超级军网美国太空总署前副主任建议取消SLS和2020年火星探测器项 ...
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/29 10:10:47
据Space News报道，美国航太总署前副主任建议取消SLS和2020年火星探测器项目
Garver: NASA Should Cancel SLS and Mars 2020 Rover
WASHINGTON — Former NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver, speaking Jan. 2 on National Public Radio’s “The Diane Rehm Show,” made some of her most critical comments since stepping down in September about two key NASA programs: the Space Launch System and Mars 2020 rover.
Early in the show, Garver hinted that NASA was not spending its budget as effectively as it could after Rehm suggested NASA’s core problem was that it did not have a big enough budget. “I’m not sure it is, actually,” she said. “I believe that NASA and their $17 billion has an incredibly exciting and important space program. Of course, we could do even more with our $17 billion, and I think if we did that we would engender that support from the public and their elected leadership.”
Later in the show, Rehm asked Garver what NASA programs she felt should be cut. “To me, I think those particular programs that are built on previous technology,” she said. “Right now, we’re building a huge rocket called the Space Launch System, the SLS. It was something that Congress dictated to NASA that it had to do, with the Orion spacecraft. It is a holdover from Constellation, which the Obama administration tried to cancel, and it’s $3 billion a year of NASA’s $17 billion. Is that how you would be investing in the space program? Where is it going to go? When will it even fly?” The $3 billion figure she cited is actually the approximate combined value of the SLS and Orion budgets, not SLS alone.
Another guest, Scott Pace of George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute in Washington, defended SLS. “If we’re going to be going to Mars eventually, if someone wants to do a human mission to Mars, you basically do need a heavy-lift vehicle,” he said. Constellation, he argued, would have developed its Ares 5 heavy-lift rocket in a more logical manner by starting with the smaller Ares 1.
Garver was not convinced. “The rocket is so similar, and it’s built off of 1970s technology. The very engines we’re going to use are space shuttle engines that were developed in the 1970s. Would you really go to Mars with technology that’s 50 years old? That’s not what innovation and our space exploration program should be all about.”
She also was critical of NASA plans to send a rover to Mars in 2020 closely modeled on the Curiosity rover. “I would not redo the Curiosity mission,” she said. “I would invest that planetary science mission in doing something new like Europa, or going to Mars in a more creative and innovative way where we can again drive technology.”
That built upon comments she made earlier in the show. “If you’re a Mars scientist, you want to keep having NASA fund your Mars missions and keep redoing, for instance, what we just did with Curiosity is now planned again for 2020, instead of what you could be doing, driving in a new direction on Europa,” she said.
While NASA’s decision just more than a year ago to proceed with a 2020 Mars rover met with complaints from some parts of the planetary science community, who felt NASA was overemphasizing Mars over other parts of the solar system, it is largely consistent with the decadal survey the community produced in 2011. That report identified as the top priority large, or “flagship,” mission a Mars rover that would cache samples for later return to Earth. A science definition team report published in July did indeed recommend that the rover include the ability to cache samples for a future, as yet undefined, sample-return mission.
http://bbs.9ifly.cn/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=3860&pid=284441&fromuid=24484据Space News报道，美国航太总署前副主任建议取消SLS和2020年火星探测器项目
Garver: NASA Should Cancel SLS and Mars 2020 Rover
WASHINGTON — Former NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver, speaking Jan. 2 on National Public Radio’s “The Diane Rehm Show,” made some of her most critical comments since stepping down in September about two key NASA programs: the Space Launch System and Mars 2020 rover.
Early in the show, Garver hinted that NASA was not spending its budget as effectively as it could after Rehm suggested NASA’s core problem was that it did not have a big enough budget. “I’m not sure it is, actually,” she said. “I believe that NASA and their $17 billion has an incredibly exciting and important space program. Of course, we could do even more with our $17 billion, and I think if we did that we would engender that support from the public and their elected leadership.”
Later in the show, Rehm asked Garver what NASA programs she felt should be cut. “To me, I think those particular programs that are built on previous technology,” she said. “Right now, we’re building a huge rocket called the Space Launch System, the SLS. It was something that Congress dictated to NASA that it had to do, with the Orion spacecraft. It is a holdover from Constellation, which the Obama administration tried to cancel, and it’s $3 billion a year of NASA’s $17 billion. Is that how you would be investing in the space program? Where is it going to go? When will it even fly?” The $3 billion figure she cited is actually the approximate combined value of the SLS and Orion budgets, not SLS alone.
Another guest, Scott Pace of George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute in Washington, defended SLS. “If we’re going to be going to Mars eventually, if someone wants to do a human mission to Mars, you basically do need a heavy-lift vehicle,” he said. Constellation, he argued, would have developed its Ares 5 heavy-lift rocket in a more logical manner by starting with the smaller Ares 1.
Garver was not convinced. “The rocket is so similar, and it’s built off of 1970s technology. The very engines we’re going to use are space shuttle engines that were developed in the 1970s. Would you really go to Mars with technology that’s 50 years old? That’s not what innovation and our space exploration program should be all about.”
She also was critical of NASA plans to send a rover to Mars in 2020 closely modeled on the Curiosity rover. “I would not redo the Curiosity mission,” she said. “I would invest that planetary science mission in doing something new like Europa, or going to Mars in a more creative and innovative way where we can again drive technology.”
That built upon comments she made earlier in the show. “If you’re a Mars scientist, you want to keep having NASA fund your Mars missions and keep redoing, for instance, what we just did with Curiosity is now planned again for 2020, instead of what you could be doing, driving in a new direction on Europa,” she said.
While NASA’s decision just more than a year ago to proceed with a 2020 Mars rover met with complaints from some parts of the planetary science community, who felt NASA was overemphasizing Mars over other parts of the solar system, it is largely consistent with the decadal survey the community produced in 2011. That report identified as the top priority large, or “flagship,” mission a Mars rover that would cache samples for later return to Earth. A science definition team report published in July did indeed recommend that the rover include the ability to cache samples for a future, as yet undefined, sample-return mission.
http://bbs.9ifly.cn/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=3860&pid=284441&fromuid=24484
Garver: NASA Should Cancel SLS and Mars 2020 Rover
WASHINGTON — Former NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver, speaking Jan. 2 on National Public Radio’s “The Diane Rehm Show,” made some of her most critical comments since stepping down in September about two key NASA programs: the Space Launch System and Mars 2020 rover.
Early in the show, Garver hinted that NASA was not spending its budget as effectively as it could after Rehm suggested NASA’s core problem was that it did not have a big enough budget. “I’m not sure it is, actually,” she said. “I believe that NASA and their $17 billion has an incredibly exciting and important space program. Of course, we could do even more with our $17 billion, and I think if we did that we would engender that support from the public and their elected leadership.”
Later in the show, Rehm asked Garver what NASA programs she felt should be cut. “To me, I think those particular programs that are built on previous technology,” she said. “Right now, we’re building a huge rocket called the Space Launch System, the SLS. It was something that Congress dictated to NASA that it had to do, with the Orion spacecraft. It is a holdover from Constellation, which the Obama administration tried to cancel, and it’s $3 billion a year of NASA’s $17 billion. Is that how you would be investing in the space program? Where is it going to go? When will it even fly?” The $3 billion figure she cited is actually the approximate combined value of the SLS and Orion budgets, not SLS alone.
Another guest, Scott Pace of George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute in Washington, defended SLS. “If we’re going to be going to Mars eventually, if someone wants to do a human mission to Mars, you basically do need a heavy-lift vehicle,” he said. Constellation, he argued, would have developed its Ares 5 heavy-lift rocket in a more logical manner by starting with the smaller Ares 1.
Garver was not convinced. “The rocket is so similar, and it’s built off of 1970s technology. The very engines we’re going to use are space shuttle engines that were developed in the 1970s. Would you really go to Mars with technology that’s 50 years old? That’s not what innovation and our space exploration program should be all about.”
She also was critical of NASA plans to send a rover to Mars in 2020 closely modeled on the Curiosity rover. “I would not redo the Curiosity mission,” she said. “I would invest that planetary science mission in doing something new like Europa, or going to Mars in a more creative and innovative way where we can again drive technology.”
That built upon comments she made earlier in the show. “If you’re a Mars scientist, you want to keep having NASA fund your Mars missions and keep redoing, for instance, what we just did with Curiosity is now planned again for 2020, instead of what you could be doing, driving in a new direction on Europa,” she said.
While NASA’s decision just more than a year ago to proceed with a 2020 Mars rover met with complaints from some parts of the planetary science community, who felt NASA was overemphasizing Mars over other parts of the solar system, it is largely consistent with the decadal survey the community produced in 2011. That report identified as the top priority large, or “flagship,” mission a Mars rover that would cache samples for later return to Earth. A science definition team report published in July did indeed recommend that the rover include the ability to cache samples for a future, as yet undefined, sample-return mission.
http://bbs.9ifly.cn/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=3860&pid=284441&fromuid=24484据Space News报道，美国航太总署前副主任建议取消SLS和2020年火星探测器项目
Garver: NASA Should Cancel SLS and Mars 2020 Rover
WASHINGTON — Former NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver, speaking Jan. 2 on National Public Radio’s “The Diane Rehm Show,” made some of her most critical comments since stepping down in September about two key NASA programs: the Space Launch System and Mars 2020 rover.
Early in the show, Garver hinted that NASA was not spending its budget as effectively as it could after Rehm suggested NASA’s core problem was that it did not have a big enough budget. “I’m not sure it is, actually,” she said. “I believe that NASA and their $17 billion has an incredibly exciting and important space program. Of course, we could do even more with our $17 billion, and I think if we did that we would engender that support from the public and their elected leadership.”
Later in the show, Rehm asked Garver what NASA programs she felt should be cut. “To me, I think those particular programs that are built on previous technology,” she said. “Right now, we’re building a huge rocket called the Space Launch System, the SLS. It was something that Congress dictated to NASA that it had to do, with the Orion spacecraft. It is a holdover from Constellation, which the Obama administration tried to cancel, and it’s $3 billion a year of NASA’s $17 billion. Is that how you would be investing in the space program? Where is it going to go? When will it even fly?” The $3 billion figure she cited is actually the approximate combined value of the SLS and Orion budgets, not SLS alone.
Another guest, Scott Pace of George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute in Washington, defended SLS. “If we’re going to be going to Mars eventually, if someone wants to do a human mission to Mars, you basically do need a heavy-lift vehicle,” he said. Constellation, he argued, would have developed its Ares 5 heavy-lift rocket in a more logical manner by starting with the smaller Ares 1.
Garver was not convinced. “The rocket is so similar, and it’s built off of 1970s technology. The very engines we’re going to use are space shuttle engines that were developed in the 1970s. Would you really go to Mars with technology that’s 50 years old? That’s not what innovation and our space exploration program should be all about.”
She also was critical of NASA plans to send a rover to Mars in 2020 closely modeled on the Curiosity rover. “I would not redo the Curiosity mission,” she said. “I would invest that planetary science mission in doing something new like Europa, or going to Mars in a more creative and innovative way where we can again drive technology.”
That built upon comments she made earlier in the show. “If you’re a Mars scientist, you want to keep having NASA fund your Mars missions and keep redoing, for instance, what we just did with Curiosity is now planned again for 2020, instead of what you could be doing, driving in a new direction on Europa,” she said.
While NASA’s decision just more than a year ago to proceed with a 2020 Mars rover met with complaints from some parts of the planetary science community, who felt NASA was overemphasizing Mars over other parts of the solar system, it is largely consistent with the decadal survey the community produced in 2011. That report identified as the top priority large, or “flagship,” mission a Mars rover that would cache samples for later return to Earth. A science definition team report published in July did indeed recommend that the rover include the ability to cache samples for a future, as yet undefined, sample-return mission.
http://bbs.9ifly.cn/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=3860&pid=284441&fromuid=24484
来自狗狗的无节操翻译：
华盛顿 - 美国航空航天局前副局长洛里加弗，说1月2日在美国国家公共广播电台的“戴安娜雷姆秀”，做了一些她最尖锐的批评，因为下台九月份两个关键美国宇航局计划：太空发射系统和火星探测车2020 。
早在展会上，加弗暗示，美国航空航天局并没有为有效，因为它可以花费其预算后雷姆建议NASA的核心问题是，它没有一个足够大的预算。 “我不知道它是，实际上， ”她说。 “我相信，美国航空航天局和美金的17十亿有一个令人难以置信的兴奋和重要的太空计划。当然，我们可以我觉得如果我们这样做，我们将造成公众和他们选出的领导人的支持，我们的$ 17十亿做得更多，和。 “
后来在展会上，雷姆问加弗什么美国宇航局计划，她觉得应该削减。 “对我来说，我认为是建立在以前的技术，这些特定的计划， ”她说。 “现在，我们正在建设一个巨大的火箭称为太空发射系统，将SLS 。这是一件国会决定向美国航空航天局说，它必须做的，与猎户座飞船。它是从星座，其中奥巴马政府试图取消一个历史遗留问题，这是一个年美国航空航天局耗资17十亿3美元十亿。是，你如何将投资于太空计划？它在哪里要去？当将它甚至会飞？ “ 3美元十亿的数字，她引用实际上是SLS和猎户座预算的近似组合价值，不单单SLS 。
另一位客人，乔治华盛顿大学空间政策研究所在华盛顿斯科特·佩斯，捍卫SLS 。 “如果我们将要前往火星，最终，如果有人想去做一个人的火星任务，你基本上需要做一个重型车辆， ”他说。星座，他认为，将通过启动与较小的战神1开发了战神5重型火箭以更合理的方式。
加弗没有被说服。 “火箭是如此的相似，它的建成了20世纪70年代的技术。我们将使用非常发动机是在20世纪70年代开发的航天飞机发动机。你会真的去火星与技术，是50岁？这不是什么创新，我们的太空探索计划应该是一回事。 “
她还批评了美国航空航天局计划派遣一个漫游者火星在2020年蓝本的好奇心流动站。 “我不会重做好奇的使命， ”她说。 “我会投资在做一些新的东西像木卫二，或去火星更具创意和创新的方式，在这里我们可以再次驾驶技术，行星科学任务。 ”
这建立在评论她早些时候在展会上。 “如果你是一个火星科学家，你要保持有美国航空航天局资助的火星探测任务，并保持重做，比如，我们有好奇心只是做了，现在又计划在2020年，而不是你可以做的，在驾驶一欧罗巴上的新方向， “她说。
虽然美国宇航局的继续进行， 2020年的火星探测器决定只比一年多前会见了来自行星科学界，谁觉得NASA被过分强调火星在太阳系的其他部分的某些部分的投诉，它与十年调查基本一致在2011年生产的社会。该报告认定为第一要务大，或“旗舰”使命火星探测器，将缓存样本后返回地球。发表在七月一个科学的定义团队的报告确实建议流动站包括以下能力缓存样的未来没有明确的规定，取样返回任务。
华盛顿 - 美国航空航天局前副局长洛里加弗，说1月2日在美国国家公共广播电台的“戴安娜雷姆秀”，做了一些她最尖锐的批评，因为下台九月份两个关键美国宇航局计划：太空发射系统和火星探测车2020 。
早在展会上，加弗暗示，美国航空航天局并没有为有效，因为它可以花费其预算后雷姆建议NASA的核心问题是，它没有一个足够大的预算。 “我不知道它是，实际上， ”她说。 “我相信，美国航空航天局和美金的17十亿有一个令人难以置信的兴奋和重要的太空计划。当然，我们可以我觉得如果我们这样做，我们将造成公众和他们选出的领导人的支持，我们的$ 17十亿做得更多，和。 “
后来在展会上，雷姆问加弗什么美国宇航局计划，她觉得应该削减。 “对我来说，我认为是建立在以前的技术，这些特定的计划， ”她说。 “现在，我们正在建设一个巨大的火箭称为太空发射系统，将SLS 。这是一件国会决定向美国航空航天局说，它必须做的，与猎户座飞船。它是从星座，其中奥巴马政府试图取消一个历史遗留问题，这是一个年美国航空航天局耗资17十亿3美元十亿。是，你如何将投资于太空计划？它在哪里要去？当将它甚至会飞？ “ 3美元十亿的数字，她引用实际上是SLS和猎户座预算的近似组合价值，不单单SLS 。
另一位客人，乔治华盛顿大学空间政策研究所在华盛顿斯科特·佩斯，捍卫SLS 。 “如果我们将要前往火星，最终，如果有人想去做一个人的火星任务，你基本上需要做一个重型车辆， ”他说。星座，他认为，将通过启动与较小的战神1开发了战神5重型火箭以更合理的方式。
加弗没有被说服。 “火箭是如此的相似，它的建成了20世纪70年代的技术。我们将使用非常发动机是在20世纪70年代开发的航天飞机发动机。你会真的去火星与技术，是50岁？这不是什么创新，我们的太空探索计划应该是一回事。 “
她还批评了美国航空航天局计划派遣一个漫游者火星在2020年蓝本的好奇心流动站。 “我不会重做好奇的使命， ”她说。 “我会投资在做一些新的东西像木卫二，或去火星更具创意和创新的方式，在这里我们可以再次驾驶技术，行星科学任务。 ”
这建立在评论她早些时候在展会上。 “如果你是一个火星科学家，你要保持有美国航空航天局资助的火星探测任务，并保持重做，比如，我们有好奇心只是做了，现在又计划在2020年，而不是你可以做的，在驾驶一欧罗巴上的新方向， “她说。
虽然美国宇航局的继续进行， 2020年的火星探测器决定只比一年多前会见了来自行星科学界，谁觉得NASA被过分强调火星在太阳系的其他部分的某些部分的投诉，它与十年调查基本一致在2011年生产的社会。该报告认定为第一要务大，或“旗舰”使命火星探测器，将缓存样本后返回地球。发表在七月一个科学的定义团队的报告确实建议流动站包括以下能力缓存样的未来没有明确的规定，取样返回任务。
这人的核心思想就是SLS和新的火星车，使用的技术都不够新潮，不应把预算花在"老"的技术上，应该大胆研发革命性技术……
他这是为哪家创新公司站台呢？
3L总结非常到位，就是到处提innovative
gnss 发表于 2014-1-4 07:02
来自狗狗的无节操翻译：
华盛顿 - 美国航空航天局前副局长洛里加弗，说1月2日在美国国家公共广播电台的 ...
观海第二任期才开始多久就顶不住了？我还以为怎么也要顶到它卸任后。
来自狗狗的无节操翻译：
华盛顿 - 美国航空航天局前副局长洛里加弗，说1月2日在美国国家公共广播电台的 ...
观海第二任期才开始多久就顶不住了？我还以为怎么也要顶到它卸任后。
matrix2388 发表于 2014-1-4 11:42
他这是为哪家创新公司站台呢？
应该是为观海减压。他可能顶不到把炸弹交给继任者的时候了。只能在真正开始烧钱之前用个更高端大气上档次~且更晚开始烧钱的项目代替。
所以说，肯尼迪之后真没什么大统领会提出一个有难度的目标并真心去实现那个目标。拉链门最多算半个，因为他上台时“信息高速公路”的大势已经行成，他只是顺应大势。
他这是为哪家创新公司站台呢？
应该是为观海减压。他可能顶不到把炸弹交给继任者的时候了。只能在真正开始烧钱之前用个更高端大气上档次~且更晚开始烧钱的项目代替。
所以说，肯尼迪之后真没什么大统领会提出一个有难度的目标并真心去实现那个目标。拉链门最多算半个，因为他上台时“信息高速公路”的大势已经行成，他只是顺应大势。
美国人还是希望用这种大项目来拉动技术进步
不过这就意味着要花很多很多钱……
不过这就意味着要花很多很多钱……
我早就说了，SLS和战神这种航天飞机2.0的设计就是被利益集团绑架了，佛罗里达是决定美国总统选举结果的关键摇摆州，所以谁也不敢动航天飞机在佛罗里达已经形成的就业（佛罗里达航空航天相关就业人数美国第二），只能搞航天飞机2.0啦。
我早就说了，SLS和战神这种航天飞机2.0的设计就是被利益集团绑架了，佛罗里达是决定美国总统选举结果的关键摇摆州，所以谁也不敢动航天飞机在佛罗里达已经形成的就业（佛罗里达航空航天相关就业人数美国第二），只能搞航天飞机2.0啦。
popcorn234 发表于 2014-1-4 22:48
我早就说了，SLS和战神这种航天飞机2.0的设计就是被利益集团绑架了，佛罗里达是决定美国总统选举结果的关键 ...
现实是美国航天确实需要更大的运载平台，充分利用现有技术基础，是最经济的。不是什么都是阴谋论。
美国航天现在最大的问题是战略方向不明确，不是资金 技术等能力问题。
我早就说了，SLS和战神这种航天飞机2.0的设计就是被利益集团绑架了，佛罗里达是决定美国总统选举结果的关键 ...
现实是美国航天确实需要更大的运载平台，充分利用现有技术基础，是最经济的。不是什么都是阴谋论。
美国航天现在最大的问题是战略方向不明确，不是资金 技术等能力问题。
ericcui1 发表于 2014-1-4 09:14
这人的核心思想就是SLS和新的火星车，使用的技术都不够新潮，不应把预算花在"老"的技术上，应该大胆研发革 ...
唯技术论的主，如果这样的人把持NASA，对md没什么好处。
这人的核心思想就是SLS和新的火星车，使用的技术都不够新潮，不应把预算花在"老"的技术上，应该大胆研发革 ...
唯技术论的主，如果这样的人把持NASA，对md没什么好处。
SLS确无存在必要
技术上没有先进性
就是为了相对提高运载能力
这样的东西没有前途
技术上没有先进性
就是为了相对提高运载能力
这样的东西没有前途
唯技术论的主，如果这样的人把持NASA，对md没什么好处。
也不能这么说，NASA本身就是一个纯科研机构。其主要使命就是为本国航空航天业提供先进技术和建议。
本来商业应用等就不应该是NASA关心的问题。
也不能这么说，NASA本身就是一个纯科研机构。其主要使命就是为本国航空航天业提供先进技术和建议。
本来商业应用等就不应该是NASA关心的问题。
天降祥瑞 发表于 2014-1-5 13:59
现实是美国航天确实需要更大的运载平台，充分利用现有技术基础，是最经济的。不是什么都是阴谋论。
美国 ...
战略方向不明确？拜托，不管战略方向是哪大火箭总是要的，所以新的大型火箭发动机要加紧研制，现在是这样吗？
哥在美国呆过n久，美国政治那点猫腻哥可明白了，有空可以给你科普一下。
现实是美国航天确实需要更大的运载平台，充分利用现有技术基础，是最经济的。不是什么都是阴谋论。
美国 ...
战略方向不明确？拜托，不管战略方向是哪大火箭总是要的，所以新的大型火箭发动机要加紧研制，现在是这样吗？
哥在美国呆过n久，美国政治那点猫腻哥可明白了，有空可以给你科普一下。
给私人企业莫福利。。。。。。
土豪还是没钱了...
ericcui1 发表于 2014-1-5 15:53
也不能这么说，NASA本身就是一个纯科研机构。其主要使命就是为本国航空航天业提供先进技术和建议。
本 ...
NASA的普通员工可以不关心战略，只专注于技术。高层领导就不能只专注于技术了，此人肯定是工程师出生，太浓的技术情节了！
也不能这么说，NASA本身就是一个纯科研机构。其主要使命就是为本国航空航天业提供先进技术和建议。
本 ...
NASA的普通员工可以不关心战略，只专注于技术。高层领导就不能只专注于技术了，此人肯定是工程师出生，太浓的技术情节了！