Space expert: Scott Pace is the director of the Space Policy Institute and a professor of the practice of international affairs at George Washington University in Washington, DC.
NASA
Scott Pace says Obama's mission for the agency is risky and unclear.
Last week, the Obama administration proposed a new budget for the U.S. space program that would cancel NASA's efforts to develop new launch and transport technology and return humans to the moon by 2020. Instead, the budget focuses heavily on using the commercial sector to ferry astronauts to and from orbit.
NASA's administrator, Charles Bolden, said at a press conference last week that he and senior White House officials will spend the next few months devising new overarching goals for NASA.
But Scott Pace, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, in Washington, DC, argues that relying on commercial companies is a risky maneuver, and could leave NASA without any clear direction in both the short and long term.
Technology Review spoke with Pace about the future of the U.S. space agency.
Technology Review: What are your thoughts on Obama's proposed budget for NASA?
Scott Pace: I am disappointed that they chose not to fund the Constellation program or add the additional funds that the Augustine committee said would be necessary for a robust human spaceflight program. I think the NASA [budget] increase is good, and there is some good science and technology spending in the program, but it really did not restore a lot of the reductions that had been made in the fiscal year 2010 budget, so it continues a pattern of reductions to exploration, even though the NASA top line did go up somewhat.
TR: Are these reductions going to have a significant effect on the U.S. space program?
SP: The real issue is the future of human spaceflight and the question is, what [is NASA] doing after the space station? Because that is not very clear. [The administration] has made a commitment to the space station through 2020, which really gives us an opportunity to use it as a research facility, but it's not clear what, if anything, is to come after the space station. Right now, with the canceling of the Constellation program, there are no announced plans for going beyond low Earth orbit. The deeper question is what NASA will be doing. What is it going to do when we rely on commercial rockets, and how is it going to maintain its skills as a good customer and overseer?
The new effort does not have an overall architecture yet; it may get one, but right now [the plan] has a heavy technology development effort, and there is a lot of new technology that one could do, but without an architecture, how efficient is that technology development going to be?
The commercial emphasis is also very heavy, and [the government is] placing a bigger bet on that coming online to provide access to low Earth orbit. So in the new program you have zero government development effort. It's like changing your investment portfolio from a very conservative one with options for upside potential to a much more high-risk, high-payoff [scenario]. The commercial technology stuff by itself is great, and I have no objections to that. My concern is that by taking the Constellation program out of the mix, you have increased the risk to the agency and to the country, because if that commercial technology does not work, you do not have a low-risk fallback.
TR: How capable do you think the commercial sector is of developing technology for carrying humans and cargo to low Earth orbit?
SP: There is no intrinsic reason they can't do it. The question is, if you are going to take that risk, what are going to be the regulatory standards? What are going to be the qualification standards? How are they going to work with NASA to ensure they meet the safety standards? The commercial folks have a legitimate complaint that it's not clear what the standards are, so NASA needs to be clear about what it is going to need. [There needs] to be a lot of analysis and a lot of negotiations, because it's not simply the reliability of the vehicle, it's also the safety of the vehicle. What are your abort procedures? How do you qualify the vehicle? What is your vehicle health monitoring?
Again, I think it is possible to do it, but it requires a very detailed, in-depth dialogue between the government and industry, and the question is how long will that take and how expensive will it be. I don't think there is any reason why technically it can't be achieved, but it is going to be longer and more difficult than people expect.
A successful launch moves commercial space companies toward human spaceflight.
Firms look to provide automated landers and inflatable modules.
The president wants humans to explore the solar system by 2025--but his plan faces hurdles in the Senate.
Guest (Iggy Dalrymple)
NASA is getting what it deserves. Now that it's not distracted by space, it can better concentrate on climate fiction.
"From 2005-2008, he served as the Associate Administrator for Program Analysis and Evaluation at NASA"
So someone who somehow failed to notice Constellation falling behind schedule one year for every year it ran, even though that was his job, now thinks a change of plan is 'risky'?
Right...
>>> NASA has NO FUTURE without a SDHLV >>>
.
if the NASA chief seeks "new exploration ideas" he ONLY needs to read the articles on my website...
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/
and on my space blog...
http://www.ghostnasa.com/
like my concept of shuttle-derived HLV that, if adopted in 2006, could have SAVED the Constellation program...
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html
however, here I've a FREE ADVICE for him...
I've read that, so far, the (closed) Constellation program has "burned" over $9 billion and that, end all awarded contracts, needs a further $2,5 billion
so, my suggestion is to give this money to the NASA contractors NOT (only) to end the awarded contracts, but (also) to do some extra R&D in (at least) one of the Constellation's fields (Orion, Ares-1, Ares-5, Altair, EDS, etc.) that, in my opinion, should be a new HLV
without a new and bigger HLV nearly all better and bigger NASA projects will have NO FUTURE and the NASA itself could "die" as space agency
personally, I think that, the promised NASA budget ($19 Bn to $21 Bn in the next five years) IF NOT "BURNED" (as done with the Ares-1 and the 5-segments SRB) could be MORE THAN ENOUGH to develop an HLV and start a "Constellation 2.0" program
.
Re: >>> NASA has NO FUTURE without a SDHLV >>>
I used to think that an SDHLV looking something like what DIRECT proposed would be included in the NASA new direction. I was surprised when it wasn't, but more from a standpoint that it was an obvious political jobs program, but not much value for the space program.
Now that they have proposed to do away with any HLV, it looks like they are serious about doing a clean-sheet approach to their future HLV needs. This has a number of cost advantages in the near-term, and with the availability of existing heavy-lift launchers (Atlas/Delta), we can still get a lot of big hardware into space.
I have looked at your website, and I must say you are certainly a space enthusiast. My observation would be is that some of your proposals tend to be pretty optimistic about what can be done budget-wise. However, there's always hope!
Re: >>> NASA has NO FUTURE without a SDHLV >>>
.
the new NASA budget allocates about $200M per year to "study" an HLV that (at current NASA "prices") could be enough to just "build" lots of PowerPoint slides... without (at least) ONE billion per year, an HLV will never born before 2020 (or LATER)
.
Re: >>> NASA has NO FUTURE without a SDHLV >>>
---
about the "cheap" commercial space...
---
Shuttle: launch cost $600M, payload 24 tons max (+7 astronauts) = $25M per ton to ISS
---
Falcon/Dragon: COTS+CRS funds to SpaceX $2.1 Bn / 20 tons (and ZERO astronauts) = $105M per ton to the ISS
---
so, the "cheap" Falcon/Dragon price-per-ton-to-ISS is OVER FOUR TIMES HIGHER than the "expensive" Shuttle!!!
---
also, send seven astronauts with a Soyuz (instead of a Shuttle) will cost $51M per seat x 7 = $357M
---
Guest (Gblaze43)
Re: >>> NASA has NO FUTURE without a SDHLV >>>
I'm not sure if that an accurate way of estimating real cost for launching a ton into orbit. The funds are for development, I believe, not to pay for the launch costs.
Re: >>> NASA has NO FUTURE without a SDHLV >>>
--
you're right, since, the real costs, are HIGHER
--
the $600M Shuttle launch “price” INCLUDES the annual fixed costs, while, the Falcon/Dragon “annual fixed costs” at KSC are “FREE” for SpaceX !!!
–-
that, since, NASA gives its know-how and assistance, the launch base and everything needed to launch the Falcon-9 from KSC, entirely FREE
–-
in other words, SpaceX will send 20 tons to the ISS for $2.1 billion ONLY thanks to these (very expensive) “services” given FREE since paid by the NASA budget/US taxpayers dollars!!!
–-
if we add the costs that SpaceX receives FREE from NASA (KSC, launch base, launch pad, assembly building, launch costs, NASA engineers and know-how, etc.) the price-per-ton-to-ISS could likely cost, not “only” $105M per ton, but $200-300M per ton or more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
–-
so, the “cheap” SpaceX prices are mainly due to the money given away by NASanta Claus… :) :) :)
--
Re: >>> NASA has NO FUTURE without a SDHLV >>>
Do you prefer apples or sliced turkey?
Your comparison makes as much sense. You're comparing the next-launch cost of shuttle launches with the fully-loaded cost of the 1st Falcon (i.e. including all R&D). The two costs are NOT comparable. You need to compare the next-launch cost of the shuttle with the next-launch cost of the Falcon.
No, NASA is not unfocused in the political game, they just got a funding boost.
No, NASA is not focusing on Climate change....
NASA has failed in its mandate to get us into space cheaply and safely.
A great deal of technological change has happened over the last twenty years and NASA is still flying a very old design.
The new design is over budget and it has a great many internal and external critics. The new design is not breakthrough technology. They have lost the ability to innovate and produce new systems.
NASA is not just unfocused. They are failing.
So Obama’s plan to have them pull back and bring themselves up to speed is a good idea.
Firing everyone on top and bringing in new people, people with proven track records would be even better.
NASA has a thousand small programs looking at new technology to get us into space cheaply.
But they are going no-where and have been treated like science projects instead of the needed future.
NASA is a Federal Agency. Like so many Federal agencies it is an inefficient mess.
Unfortunately, the economy we hope to build in space and many of the social and research benefits we are hoping to achieve are tied to this failing endeavor.
Guest (Gblaze43)
But as Pace said, Obama's plan is vague and uncertain, sounds much like his promises. Ya we need more money for development. But it isn't certain where that money would be spent right now. He didn't say we need to develop new launch technologies, he said new propulsion methods, which could mean space propulsion for probes. Alot more needs to be defined before we get our hopes up.
The author states "...but human spaceflight was a skill set that was uniquely ours, and shared only with the Russians, and recently the Chinese", and he should have also added that India has announced plans to launch 2 people into space by 2015 with their own launcher and spacecraft. Russia is helping both the Chinese and the Indians, and no doubt they would help anyone else that pays good money. Why aren't we doing that?
We need to understand that spaceflight is at a different place than it was 40 years ago. We have a much deeper understanding of what works and what doesn't, and the barriers to entry for someone wanting to send someone into space are now much lower. That goes for everyone worldwide.
In the U.S., well before the current administration came in, there were already two U.S. companies that had stated that they planned to put people into LEO - Bigelow and SpaceX. Both were putting up their own funds to start the incremental process of putting people into space without relying on NASA. They have been leveraging off of technology that was created by our past space programs, and are both creating potential new markets for their services.
NASA building an expedition-class spacecraft, plus a heavy launch vehicle, is not going to help us with any activities in LEO. If we had continued down this path, we would have ceded future LEO commerce to non-U.S. countries, which I think is short-sighted.
In order for the U.S. to stay dominant in space, we need to create a space-based industry that does not rely on NASA doing everything. We don't rely on NASA to launch our satellites, and it's time to move our astronauts into LEO using commercial providers.
Does NASA need to be involved? Absolutely, and I think this new direction is the right one. They should define the standards, work side-by-side to make sure that these companies are doing the right stuff, and pass along the R&D that will make spaceflight better and eventually cheaper. Ares I/V would not have done that.
In today's economic environment NASA and the space program are the furthest thing from the American people and Congress's mind. However NASA's mission statement circa 2002 was “To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers ... as only NASA can.” It can not be forgotten that NASA is about the long term outlook in regards to aviation and space based research\communication and space exploration.
The president plan talked about investing in "critical new game changing technologies". Critical new technologies are forced to fail and will never happen. What the congress and the President don't realize that developing game changing technologies with high risk, will always be over budget and behind schedule and can only be done by NASA. The real question to ask is, What technologies are worth going the extra mile for? The last time NASA made an attempt a for critical new technologies the Single Stage to Orbit program (SSTO) with the X-33, congress killed it. The technologies in the X-33 like the aerospike engine, composite cryogenic fuel tanks, metallic thermal protection system, autonomous (unmanned) flight control, and lifting body had the potential to at least, half the per pound cost to get into orbit. That's something worth going over budget for. Today the X-33 sits un-finished and un-tested in storage being harvested for parts. Parts sent to the next canceled project.
The Obama administration’s plan is a mistake. If we are to end the Space Shuttle program the United States government must have access to space independent of private industry. We need at least the Ares I to have human access to space and Ares V as heavy lifter from any extended activities in Earth orbit and beyond. Killing the Constellation program that we spent 9 billion dollars on and will cost 2.5 billion to cancel is short sited and wasteful. Its not the time for NASA to invest in unproven and higher risk “game changing” technologies or startup aerospace companies. The Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program is doing well at its current budget. Should we hand money to SpaceX, which has no man-rated experience for greater risk than NASA technology? Our space goals shouldn’t be pawned off to get less value for our money and decreased safety.
There is a very strong strategic justification for Ares I and Ares V. In the near future we are looking at four new members to the human space flight community. China, the EU, Japan, and India. If NASA were absent, the US government would lose the expertise to assist and influence allies and understand where our adversaries intension's lie (peaceful exploration or weapons). If an international project were planed to the moon or mars, NASA would have little if anything to offer. Without Ares I, Ares V and Orion, the U.S. will not have the technological edge to lead the world. The heavy lift ability of both Ares rockets will set NASA apart for next 50 years. We need a man-rated civilian space agency that is independent from the pentagon and the president and reports to Congress without reservations. Currently NASA is the world authority on space and space technology. How can The United States give away this leadership edge when the price to regain it would be astronomically costly and quite possibly impossible to catch up in a time of crisis?
NASA should promote the private/commercial sectors ambitions to send people into space but should not be out of the rocket building business for safety and to protect the space faring public, when the private sector has a catastrophic failure. Similar to the U.S. Coast Guard NASA must have the ability to rescue stranded passengers from private space stations or space hotels. If commercial launches are suspended due to an accident or safety issue NASA must act. A second safety issue is the regulation of man rated rockets. With no NASA rocket program, safety and proper regulation cannot be ensured because there will lack of expertise, facilities and R&D infrastructure to know what the right guidelines are. This is the most complex and risky technology in the world, the private sector can't do it alone. No company without government money/resources assistance has ventured into space alone.
There are a lot of black & white arguments going on about the level of NASA involvement in the future of spaceflight. In reality, it is much more gray, and not as dire.
The U.S. already has a huge space-related industrial base. NASA has not built a launcher in decades, and the real knowledge base for launchers is spread out in the commercial space industry. Need a satellite put in space? You don't go to NASA, you go to private industry.
What is missing is a NASA focused on transferring tax-dollar paid knowledge to U.S. companies so they can create U.S. jobs and industry leadership. This is how the U.S. will stay relevant in space, not by NASA building hugely expensive launchers and spacecraft.
How much will it cost for every Ares I? Much more than Atlas V or Delta IV heavies, and their reliability is already known, and will continue to get better with their constant non-crew launches. The safest and cheapest way to space is on a launcher that can be used for any types of cargo - hardware or human. This is also how you avoid the problem of being stranded when something goes wrong with a launch - and it will, so you better build a U.S. system that has multiple ways to get into space, and doesn't depend on one critical path (like Ares I).
Your assertions were a bit hyperbolic on X-33 to say the least. The technology of that machine would have been unable to lift a single pound to orbit. Much less to a useful orbit. Single Stage To Orbit vehicles were and still are utterly impractical. Many of us in the space side of Lockheed were appalled at the stupidity shown not only by NASA but by LM management- 15 minutes of simple analysis would have shown anyone that the whole thing was preposterous. It was designed mostly by people who had never done anything remotely like a launch vehicle. They suffered a fundamental structural design failure that anyone with a background in cryogenics could have predicted- and many did. Trust me it was a good thing they were put out of their misery.
The real situation is that NASA has nearly no expertise in the design, fabrication, testing and routine flight of expendable launch vehicles. They gave that up around 1983. That skillset now lives with commercial companies- specifically United Launch Alliance. Under the EELV program two entire fleets of launchers and their attendant factories, launch facilities etc were completed for less than $5B. These rockets can ALREADY lift what the ARES I was supposed to and have been flying for years with billion-dollar payloads. Payloads that are life-critical to a lot of people who don't wear astronaut suits.
Which brings up the notion of man-rating. Let's be clear: there ain't no such animal. It is a fiction that is made up to frighten people. The existing Atlas and Delta vehicles have systems margins and redundancy that is as good or better than what was proposed for Constellation elements. Better than that they have actually flown a lot. It is not the safety/reliability numbers on paper that matter- Columbia and Challenger should inform you there of how weak those analyses really are- it is the direct experience that is crucial. We only trust machines and people with hours and hours of experience to keep us safe. We know that a 200 hour pilot is nothing compared to a 6000 hour pilot. That is what the Delta and Atlas bring to the table. Hundreds of flights, honed teams, real world no-bullshit experience.
So really stop worrying about the US losing its technical edge. We have state of the art launch systems that are the envy of the world. TWO OF THEM! It is just that NASA had nothing to do with them. SpaceX gets all the press because they are noisy. And with their track record there is plenty of cause for concern. Who knows if they will succeed. It is not important. The real solution to space access already exists and is flight proven. THAT is what Obama is hanging his hat on.
Having a super big rocket does not make you advanced if it sends you into the poorhouse. The ARES V had nothing on it that was in the least advanced. They deliberately froze technology development as a management decree for heaven's sake. It would have been a white elephant.
Advanced spaceflight is not about who makes the biggest flames it is about who has the best transport system that can support all customers and actually make some money. Without that you are just a hobby. There are numerous studies that confirm that the use of orbital propellant depots and vehicles that use propellant transfer can accomplish far more than any conceivable heavy lifter. I urge you to educate yourself. Go here for starts:
http://unitedlaunchalliance.com/index_published.html
Existing rockets can do more than Constellation ever could and do it at a cost we can afford. Choosing that path shows attention to detail, clear thinking and personal integrity. Obama deserves our thanks for steering us away from the icebergs despite the yammering of the ignorant about how pretty they are.
I think we're both on the same page regarding non-NASA launchers, and I think Atlas & Delta are great starting points for getting crew into space.
I would not be so rah-rah on ULA regarding their cost structure though, since the parent companies (Boeing & LockMart) are not known for their low-cost access to anything. They build wonderfully complex systems, but they also have very large overhead cost structures.
I do like the startups like Orbital and SpaceX. They are starting from a much lower overhead basis, which is going to keep ULA from charging too much for their services. Competition is good.
Also, and this is just a minor point, SpaceX is not as inexperienced as some make them out to be. They are standing on the shoulders of the giants of our space past, so they don't need to create 100% unproven systems - they are able to utilize the current state-of-art from the space industry.
Everyone seems to forget that the first Falcon I launches were test launches, and that they were fully expecting things would go wrong (and they did). But they learned from those mistakes, and now Falcon 1 has joined the ranks of commercial launch systems. Due to the modular way they built the Falcon family, those lessons are applied to Falcon 9. Will the first Falcon 9 test vehicle have a perfect launch? Who knows, but SpaceX will do the same thing they did with Falcon I, which is learn, fix and retry. Which, if memory serves me right, is what Delta & Atlas have had to do a number of times... ;-)
"That skill set now lives with commercial companies- specifically United Launch Alliance".
Right-On!
Space-X keeps ULA cost real...Right-on!
We agree Commercial has the potential all it needs is some seed funding to foster maturity and the opportunity to fly its hardware and to develop infrastructure and markets. But still one very important element is sadly lacking. And that is a program to focus and guide the development along a clear concise path and goal. A program to pull the technology forward. That program is not FLEX. FLEX is too vague, random and lacking of an inspirational goal. FLEX comes up short. Commercial deserves better than FLEX. VSE has the path the inspiration and the goal. ULA has shown they already know the way to execute VSE with Delta, Atlas and other commercial launchers. No HLV needed, No Apollo style program needed.
http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf
Still new space and commercial pundits rally around FLEX. Looking a what ULA has put forth it seems to deliver on everything and moves our space program outward driven by VSE while developing low-cost LEO and infrastructure...what more could one want??????? The more I read and hear about FLEX the more random and dead-ended it sounds. As an engineer FLEX sounds like the dream project, no accountability, no deadlines, and no defined goals, just take some funds and go play. And it never ends one could make a life long career out one project. But as an engineer I know this will not work. What we will get is random KAOS and years of wasted unfocused efforts going everywhere yet getting nowhere. VSE is still valid and accountability and a concise plan are required to build the infrastructure and develop a market. Once markets are developed then FLEX works because the markets will naturally drive progress forward. Until we have developed the infrastructure and the markets VSE is needed. And going to the moon provides the opportunity for those markets to develop.
I am not saying that the commercial companies are not ready to put humans in space, they are and will. However, its not just about that. There are strategic, safety, and technical reasons for NASA to maintain its own abilities. If the human space industry is to succeeded government will require over site, like it or not. NASA has a lot of expertise in all existing rocket technology and the world envies it. NASA will be forced to play a role as a leader or at least something like the FAA or NTSB.
I want NASA to be a leader at minimum they need Orion (don't care how its launched) and Ares V or beyond LEO is dead. No Company will invest in a rocket a big as Ares V only China
The United "star fleet" Launch Alliance is a management company they do ground services and help sell rockets for Boeing and Lockheed Martin. They have no expertise if a major technical problem occurs. They have never build or designed anything. Companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, SpaceX and orbital have a lot of expertise but it doesn't exceed NASA's
By the way Specificimpulse who ever you are to dismiss the X-33 out right is not how scientific research is done. The aerospike engine have only been tested once on the ground and no one really knows how they would perform in real tests. After the X-33 tank failure on the first attempt at something never done before. Cryogenic fuel tanks for liquid hydrogen and oxygen have been build and tested. I urge you to educate yourself. Go here for starts:
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=63264
http://www.xcor.com/products/cryo_compatable_composites.html
The biggest problem with the X-33 program was taking on to much at once.
NASA Will Do Just Fine and So Will Everyone Else
A time is coming soon when everybody and their uncle will have a space program. Space propulsion will be so cheap and so fast that NASA will be able to focus on what type of big outer-space experiments to conduct, not on how to move payload A to orbit B. Heck, propulsion science will be so advanced that orbits will not matter anymore. We'll be able to park any payload anywhere above the surface of the earth or in outer space. Free!
Alright. I know it all sounds like crackpot nonsense but it is based on a solid new motion hypothesis. Soon, science will learn the truth about the causality of motion and the immense lattice of energetic particles in which we move as a result. Rocket propulsion will become obsolete overnight because our vehicles will be capable of moving at enormous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring any damage due to inertial effects. And they'll do it without carrying any fuel/energy on board. How can that be? It's because we're swimming in clean energy, lots and lots of it. We just need to learn how to tap into it. And to do that, we'll need to figure out the properties of the lattice.
Physics: The Problem With Motion
At this point, it makes no more sense than manned warplanes.
We should send people back to space only when our unmanned base on Mars successfully manufactures, fuels, and sends a ship back to pick us up.
We do not yet have the artificial intelligences needed to create a self sustaining space factory.
We also do not have the lift technology to get us into space cheap enough to make the attempt. Or to even do a dry run on the moon.
I am not saying it is a bad idea, but we do not have the technology to make it happen yet....
I think the core reason for man in space and colonizing other planets is species survival. as it is now, we have all of our eggs in one basket, planet earth. If we have colonies we spread the risk. It is that simple. The rest is detail and politics.
It's not only NASA that needs a better plan, it's the office of the President.
President Bush (the recent) was derided for not being an intellectual and for not "understanding" science. He did, however understand the need, at least publicly, to continue the funding and even extend funding for space exploration. Now we have an "intellectual" President and he doesn't understand that need. He says he understands the people's need for jobs but he will cause a few hundred thousand people their jobs and these are good paying jobs. No one (or even several) companys can absorb these people into their numbers as they are running "lean and mean" with little funding. There is no company that can be ready for heavy lift launches within the next decade and no company can put a man on the moon within two decades. If you look at history it is the governments that push such technologies. The Wright Bros developed the airplane but WWI advanced the technology enough that it could be used safely by everyday people. WWII advanced flight technology even further and it wasn't until after the war that the airlines really took off (no pun intended). Up until that point the average person could not afford to fly and without that effort by the government we wouldn't be flying as we are today. The average person cannot come even close to affording a flight into space today and there isn't anywhere to go once you get up there. So why would the average person care about space travel? Until something big happens space exploration will never happen in any meaningful way unless the governments make it happen.
First a couple of political-related points of perspective.
1. No President does everything, and their biggest influence is in hiring the people that do (or are supposed to do) the various jobs, and in setting the goals they want achieved.
2. Per the Republican party, government does not create jobs, companies do.
OK, so Bush put his stamp of approval on a space policy, and then he and congress did not fully fund it. Bush was not the one to design the Constellation program, so I don't blame him for the design, but he clearly was not a gung-ho enthusiast, and despite being a Republican, he was quite content with letting the government keep it's monopoly on U.S. human space travel.
President Obama, through the people that he has hired, is of the opinion that U.S. human space travel is ready to leave the shadow of the government, and create a spaceflight industry. Will it work? I hope it does, and I think the programs that they are funding are some of the critical building blocks needed to spur multiple commercial crew systems into space.
In regards to absorbing personnel, remember that the shuttle program is ending after four more launches, and there would not have been ANY NASA launcher lifting off for at least 5 years. The workforce was going to need go somewhere anyways.
In regards to commercial aviation, yes, wars have a wonderful ability to create large industrial bases, but you are glossing over the roll of the airlines to push the aircraft builders into creating designs that met their needs - pressurized cabins, lower maintenance jet engines, more capacity for paying customers and cargo, etc. The government did not do any of these. It was the industry, and the buying public voting with their money, that created the airline industry we have today.
The best roll of government in our nascent spaceflight industry will be to use our tax-payer funded knowledge and technology to help U.S. companies grow their crew launch businesses. This will be how we will be able to keep as many high-tech jobs as possible - not through a make-work government program, but through the creation of a strong and profitable business.
Also, in regards to cost, it's a chicken-and-egg problem. You won't have a demand for going into space until you have transportation that is going there. Virgin Galactic is trying this out for space tourism, and with the availability of multiple crew launch systems, the possibilities of what we can do in space will entice people and companies to start buying seats to space.
THE BUCK STOPS HERE.
You are right, no president does everything, but the people HE hires do and they advise him on what is going on. But he is responsible for what his people do, any policies, and for carrying out policies.
The shuttle program was winding down but was scheduled to continue until 2013. After that it was to be taken over by the Constellation program, which would fly in 2020 or so. Until that date quite a bit of design and development work would go on. I know a quite a few people who were involved in the Constellation program and are now hunting for jobs and praying they won't be out of work for any length of time. It's not only the people directly working for NASA but their suppliers, and their suppliers...
As for the private sector companies doing the mission, there is no company that has heavy lift capabilities to LEO and no company can afford to develop that capability. No company has manned flight capabilities (Rutan and Co not withstanding, he only flew once and is still on the ground). No company has or will have the capability to go beyond LEO for the foreseable future (20 or more years) unmanned and further out than that for manned missions. And, I will say it again, why would you go there if there were no 'there' to go to? After you go once up and down then you won't want to go again especially if it costs you $200,000 each time.
The adiminstration also controls the policies and rules for space flight and there have been no definitive rules or policies that have come out of this administration.
Oh, and don't forget about all the other countries who are maintaining their space program and will pay to put people in space and develop the capabilities to go beyond LEO. America is, once again, losing the race and we need to get our butts off the ground (pun intended) and get out there.
The shuttle has four flights left after the current mission, and this was decided by Bush years ago - the mandate was to shut down the program in 2010, and the only delay will be if NASA has to push the last flight out into 2011, but that's it - a 2013 date is pure fiction.
Bush also wanted to deorbit the ISS in 2015, which would have meant that Ares I would have been flying to nowhere until Ares V came on line sometime in the 2020's. How would that have advanced our national spaceflight abilities? It wouldn't, and it would have kept commercial companies out of the crew launch business even longer. Not that Russia minds - they are getting ready to raise their prices, since previous administrations didn't want to create a robust U.S. commercial crew launch industry.
Oh, and as for commercial heavy launch ability to LEO, ULA already has two proven launch systems, the Atlas V HLV and the Delta IV Heavy. Both can do what Ares I was supposed to do (but can't because it's too overweight), and they have proven reliability. With small improvements (one of which was funded by the CCDev for ULA), they can become man-rated, and with their continuous use in launching mostly cargo, they will be far more reliable than Ares I would have ever been. These don't have the same lift capability as an Ares V or DIRECT, but who says we have to launch everything on a 10M wide platform?
While my first reaction to the new Obama'a plan was a big disappointment, further considerations led me to believes that we can find positive directions in the plan .
It major drawback is that it calls for technological developments without a definite goal, such as a manned Mars or NEO mission that can be capable of motivating public opinion or enthusiasm young generations .
In fact better refueling systems or privatization of Earth to Leo vehicles will never generate the same enthusiasm as a manned Mars mission.
Actually the plan can lead to that but the goals are very neboluos and unclear .
Something similar happened with the space shuttle or ISS, a new technology good for everything but without major goals in mind.
To bring back the Vision concept, proposed but never really adequately funded , NASA should associate to its new directions , as soon as practicable , ambitious goals that can show to the public opinion the importance of the current scope of work.
By adding capabilities, manned missions to Mars, Moon or NEOs must be announced not as a remote possibility but as real goals adding all the small technological steps necessary to reach such results.
To recreate Apollo with steroids as was announced earlier on, was an obvious mistake. we can't go back fifty years .
we must learn from the shuttle and ISS experience.
To privatize one leg of the roadway was long overdue, same thing should be done with a Earth orbiting base, let's the hotel be runned by hotel professionals.
It makes no sense that NASA transform itself in a transportation agency or hotel company.
NASA must dictate the policies, must require the equipment and let private enterprise develop and run them according to the market and NASA itself.
NASA must push R&D of new systems, technologies and especially, give room to visions, let us dream again with long range but possible goals such as manned missions, bases in foreign bodies , space settlements, deflecting asteroids , their utilization and many other inspiring goals.
Let's have again the sense of awe of the sixties, only NASA can generate that.
Sending People to Mars is still some ways off. First thing we have to do is get past this Crash, then reduce our colossal deficit to something manageable, and restore our industrial capability to what it was when we went to the Moon. Then we can talk up Mars.
Do consider that a round-trip there takes Eight Months Outbound, Twenty-Two Months in orbit there or on the ground, then another eight months to get home. Obviously, this calls for a major assembly effort in LEO, as we will never have a rocket big enough to do it directly. There is also the matter of how many people will be taking the trip to Mars, how many will actually land there, and how long will they stay on the ground looking around.
Thirty-Eight Months outside Earth’s Atmosphere is not at all like Magellan sailing around the world. His men could fish for food, stop at various places and trade with the natives. Going to Mars means drifting along in zero-g under intense radiation the whole time, except for the lucky few who walk on Mars. Shielding against solar X-rays is easy (a flat sheet of aluminum set for grazing incidence of sunlight, big enough hide the crew area will do the trick), but Gamma-Ray Bursters are bound to happen during the mission, they come equally from all parts of the sky and can pack a lethal punch if they come from nearby Galaxies.
For the price of this mission we could easily put Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter-type probes around every planetary satellite in our system, send a super-Hipparcos out to Neptune, and fund the Earth-based support for the incoming data torrent for many years.
Mars will always be there, as will the Moon for that matter. We will go there when we have to.
When I worked for NASA in the 60's there was a cartoon posted on the bulletin board of a rocket on the pad and a caption coming from the top of the rocket. (one astronaut was saying to the other; This thing went to the lowest bidder); Well nearly 45 years have passed since commercial design and construction, first as cost plus then fixed price.
I fail to see the concern with all this experience to draw on.
First, the Vice President was given Administrative Purview over NASA from Inception. Which leaves no doubt as to Executive White House final budgetary distribution. This includes the NASA budget as part of GAO submissions from the President. Which then goes to Congress for final approval. When we comment on specific projects, as to economic viability without considering the budgetary constraints of the Nation as a whole, we are not using the same constraints as the President and therefore being unjust in our measurement.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
eolufemi
2 Comments
consequences
This is just one of those situations where actions in one arena of government have consequences in other arenas of government.
NASA is now facing what other agencies have been facing for years.
All the money in the budget is being dedicated to the military, medicaid/medicare, paying interest on our national debt, and social security.
Discretionary spending will increasingly be short changed as long as those four spending priorities bust our budget.
If anything this should prompt scientists and engineers to start paying attention to the politics taking place all around us.
If we continue to remain aloof and disengaged, we're done for.
Reply
Gaetano Marano
246 Comments
>>> Some Random Mistakes >>>
--
--
Some Random Mistakes [ why the "new" NASA plan is WORSE than the old one ] http://bit.ly/b1IqJj
--
--
Reply