If you’re curious to learn more about why The Planetary Society is supporting NASA’s new direction, the society is planning an interactive webcast on Thursday at 2pm EST featuring executive director Lou Friedman and vice president Bill Nye. From a press release about the upcoming webcast: “The Planetary Society believes that the new NASA plan will help advance readiness to see human space exploration move beyond Earth orbit into the solar system and eventually to Mars.”
As I read and listen to all the commentary that has followed the release of the new plan for NASA and Human Space Flight (HSF), it is worth noting that many of the perspectives are not even on the same planet as far as the view of what happened in recent years. To make matters worse, broad and differing goals seem to be tossed around as if a few words leave all the rest clear. The Moon vs. capability? An ill-defined statement about destinations as if no more was required vs. a set of “ilities†that are left just as poorly explored.
To defenders of Constellation (Cx), at what cost, in what time frame, in what context and with what goals would you declare the program a success? Cost considerations would include not just “getting there†but also the yearly recurring costs for some number of years for how many missions a year. The time frame would be what happens by when at multiple points, Cx being a dual-launch-vehicle architecture. The context would include asking if the program costs and timeframe also include the money for all the other things NASA should do, or is Constellation the end-all be-all of NASA Human Space Flight? And lastly goals are more than just getting back to the Moon; goals include the benefits to US industry, running with any advancements in technology that are deemed of other use for their own application.
The reason we are here today – one more canceled initiative, déjà -vu all over again – is largely due to Cx being unable to answer these questions with anything more than saying send money and trust me, alongside no broader goals other than a destination, as if Constellation were entirely defendable existing in a vacuum, never addressing any bigger picture. In the ideal world of Cx, the program would have gotten all the money they needed always, for any arbitrary date, or immediately more if the date ran into problems. Also, in this ideal Cx world, if there were other NASA goals (in Science, Aeronautics, Space Systems R&D, our outpost / ISS in space, or for initiatives for low cost access to space, etc), that would not affect Constellation funding. These “other†things would all be un-affected, off in their own world, getting their funding too! Ahh, to live in such a world…
The community of readers and contributors here would do well to go back and see the numbers from the Cx program itself alongside such context. It is impossible to separate a program from the agency it is a part of. Constellation began as a $100 Billion dollar program to “get there†– $100 B by 2020 to have up and running two launch vehicles, a spacecraft (Orion), and a Lunar Lander (Altair). In its early estimates, harking back to the “ESAS†work, the first vehicle, Orion Ares I, would have been able to provide services to the ISS by 2012 or at the latest 2013. General Space Systems R&D was cut early in the program as a way to send funds to Cx but plenty of money was to be left over to the tune of $500M a year, for other uses. Science and Aeronautics, even in early plans, were to be cut to make way for the Cx priority. This is well documented in the 2004 Aldridge report. In other words, Cx was to be a fundamental shift in NASA away from Science, Aeronautics, the ISS, and Space Systems R&D – even from the beginning. ESAS built on the Aldridge funding profile nearly exactly at the gross level of Cx vs. everything else.
As it turns out, even when pretty much these 2005 plan amounts were received at the NASA top-line year after year, Cx invariably adopted a continuous mantra of “we want more†– more money, more time, and more performance. Whatever existed at one time in talking about Cx being “sustainable†as related to “affordability†in a more absolute sense became discussions about “support†deriving from stakeholders, relative to supporting year after year funding.
Most importantly, even when Cx was to be up and running it’s own estimates show it would have been a program the yearly operation of which would have approached the entire current Human Space Flight budget. Compare that to the Shuttle using up about 1/3rd of the current budget, allowing for the simultaneous operation of a Space Station, a major development program, Cx itself, and other R&D. NASA Human Space Flight would have been all dressed up with no where to go. After all, where would the Lunar assets or any payload funding be in all this? Invariably the Cx answer would be “well, we’ll need (or assume) more money tomorrowâ€. Cx had become a program that never had an end in site, for all its defenders stating the focus provided by dates and destinations. The dates and destinations were focused on while everything else was left as form as jello. It was always just “give me more moneyâ€. In comparison to Apollo, adjusting for inflation, Cx was heading to re-create about the same yearly cost for the same yearly couple of flights to the Moon, while trending above Apollo yearly costs as Cx added ever more expansive capabilities (Lander size, duration, and landing sites).
In the end Cx defenders started the “goals worthy of a great nation†defense. That sounded a lot better than the real words – “just give me any money I need whenever I need it, and as for everyone else in the agency they are not my problem. If you want to fund other neat stuff, that’s fine, so long as it does not affect meâ€. Focus had become myopia.
Now it’s fine to reduce this down to more money, and faith in grand well defined goals, but Cx defenders should simply say so. Yes, money independent of other programs. Additionally, they might have added in “but not if it means other initiatives are decimatedâ€. This wasn’t going to happen. It too is an ideal honesty, but myopia assures a program does not worry about the bigger picture.
Ultimately the question that lies ahead is what business do we have re-instating a program that is destination driven, using mostly existing technology, the use of which does nothing new for any other business entity as far as what they might run with to broaden and grow the market of access to space? No advancement in yearly costs, yearly flight rates, reliability or in general making access to Low-Earth-Orbit (LEO) routine makes anything beyond LEO simply un-sustainable by definition.
The challenge to the new R&D driven programs is to realize it’s all about costs, up-front, and especially recurring, within a broad context that admits the limits of the Federal budget. Once again, just as Cx could not live apart, un-affected and not affecting other parts of NASA, NASA can not live as if it exists in isolation from the Federal budget environment. As a Nation our demographics are aging. We are in the throes of deciding how our tribe moves forward, with our sick and elderly, together, or leaving them behind to the wolves. Additionally, as a Nation we have accumulated debt for decades, all of which is reaching a turn on the curve as yearly interest on the debt starts to crank upwards. In a sense both are problems we have more often than not ignored – as far away, as abstract, as not my problem. Now they can be ignored no further. These fiscal pressures are realities for which data exists. They can not be simply waved away, addressed quickly, or solved by the quaint phrases used when appealing to some ideology.
It’s time to figure out low-cost, routine, significantly more reliable (and by relation safer) access to low-Earth-orbit, or all else fails. Accepting the limited amounts of money in NASA HSF turns then to the more productive discussion of how best to leverage these limited funds, akin to investments, in growing the overall health, growth and maturity of the aerospace economy. The aerospace industry has major problems – a small industrial base, limited volumes of production, related low learning rate and low technology maturity, all adding up to 2 to 3 sigma launchers that are special events in a 6-sigma world that wants routine. On a positive note, it’s also an industry with a positive US trade balance, where the launch of space systems has created a wealth of related service industries (TV, radio, GPS, imaging, etc) that arguably make for a more sustainable future.
So let’s turn this discussion to a fiscal reality – the mandatory spending in the Federal budget in the foreseeable future will apply pressure to all discretionary spending as far as the eye can see. Accept this, and then move on. What is the best thing NASA can do with a few billion a year while the Shuttle flies, or with maybe $5B a year once the Shuttle is retired, so as to further access to space, humans or cargo, becoming more affordable, accessible (meaning more people or companies products getting to space), and routine (meaning safer)?
KSC Engineer: There you go, bringing reality into the picture. But it’s so much more fun to fantasize and bloviate!
Good bit of writing with very important insights.
@That NASA Engineer@KSC:
Voice of reason unfortunately does not get you anywhere with the “faithful” who by definition is not reasonable.
” What is the best thing NASA can do with a few billion a year while the Shuttle flies, or with maybe $5B a year once the Shuttle is retired, so as to further access to space, humans or cargo, becoming more affordable, accessible (meaning more people or companies products getting to space), and routine (meaning safer)?”
This question has been answerd by the WH and the new NASA Admin. They only need to fine tune the detail and that is that. And this is what the faithful blindfully deny and fight. Too bad we cannot do without them but such is life.
Let’s redirect the climate research to HSF.
John wrote @ February 18th, 2010 at 11:56 pm
“Let’s redirect the climate research to HSF.”
Great idea John. If we can live in space we don’t even need a planet right?
What I do not understand about individuals that do not believe human activity may be affecting global climate, or even it is just cyclical sun spot activity causing a natural swing in climate, why are they not shouting from every roof top for NASA and every other agency that does research to spend tons more money to PROVE their theory?
Why are they not demanding that more pell grants are offered for more people to study climate at the university level?
Why are they not demanding that at both the Federal and their own State level, to fund more grants for research work on climate.
If you are that sure of your side of the debate, why wouldn’t you want funding for more climate satellites and research to prove your case conclusively?
Well, Vladislaw,
IMaybe it’s because they think they are right until proven otherwise. Why should they use money to try to prove what they already know? They would rather use that money for other things they will immediately benefit from. That’s my guess.
“What I do not understand about individuals that do not believe human activity may be affecting global climate, or even it is just cyclical sun spot activity causing a natural swing in climate”
Money is tight and keep hearing there isn’t enough money so I was just look for some that we could use to support HSF. I doubt that all climate research would end but this was going to be an emphasized area for the Obama Space Program. I think that this isn’t a very good way to spend the money.
It also seem to me that the case that most climate change is due to natural processes. It’s already their will people will just accept that data we already have. However, we have created the cabal of government officals and climate scientist that are determined to prove a false hypothesis at all costs.
In order to show a warning trend they have cherry picked the temperture monitoring stations. What the didn’t get what they wanted the fudged the data. The consprired to run scientist out of the field who differ with them and they they produce a hockey stick chart but withhold and (according to Dr. Jones) lose the supporting data. The change the interpretation of scientist work as it progesses from the techical volume to the summary for policy makers.
This flys in the face of the facts that the climate changes are no more extreme that what the Earth has experienced in the last few thousand years. Basically the warming for the last certury and a half is just a swing back from a cooler extreme in the climate cycle.
Doesn’t it make more sense to increase the effort to develop controlled fusion that continue to argue the climate issue? Yet the politicians of both parties have consistantly cut the budget for fusion since about 1994. The new budget cuts it even further. (I do support the support for new nuclear reactors by the way.)
John wrote:
“This flys in the face of the facts that the climate changes are no more extreme that what the Earth has experienced in the last few thousand years. Basically the warming for the last certury and a half is just a swing back from a cooler extreme in the climate cycle. ”
Unfortunately that doesn’t mean we don’t have to to anything. Even if it’s all caused by natural fluctuations, some countries and islands will be in trouble if the water level rises. Whatever route is chosen (abandon those areas or (try to) protect them) it will cost a lot of money. So, you will still want to monitor the climate intensely the coming years to learn more about what is happening and then try to predict what will happen in the near future so that you can decide what to do.
John: ” I doubt that all climate research would end but this was going to be an emphasized area for the Obama Space Program. I think that this isn’t a very good way to spend the money.”
If you mean NASA’s Earth Observation programs, they’re a much better way to spend the money than Constellation.
First of all, the whole NASA Earth Observation budget wouldn’t be enough to make Constellation a viable program, not by a long shot.
Second, the Earth observations are needed to assess global change, which is useful whether you think the whole climate change business is happening or not. Either way, you need lots of solid data, of all sorts, over many years. One of the best ways to do that is to use satellites. If a climate treaty is signed, you’ll also want this kind of satellite to monitor compliance, regardless of whether or not you think it should have been signed.
Third, climate change is only one of the uses of these NASA satellites. They’re also used as NOAA’s technology demonstrations for its weather and science satellite instruments. They’re used to detect and respond to natural disasters – hurricanes, fires, volcanoes, floods, droughts, and so on. They’re used for agriculture (eg: insurance, assessing crop yields), transportation, commercial fishing, real estate, managing coastal waters and forests, … all sorts of practical commercial and government purposes. They’re a main source of data for all sorts of science fields.
Fourth, unlike Constellation, the type of rockets, satellites, and instruments used by NASA’s Earth observation programs have a lot of synergy with similar work by the DoD, intelligence agencies, and NOAA, and also the commercial satellite industry. It’s useful to these other space interests to have NASA sharing costs and helping to maintain and develop critical national capabilities like satellite-launching rockets, satellite hardware, and Earth observation instruments. Not only that, but the Earth observation data from these NASA satellites is used by a growing commercial industry with strong U.S. presence (eg: ESRI). There are also many opportunities – and I think they have been underused by the NASA Earth observation programs and should be encouraged more – to purchase U.S. commercial Earth observation data and to deploy NASA Earth observation instruments on U.S. commercial satellites, helping to bolster this important industry.
Finally, NASA’s Earth observation program provides a great opportunity for human spaceflight. Consider the potential of commercial reusable suborbital rockets to do remote and direct sensing of the Earth, and to test Earth observation instruments and other space hardware. (This could also work for non-crewed commercial suborbital RLVs). Consider the point in the 2011 NASA budget about using the ISS as a platform for Earth observations. Is there potential to expand that work to non-ISS platforms? Condider the possibility of astronauts assembling and/or servicing Earth observation platforms. Consider the synergy between NASA’s Earth observation satellites and the NASA planetary science missions that do remote sensing in orbit around other planets. Even the Moon program envisioned deploying Earth observation platforms on and around the Moon.
Getting to the subject of the post, it’s interesting that the Planetary Society has in the last year or 2 taking an interest in Earth observation satellites. They used to not concern themselves with them much, but now they’re quite interested in them. That makes a lot of sense, given the similarities between the engineering and science of the Earth observation missions and those of planetary science remote sensing missions.
It is also good to see the Planetary Society gradually shift to a more and more pro-commercial spaceflight stance. These are good fits for their main planetary exploration purpose.