bill was meant to be a compromise between the White House's request for a radically restructured NASA focusing on technology development and hardliners in Congress who opposed cancelling Constellation.

To help get support for the bill, the Senate tried to keep as much work with existing contractors to limit the impact of a course change on lawmakers' districts, especially in Utah where aerospace company ATK has been designing solid rocket motors for Constellation's Ares I rocket.

It's not clear how much Congress will allow the agency to change its instructions.

But the legislation leaves a large loophole for NASA engineers. While it encourages NASA to use existing parts, it says only "to the extent practicable." In other words, if NASA decides it is not practical to use solid rocket motors, it doesn't have to.

For example, NASA engineers at Kennedy Space Center and Marshall Space Flight Center are now looking at a so-called "Direct" rocket that would use the shuttle's iconic orange fuel tank, main engines and solid-rocket boosters. But Braun said that there's been no decision on that design.

"I know there's been a lot of discussion about shuttle-derived (rockets) and how derived from the shuttle will it be. There are other options from a technology perspective," he said, without providing details.

However, he did suggest that a brand-new launcher did not need solid-rocket boosters -- a move that would likely draw the ire of Utah lawmakers and ATK.

The new law requires NASA to build a new capable of eventually lifting 130 tons of men and equipment into space. But Braun said there were differences of opinions inside the agency over whether even that was necessary.

"A lot of that depends on what we need to go to an asteroid or Mars," he said. "And a lot of that depends on our technology investments." He said advances in in-space technology -- propulsion, communications, orbiting fuel depots -- may enable the use of smaller, less-advanced rockets to launch from Earth.

Braun praised the bill for proposing to invest $600 million in technology in 2011, saying it would help create more jobs all around the country. He said it would also attract a whole new generation of students back to working in the space program.

"We are going to begin to invest in technology to go beyond low Earth orbit, and we weren't making those investments at any level before," he said.

Explore further: NASA: Change of heart on new rocket that would reuse shuttle parts?


Related Stories

NASA Successfully Completes Solid Rocket Motor Test

March 11, 2006

NASA's Space Shuttle Program successfully fired a full-scale, full-duration reusable solid rocket technical evaluation motor Thursday, March 9, at a Utah test facility. The two-minute static, or stationary, firing of the ...

NASA Tests Updated Rocket Motor For Shuttle

May 1, 2006

NASA technicians said Friday they successfully tested an updated version of the rocket motor for the space shuttle's twin solid-fuel boosters at a Utah test facility. The new flight-support motor, designated FSM-12, burned ...

NASA: Good night moon, hello new rocket technology

February 1, 2010

(AP) -- President Barack Obama is redirecting America's space program, killing NASA's $100 billion plans to return astronauts to the moon and using much of that money for new rocket technology research.

NASA Successfully Tests Parachute for Ares Rocket

March 2, 2009

( -- NASA and industry engineers successfully completed the second drop test of a drogue parachute for the Ares I rocket. The test took place Feb. 28 at the U.S. Army's Yuma Proving Ground near Yuma, Ariz.

Recommended for you

JPL deploys a CubeSat for astronomy

December 8, 2017

Tiny satellites called CubeSats have attracted a lot of attention in recent years. Besides allowing researchers to test new technologies, their relative simplicity also offers hands-on training to early-career engineers.

Black holes' magnetism surprisingly wimpy

December 7, 2017

Black holes are famous for their muscle: an intense gravitational pull known to gobble up entire stars and launch streams of matter into space at almost the speed of light.

NASA Mars rover team's tilted winter strategy works

December 7, 2017

NASA's senior Mars rover, Opportunity, has just passed the shortest-daylight weeks of the long Martian year with its solar panels in encouragingly clean condition for entering a potential dust-storm season in 2018.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2010
130 tons is not a lot. I calculated that a 4.5 year round trip misson to mars would need around 35,500 pounds of food alone for a 7 person crew.

Assuming 3/4 of the food is grown Aeroponically through recycling the human waste products, that woudl still require 8,750 pounds of food initially, plus several thousand pounds of equipment.

The reason you must have a fairly large crew is because you need "extra" people incase, God forbid, somebody dies, etc.

You need at least 2 medical doctors, in case one of them gets sick or dies.

You need at least 2 people who can drive/pilot any piece of the ship or landing craft or rovers.

So you quickly exceed reasonable degrees of skill or training that could be expected from a 3 person crew.

Since it costs NASA nearly $12k per pound to launch to the ISS, I think they should use female astronauts because women are much smaller than men, so they both weigh less and require fewer calories.
1 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2010
By using women astronauts you would save $3 million to $6 million per launch in terms of human body weight alone. Then you figure the amount of food savings would be roughly proportional.
4 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2010
I am curious to see private companies putting in a few hundred million, maybe a billion, here and there and getting solid results. NASA somehow can't spend 3-10 billion a year on this project and get even half the results.

I wonder if we just paid Boeing to make a spaceplane if they couldn't do it cheaper.
not rated yet Oct 05, 2010
If someone could come up with a reliable suspended animation technique, then maned missions to the planets would become very much simpler and less costly. There would also be far less exposure to solar radiation as the "hibernation cells" could be shielded.
not rated yet Oct 05, 2010
NASA is going nowhere.
Next step is the spending of billions followed by the cancellation of this next flight of fancy.
1 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2010
Pretty sad we could "supposedly" go to the moon 41 years ago but cant even make it to the low earth orbit now for at least 5-7 years. Probably more like 10-15 now as long as testing and planning takes nowadays. Especially when they cant even decide what to build. Way better off subbing it out to an independent company. They should probably even look into the under water space cannon that was talked about on here a few weeks ago.
3.8 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2010
By using women astronauts you would save $3 million to $6 million per launch in terms of human body weight alone. Then you figure the amount of food savings would be roughly proportional.

Using that logic we should only send dwarves into orbit.
3 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2010
By using women astronauts you would save $3 million to $6 million per launch in terms of human body weight alone. Then you figure the amount of food savings would be roughly proportional.

I don't quite like the idea of having a team fuull of woman going to mars, or even the moon. What happens when try try to parallel park the rover?
1 / 5 (1) Oct 06, 2010
I don't quite like the idea of having a team fuull of woman going to mars, or even the moon. What happens when try try to parallel park the rover?

Well, that stereotype happens to be completely incorrect, as any insurance agent can tell you. Female drivers are actually statistically far safer than male drivers.

Using that logic we should only send dwarves into orbit.

Midgets, not dwarves. Midgest are short, but proportionally thin. Dwarves tend to be short, but disproportionally thick.
1 / 5 (1) Oct 10, 2010
so one might assume that your unit is a midget not a dwarf?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.