Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer launch canceled

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer launch canceled



    Science 16 March 2007:
    Vol. 315. no. 5818, p. 1476
    DOI: 10.1126/science.315.5818.1476

    SPACE SCIENCE:
    NASA Declares No Room for Antimatter Experiment
    Andrew Lawler

    The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) is a model of international cooperation, led by a dynamic Nobel Prize winner, and promises to do impressive science in space. But it may never get a chance to do its thing.

    The problem is that NASA has no room on its space shuttle to launch the $1.5 billion AMS mission, which is designed to search for antimatter from its perch on the international space station. "Every shuttle flight that I have has got to be used to finish the station," NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told a Senate panel on 28 February.

    Griffin's categorical statement could spell doom for the innovative experiment, which received a glowing review in December from an independent scientific review panel appointed by the mission's sponsor, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The decision is sure to send ripples around the world, considering that 16 countries have contributed large sums of money to the effort. And it is one of the only significant scientific facilities planned for the space station.
    AMS is the brainchild of Samuel Ting, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge and Nobel laureate. One of its major goals is to understand the uneven distribution of matter and antimatter in the universe by searching for antimatter. The experiment, nearing completion in Geneva, Switzerland, could also help search for dark matter and a new form of quark matter called strangelets.

    NASA and Ting announced the experiment with much fanfare in 1995, and the shuttle flew a small prototype in 1998. Although the loss of the Columbia orbiter put launch of the AMS on indefinite hold, Ting has continued work on the spacecraft, which should be ready to be shipped to Kennedy Space Center in Florida by 2008 after testing at Geneva's CERN and the European Space Agency's facility in Noordwijk, the Netherlands.

    NASA has spent $55 million to build the skeleton, which will hold the device in the shuttle hold--the 6800-kg AMS would take up nearly half a shuttle bay--and be attached to the long truss on the space station. Although DOE has contributed about $30 million, the vast bulk of AMS funding has come from international partners such as Italy and France, as well as the unlikely combination of Taiwan and China. "The AMS project is sure to be viewed as a model for international collaboration in science," noted one reviewer in the DOE study chaired by Barry Barish, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. That study "had only praise and some wonder" at Ting's ability to create such a far-reaching coalition.

    Barish last week called the NASA news "disappointing" and said it would be "a big blow for international collaborators." He added that Ting has already been looking for other routes into space. One alternative is to launch the AMS on an expendable rocket with a robot that could guide it to the space station. The only realistic candidate, NASA officials say, is the Japanese H-2 transfer vehicle now under development. To alter both that vehicle and the AMS for such a mission, however, would cost between $254 million and $564 million, says Mark Sistilli, NASA AMS program manager.

    Another alternative would be to place it in orbit aboard a rocket, which could leave the AMS in orbit until the shuttle could pick it up. That option could cost $380 million to $400 million and would entail a complex docking maneuver. A final option, according to Sistilli, would be to turn the AMS into a free-flying spacecraft with its own radiators and solar panels. Such a conversion, however, could top $1 billion.

    DOE officials declined comment, and Ting was traveling in Asia and could not be reached. But Sistilli, who agrees that "the science is terrific and the international commitment is huge," says that NASA will continue to fund its portion of the project and hope for a positive outcome. "We didn't want to outright kill it," he says. "We don't really know how to handle the situation."

  • #2
    NASA not having a clue....gee, what a concept

    Mistake #1 was configuring a mission only the shuttle could launch, especially after Columbia.
    Dr. Mordrid
    ----------------------------
    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

    Comment


    • #3
      Anyone else find those numbers astronomical (pardon the pun)?

      I mean, $55m for a bit of scaffold to hold it in the shuttle cargo bay? Surely a scavenge hunt in the local builders yard will get you the bits for a hundres bucks?

      OK, I'm not being totally serious, but would it really cost anywhere near that much if anyone else did it?
      FT.

      Comment


      • #4
        Take away 3 zeros if built by SpaceX, Bigelow, Benson, Rutan or the jobber on the other side of Westland from us

        Any time you have government do or heavily regulate anything it first multiplies the cost by at least 10 times and reduces the level of service at least as much.

        Govt. provided or overly regulated health care is the perfect example; yes everyone has it but it ain't worth a s**t.
        Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 16 March 2007, 14:29.
        Dr. Mordrid
        ----------------------------
        An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

        I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Fat Tone View Post
          Anyone else find those numbers astronomical (pardon the pun)?

          I mean, $55m for a bit of scaffold to hold it in the shuttle cargo bay? Surely a scavenge hunt in the local builders yard will get you the bits for a hundres bucks?

          OK, I'm not being totally serious, but would it really cost anywhere near that much if anyone else did it?
          You don't want to know how much radiation hardened aluminum and white paint costs.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Fat Tone View Post
            Anyone else find those numbers astronomical (pardon the pun)?

            I mean, $55m for a bit of scaffold to hold it in the shuttle cargo bay? Surely a scavenge hunt in the local builders yard will get you the bits for a hundres bucks?

            OK, I'm not being totally serious, but would it really cost anywhere near that much if anyone else did it?
            I seriously think that almost all money figures that NASA says about anything is mind boggling
            If there's artificial intelligence, there's bound to be some artificial stupidity.

            Jeremy Clarkson "806 brake horsepower..and that on that limp wrist faerie liquid the Americans call petrol, if you run it on the more explosive jungle juice we have in Europe you'd be getting 850 brake horsepower..."

            Comment


            • #7
              Example:

              NASA designs a 3-4 man (2 versions) moon capable capsule, Orion, and it'll cost $50 billion before it flies to ISS the first time in 2016. By the time both its moon boosters, Ares 1 for the capsule & Ares V for the lander, are flying the Orion program will have cost $100 billion. Want a cargo version? Extra cost and dedicated, meaning you have 2 fleets; manned and cargo.

              SpaceX's 7-man Dragon, also moon capable, is due to fly unmanned to ISS in 2009, manned soon after.

              Dragon can be converted from manned with some pressurized cargo to all cargo and back quickly. Basically; if you remove seats it can swap them for more pressurized cargo. It also has a big un-pressurized cargo bay in its service module. On top of that it has more fuel for its maneuvering thrusters than Orion.

              Budget: around $500 million.

              SpaceX also just announced a Falcon 9 Heavy booster; 28,000 kg to LEO, same as the shuttle. They also have a large version of their Merlin engine in 1/2 scale prototype that'll be at least as powerful as the Saturn 5's F1 for a booster called the "BFR"; Big F***ing Rocket. 1.5 million pounds of thrust each.

              Again a budget operation that has yet to spend its first billion.

              Difference: no need for SpaceX to get approval from 50 committees and Congress to make a change, they just f'ing do it.
              Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 17 March 2007, 01:04.
              Dr. Mordrid
              ----------------------------
              An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

              I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

              Comment

              Working...
              X