This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Exploration

NASA's New Exploration Infographic – One of Many

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
February 14, 2012
Filed under ,

NASA Infographic: The Future of Human Spaceflight, NASA
“NASA has released a new infographic which seeks to collect future space vehicles, destinations, and possible paths of exploration together into one “Big picture”.
NASA’s Dueling Concept Maps, Road Maps, and Infographics
“As you can see below, there is no shortage of roadmaps and graphical representations of where NASA should be going in the coming years. To be certain, concept maps, roadmaps, and infographics are different things. Done properly, they serve a similar, overlapping function: to contain a series of things you need or intend to do, and present these things in a way that allows others to understand what it is you want to do – and why. A good roadmap or concept map should be easy to make into a good infogrpahic. But if your roadmap is not well thought out, or your concept map has incomplete logic, then your infographic is going to be confusing.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

14 responses to “NASA's New Exploration Infographic – One of Many”

  1. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    NASA’s elevator pitch seems to require several very large elevators, none of which has yet been connected to a hoisting cable.

    Well, what can one expect with runaway programs like JWST and the SLS sucking the marrow out of the agency’s bones, the real thinkers within NASA must be at their wits’ end. And/or trying to justify their existence with new plans and variations on old ones.
    These are sad times for what used to be a great agency.

  2. Jerry_Browner says:
    0
    0

    I tend to agree with oldscientist. The chart is really misleading. It says that NASA is developing next generation spaceflight technology, then shows a lot of pretty pictures. The Mobile EVA and Robotic Platform is based on the electric rover they’ve been using for many years (it was featured in Obama’s inauguration) but its an unlikely design for a real manned spacecraft. I know they went from the plexiglass square helicopter cockpit to a more cylindrical aluminum structure, but no way there will be those sorts of windows, and no reason for them.  Maybe its just an idea? Deep Space Habitation, Advanced In-Space Propulsion, ISRU,  they are all nice ideas but-are any really being developed?  Are any of them being funded? Orion, makes no sense at all for the kinds of future missions being envisioned. SLS, would be great if it could be afforded. We’ve not been able to afford such a behemoth on a once a year assembly/launch basis previously so why now?
    Cartoons are great. Whats the plan?
    More significantly perhaps, how do we get from where we are today, which admittedly is a not very robust manufacturing and assembly capability, a not very robust launch capability, and a not very robust in-space assembly capability or operations capability, except for one place (ISS) using one type of system (ISS) -to that next generation?
    With the exception of the Shuttle-based SLS, which in order to have made real sense should have been in development while Shuttle was alive, none of the important stuff shown appears to be based on current systems, capabilities, knowledge-base or funding. Spacesuits and human-robotics are great, though mainly useless without the other big stuff. The problem with Apollo was that instead of developing follow-on systems based on what we had then, we threw it all away. The problem with Shuttle was that instead of developing follow on systems, an incremental improvement in capability, we threw it all away and then started with something new. Even with ISS, its a stretch since so little of the ISS has been built in the US in decades, but what would make sense would be incremental improvements in systems, elements and capabilities, and not flushing it all down the toilet in the hope of creating something new and different.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      The problem with Apollo was that instead of developing follow-on systems based on what we had then, we threw it all away

      Jerry,

      I’d say that this has been the problem all along, not just post-Apollo. The Shuttle (and some of the canceled X-planes) was the only real attempt at designing for reusability. Even Mercury, Gemini and Apollo were single-flight-only designs. The skins of both the spacecraft and the launch vehicles were so thin (to reduce mass) that none of it could have been used even a second time, let alone repeatedly. So I would say that “developing follow-on systems based on what we had then” wasn’t really an option. Unfortunately, there were entirely too many design and manufacturing changes required for Apollo designs to be anything but throw-away after one flight. Ironically, the X-15 (designed in the 1950’s) showed that we knew how to do reusability and quick turn around. I have to wonder where we’d be now if the X-15 program had run longer instead of switching entirely to capsules with Mercury.

      Steve

  3. Monroe2020 says:
    0
    0

    I think it is awesomeness.  “NASA Space Launch System” just launched on Facebook earlier today.

  4. bobhudson54 says:
    0
    0

    Let’s face it, under the Obama Administration and Bolden’s attempted leadership, Nasa’s just devising “pipe dreams” to appease the masses.
    Problem is they haven’t got a single clue as what to do and we’re suffering as a result of their stupidity. 

  5. CadetOne says:
    0
    0

    I think making slide decks *is* what NASA does now. 🙁

  6. LennyCoan says:
    0
    0

     The only one of the roadmaps Keith refers to that is close to a plan is Spudis’
    http://nasawatch.com/archiv
    The rest of these are not plans at all, just conjectures of things that might be done (with a heck of a lot of money). LC

  7. Spacelab1 says:
    0
    0

    Given what I see in the infographic outlined I can see that the last person to do research and development of space vehicles at NASA was Von Braun. 

  8. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Just some thoughts I had from the moon plan thread but they apply here too.
    Why is it hard to convince Joe Q Public that we can to go to the moon?

    Joe Q most be very ignorant.

    Joe Q knows nothing about how to get into Space.

    What does Joe Q know? 

    Joe Q watched the moon program very expensive very rewarding, a hard expensive climb to the mountain top. Then we got there, planted the flag, hit a few golf balls, saw a dusty airless desert, looked back at our beautiful blue sphere. Now what?

    Joe Q watched the sky lab and Mir round and round doing science to study the effects of weightless. Very important science for our future in space.

    What next

    Joe Q watched the shuttle x plane program. The promise of much cheaper space flights. The promise of a few flights a month. Did the price ever go down? Noo!
     Joe Q was told space flight is very hard very expensive next to impossible. 
    Joe Q watched the shuttle disasters, the shuttles fixes. 

    Joe Q heard about replacements to the shuttle. Yup they heard NASA was working on it. this is very expensive.

    And let’s not forget ISS, one of if not the most expensive building projects every attempted by man.  Back in the Reagon years it went by another name billions and billions of planning years and years and nothing to show for it. If he happened to catch a nova special Joe Q may have learned lots of that doe went to Russia to stop starving scientist from selling nukes. Anyway what was the reason to build ISS again? oh yeah to have a place for that expensive shuttle x plane to go.

    Well we built ISS to do wonderful science. It cost billions per shuttle flight. Space flight is very expensive you know.

    Just when we got ISS built to do all kinds of great science up there. We canceled the expensive dangerous shuttle Finally!

    So it’s a new day, time for a clean sheet a new start. Some pc guy shows Joe Q that rockets can be built much cheaper than we have been told.

    So what’s the new line from our famous space program.

    Orion SlS 
    Send us billions we are working on it! Space flight is  very expensive you know next to impossible! Hey you want to go to the moon?

    Maybe Joe Q isn’t as ignorent 
     as you’ll think.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see when you are getting ripped off!

    So why did I write this? Well Marcel said we need to go to the people and show them how cheap and what a great deal a moon program would be. We have to sell our owner on wanting to do build the project.
    How do we do that?
    Well we need to do two things first we need to take the owner a logical affordable plan and explain  the plan to him.
    Also we need to demonstrate to our owner that we the builder have the tools to perform (demonstrate cheaper affordable transportation to Leo)

    NASA has done neither  of these two things.

    NASA has only continued the the myth that Space flight is very hard and very expense because it is in their interest.

    Show me the beef NASA all I see is pork!

    I think I need a different builder to build my project. One that shows me he can perform.

    Joe Q

    Pretty pictures and charts are not going to do it. NASA has to show us I think.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      DTARS,

      Although I agree with your sentiments, to be fair, I don’t lay the ineffective public communications factor entirely at NASA’s feet.  If you remember, with Mercury/Gemini/Apollo (at least up until Apollo 12), the public connection was largely through television reporting, and each major network had a space expert reporter.  It was done for all major launches and many “public interest” events, and NASA had to do little towards this except open their doors to the media.  As the public started to lose interest, television dropped space like yesterday’s garbage, and suddenly it was entirely up to NASA to do what they had never had to do before, and had never learned to do, and did they didn’t have the budget to buy outside PR companies.  Even before Apollo 11, television was typically often showing file video instead of live events.  What TV did continue to show were accidents, failures and attacking politicians.  Since much of the human race in the west seems to have a direct feed from their TVs to their brains, TV wins, outperforming NASA PAO or any other pro-space entity hands down.  This historical round goes to Goliath.

      I think the web was/is NASA’s golden ticket to regaining the public’s interest and support, but they’re not doing it right.  The content and presentation they create are mostly appropriate for those already on side.  But they need to create content that will hook and sell people, and most of all, they need to get people to see that content, which is 1) a set of professional skills that you have to either learn or buy, and 2) a conflict because NASA, as a government civil agency, is basically not allowed to advertise or market itself, which is a factor outside of their control.  I consider it a sorry statement of US government policy that the military can advertise themselves, but NASA can’t.

      In summary, NASA could do much better connecting with the public if certain factors outside of their control were not working completely against them.  Then again, even if things were different and they had the freedom and facility to promote themselves, everything considered, where is NASA’s incentive to do so?

      Steve

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Steve thanks for thoughts/ info about NASA PR but you may be missing my main point. The people don’t need NASA  PR  for them to see what’s been going on . They know that for years and years it has cost billions to do little. They Know that as expensive as NASA as told them space flight is, that there is no way in hell we an afford for nasa To do a lunar program. NASA is suffering for their own line of space flight is so expensive so hard only we can do it bulls$&@

        NASA wants expensive unaffordable Space flight programs. They DON’T REALLY want us to have a space future.

        I don’t understand why NASA is in control of hiring cots commercial yet they compete against them with SLS and Orion 

        Maybe NASA should shuffle some SLS, Orion or JWST money to send a team of programers to help Spacex debug their little rocket. I know that it is impossible, but it seems to me that nasa has as much riding on that rocket in terms of credibility as Elon does.

        Steve I’m just a little Joe Q guy. And just can’t see how NASA can or will ever do what needs to be done. I keep looking for hope here but don’t see it.

        Only place I see any hope is with that little pc geek with his cheap rockets and big goals. If he only makes it a quarter the way of his dreams he will have kicked ass.

        • Spacelab1 says:
          0
          0

          I totally agree on many of your points! 
          Yes, I don’t see much future in space if we were to rely on NASA. It could very well be that behind the scenes they are in the process of trying to dismantle the astronaut corps by coughing up the one of the most inefficient ways of space travel.But hey, according to NASA, SLS is sustainable. Its too bad they forgot to throw in that it is GREEN too! Bummer.