NASA

Evaluating the worth of the AMS

[I planned to post this earlier in the week but it slipped through the cracks. My apologies.]

On the Sunday before the next shuttle mission, carrying a European lab module to the ISS, not one but two major newspapers devoted articles to another ISS experiment that doesn’t have a ride to the station: the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS), an experiment that should be familiar with regular readers here. The Washington Post does a straightforward overview of the AMS, comparing its fortunes with that of Columbus, the European lab module being launched this week. The Post article doesn’t go into the efforts by some members of Congress to get AMS launched, but an Orlando Sentinel article does, noting that Bill Nelson (D-FL), chair of the space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, has been one of the advocates for launching AMS, either on a shuttle mission or via alternative means. (Perhaps a stauncher advocate for the AMS has been Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), who has been speaking out about the AMS for at least a couple of years, but she is not mentioned in either article.)

What neither article assesses in any detail, though, is how likely it is that Congress can give NASA the additional money it needs to launch AMS, either through another shuttle mission or by modifying the AMS to launch on an expendable rocket. The latter would cost several hundred million dollars, while the former could have similar costs and also stretch out the shuttle program by an additional mission, with ramifications for the gap between the shuttle and Orion/Ares programs. If Congress could add money to NASA’s budget (no easy feat, as recent efforts have shown), it’s not clear how high a priority launching AMS would be versus narrowing the gap or other efforts. (The Post quotes Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg as saying that the AMS would offer “the only significant science ever done on the space station”; that assessment might not be shared by, say, a materials scientist or biologist.) Having the AMS in space is preferable to keeping it grounded, but at what cost?

12 comments to Evaluating the worth of the AMS

  • COTSadvocate

    Jeff,

    The options you mention are the most expensive choices.

    There is at least one more option that you don’t mention that is cheaper than either adding an additional Shuttle flight, or requalifying the AMS-02 for an ELV.

    NASA could off-load some of the unpressurized cargo from the STS manifest — from one of the two Shuttle flights currently planned at the end of the manifest — and send those unpressurized ORUs to ISS by other means. This would allow NASA to send up the AMS-02 on one of the existing STS flights.

    In turn, the additional “unpressurized cargo” (that was off-loaded) could be delivered to ISS by a COTS firm, or by the Japanese HTV.

    Since NASA is already picking COTS companies based (in part) on their ability to deliver unpressurized ORUs to ISS, this is credible path.

    It is true that some of the COTS bidders could deliver AMS-02 to ISS. However, as a generality, it would be more expensive for them to deliver AMS-02 than external ISS ORUs, as the AMS-02 weighs 7 metric tons and is 3 meters x 3 meter x 3 meters. This means that it is impossible for some COTS companies to meet the requirement with their existing designs, and for those companies who can do it, it would probably require a one-off design (e.g., meaning “additional cost”).

    Obviously, if NASA were to publish an RFP for commercial delivery of AMS-02, there would be multiple offers. According to NASA’s estimates, the low-cost offers will be around $250M, the high-cost offers (think Boeing/LM) will be $400-500M.

    For these reasons, I think that the option you did not mention — off-loading cargo off the last couple STS flights — makes more sense.

    – COTS advocate

  • Al Fansome

    COTS advocate,

    I agree that the “off-load STS cargo” appears to make the most sense.

    The bottom line is that NASA could deliver the AMS-02 if it wants to. Either the White House or Congress could direct NASA to make it so. I think there is some reasonable chance that Congress may be riled up enough to direct NASA to do so, in some manner. (Appropriations language anyone?)

    Considering the DOE study that concluded that the value of the AMS-02 science was significant, and the fact that 15 other nations have invested well over $1 Billion in AMS-02, I don’t think that NASA has 3 legs to stand on to continue its refusal to deliver AMS-02.

    We will have a chance to see how dispassionate & analytical that Mike Griffin “Just call me Spock” can be.

    Personally — I think that AMS-02 to Mike Griffin is likely to become what HST servicing was to Sean O’Keefe.

    – Al

  • Jeff Foust

    During last month’s Senate hearing, either Sen. Hutchison or Sen. Nelson asked if some cargo could be removed from one of the final two shuttle flights to accommodate the AMS. As I recall, Griffin and/or Gerstenmaier said that was not an option because all of the cargo on those flights was needed for the ISS, to build up a store of spare parts there before the shuttle retirement. (This got into a discussion of why the last two missions are called “contingency” missions when NASA considers them essential, but that’s a different story.) The senators did not ask if that cargo could be offloaded onto an HTV or COTS vehicle, but NASA left the impression that the shuttle was the only way to get it to the station.

  • Does AMS advance human space exploration? If not, then why is it’s budget in that box? Scientists are always complaining that the human space program “steals” their budget; here’s an example of the reverse. If physicists want this, they can pay for it.

    — Donald

  • Al Fansome

    Donald,

    You are asking a second order question. We first must decide whether delivering AMS-02 to ISS is the right thing to do. Then we decide who pays for it.

    That said, in response to your rhetorical question, I ask my own:

    Did AMS-01 advance human space exploration?

    Does the HST servicing mission advance human space exploration?

    – Al

  • COTSadvocate

    FOUST: During last month’s Senate hearing, either Sen. Hutchison or Sen. Nelson asked if some cargo could be removed from one of the final two shuttle flights to accommodate the AMS. As I recall, Griffin and/or Gerstenmaier said that was not an option because all of the cargo on those flights was needed for the ISS, to build up a store of spare parts there before the shuttle retirement.

    That is SOMD’s and the ISSP’s clear position. They clearly don’t want to depend on COTS.

    FOUST: (This got into a discussion of why the last two missions are called “contingency” missions when NASA considers them essential, but that’s a different story.)

    Jeff, I am trying to make the point that this is the same story as AMS-02. The politics around those “contingency” missions is critical to what happens to AMS-02.

    I wish somebody would post what was said on this subject to Congress. This is important.

    It is clear that SOMD and the ISSP want to convert these “contingent” missions to “baseline” missions. I have heard that OMB is strongly resisting this.

    It is obvious that SOMD and the ISSP have a conflict — they care more about the ISS infrastructure than they do about having the infrastructure produce real science results (like AMS-02, or any of the other ISS science work that has been cancelled recently.)

    Somebody at a higher level than the SOMD/ISS, or even higher than NASA, needs to make this decision about national priorities. Why? NASA has a institutional bias as it appropriately cares more about its programs, than it cares about the importance of fundamental physics breakthroughs, which is generally the job of DOE.)

    The senators did not ask if that cargo could be offloaded onto an HTV or COTS vehicle, but NASA left the impression that the shuttle was the only way to get it to the station.

    It is a shame that nobody asked thethisquestion. It is obvious that STS is not the only way to get this unpressurized cargo to station.

    By observation, one of the COTS program express goals is to deliver unpressurized cargo to ISS, which is what is on those last two “contingency” flights.

    – COTS Advocate

  • Dennis Wingo

    By observation, one of the COTS program express goals is to deliver unpressurized cargo to ISS, which is what is on those last two “contingency” flights.

    Totally uninformed BS. COTS at the earliest will not fly until 2010. COTS is not a procurement for cargo but for a demonstration of cargo capability. Any COTS cargo contract will happen after a successful demonstration of capability. Anything else would be complete and under abdication of responsibility for the station.

    NASA has said multiple times in multiple venues that there will be plenty of cargo’s for COTS and to say that those STS missions are taking payloads away from COTs (with limited unpressurized volume) is complete and utter bilge.

  • Al, my comment was probably a bit too quickly made. However,

    Does the HST servicing mission advance human space exploration?

    You could make a case for either way, since learning to service complex equipment is directly applicable to the skills we will need to conduct human operations in deep space. That said, and contrary to the prior expectations of many or most scientists, Hubble has proven to be one of the most, if not the most, important astronomical instruments of our time. In spite of repeated assertions that ground-based instruments are ready to put it out of business, years after launch it continues to hold its own on the observational frontier. A good part of the reason for this continuing relevance is the human servicing missions that keep it functioning and provide new generations of instruments. From both human spaceflight and astronomical perspectives, NASA was correct to add the docking ring to the JWST to give it at least a theoretical ability to see limited servicing by Orion.

    — Donald

  • Dennis, one addition. I believe that the “contingency” flights are intended to deliver outsized spare parts too large or heavy for the likely COTS vehicles. That said, if the contingency flights are not needed, there is no reason these flights can’t be used to fly scientific payloads. However, I would give the Japanese centrifuge module a lot higher priority than AMS.

    — Donald

  • COTSadvocate

    COTSadvocate: By observation, one of the COTS program express goals is to deliver unpressurized cargo to ISS, which is what is on those last two “contingency” flights.

    WINGO: Totally uninformed BS. COTS at the earliest will not fly until 2010. COTS is not a procurement for cargo but for a demonstration of cargo capability. Any COTS cargo contract will happen after a successful demonstration of capability. Anything else would be complete and under abdication of responsibility for the station.

    Dear Mr. Wingo,

    In this case, you are the uninformed one, as you don’t know what you are talking about.

    Before you call other people’s positions “totally uninformed BS” maybe you should make sure you understand the facts first.

    First, the COTS Announcement makes it explicitly clear that delivering unpressurized cargo to ISS is an objective of the COTS program.

    Second, there is no hard requirement to deliver all of these “contingency flight” unpressurized ORUs by 2010. They could be deliver some of these in 2011, some in 2012, some in 2013, some in 2014 and some even later — if there was means to do so. What NASA is doing is “pre-positioning” ORUs for the life of the ISS.

    Mr. Foust understands this when he says “As I recall, Griffin and/or Gerstenmaier said that was not an option because all of the cargo on those flights was needed for the ISS, to build up a store of spare parts there before the shuttle retirement.”

    Therefore, off-loading some of this cargo might mean that NASA needs to accept some risk of putting these ORUs up a COTS vehicle, but it is by no means “BS” to consider this as an option. Nor is considering off-loading an ORU that is needed in 2014/2015 necessarily a “would be complete and under abdication of responsibility for the station”. Since these are only “contingency” flights, it is clear that these flights are not hard requirements, and that discussing other options for these remaining flights is not “irresponsible” and should be on the table for discussion.

    You personally may want to trash COTS — and maybe what you are really saying is that COTS providers are “total BS” — but it is clearly an option to consider to off-load some of that unpressurized cargo to COTS vehicles and/or HTV.

    ROBERTSON: Dennis, one addition. I believe that the “contingency” flights are intended to deliver outsized spare parts too large or heavy for the likely COTS vehicles.

    Donald, with all do respect, we should not make an important decision like this based on “belief”.

    None of the existing ISS ORUs that NASA plans to deliver is as big as the AMS-02 (3 meters x 3 meters x 3 meters). Since NASA has already acknowledged (in public) that the AMS-02 can be delivered by an ELV, it is clear that those same systems could deliver even the largest ORUs (such as the ISS Pump Module).

    Now, it is true, that some of the COTS bidders may not be able to deliver every single external ORU. Delivering something like the Pump Module is more difficult. It depends on what they bid (and obviously who NASA chooses.)

    – COTS Advocate

  • Al Fansome

    Folks,

    In an attempt to add a little “light” to the “heat”.

    The technical savvy people at NASAspaceflight.com consider putting AMS-02 on to the Shuttle, in place of one of the Express Logistics carriers to be a legitimate option to consider. IMO, they identify the correct question as being “what is more important, the AMS-02, or the ORUs?”

    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11027&start=1

    Then, somebody who has access to inside NASA information appears to think that the AMS-02 has already been placed back on the STS manifest, if only unofficially. See STS 129 on the 3 December 20007 update of the “Unofficial Space Shuttle Manifest” here:

    http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/shuttle/manifest.txt

    My experience is that the “Unofficial Space Shuttle Manifest” is often quite accurate at predicting changes to the manifest, that are announced at a later date.

    – Al

  • Benigno Muniz Jr.

    Prior to early 2007, launch options for AMS-02 were still open from a technical perspective. After the TIM in Jan 2007, the AMS-02 Program Office was given the direction to proceed with integration for STS launch even though the mission had already formally been removed from the manifest prior. This decision increased the cost for any ELV launch option (overstated in a post above) since AMS-02 h/w would now have to be modified for launch.

    “Since NASA has already acknowledged (in public) that the AMS-02 can be delivered by an ELV…”

    Indeed. But the time for serious consideration of *all* ELV options was last fall/winter. The train has since left the station, and AMS-02 advocates are now left with the only path of trying to get the mission squeezed onto the STS manifest somehow.

Leave a Reply to Benigno Muniz Jr. Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>