Congress, NASA

House hearing next week on SLS and Orion

Congress will be returning from its extended summer/convention break next week, and one committee already has a space-related hearing lined up. The space subcommittee of the House Science Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday morning titled “Examining NASA’s Development of the Space Launch System and Orion Crew Capsule”. Only two witnesses are listed as of Thursday morning, although with the promise of more: NASA’s Dan Dumbacher and Space Telescope Science Institute director Matt Mountain. The latter suggests that the committee will be interested in other uses of the SLS beyond human exploration missions; the SLS has been suggested for launching large space telescopes or flagship planetary missions, although whether such missions could afford an SLS is an open question.

29 comments to House hearing next week on SLS and Orion

  • Dark Blue Nine

    “the SLS has been suggested for launching large space telescopes or flagship planetary missions, although whether such missions could afford an SLS is an open question”

    Not really. The question was closed by a National Academies study called Launching Science that was performed at NASA’s request on the scientific applications of the Constellation program. The bottomline finding with respect to the superheavy lift Ares V launch vehicle was that:

    “Finding: The scientific missions reviewed by the committee as appropriate for launch on an Ares V vehicle fall, with few exceptions, into the “flagship” class of missions. The preliminary cost estimates, based on mission concepts that at this time are not very detailed, indicate that the costs of many of the missions analyzed will be above $5 billion (in current dollars). The Ares V costs are not included in these estimates.”

    NASA can’t afford the $4.7 billion Jupiter Europa Orbiter follow-on to Galileo or even another $1-2 billion Mars Science Laboratory-class rover. There’s no current or forseeable NASA budget for a class of $5+ billion missions that would utilize a superheavy lift launcher like Ares V or SLS.

    Instead of prohibitively unaffordable new science missions, I would guess that Mountain is there to discuss potential Orion servicing of JWST, which his Space Telescope Science Institute will be running after Hubble. Although still egregiously expensive (a couple to a few billion dollars) and technically questionable (unlike Hubble, JWST was not designed for servicing), such a mission is somewhat more within the realm of budgetary reality (if you suspend budgetary reality to get SLS and Orion built in the first place).

  • SLS: a humongous launcher in search of a commensurate size payload.

    Reason for the hearing “Oink! Oink! Oink!”

  • James

    NASA /SMD is not in a position to request from OMB, via the White House, anything over a $1B in any budget cycle till after JWST is launched, as NASA’s credibility has been shredded to pieces.

    If JWST does indeed launch when they say, and for the money they now say, then perhaps there is an opening to look at missions over $1B.

    More than likely, you will see, if the SLS survives, a joint Human Space Flight, SMD mission use the SLS; there are people at NASA HQ looking to get HSF requirements met by ‘adding’ instruments, etc. to SMD missions – if appropriate.

  • Alan

    I don’t think we can take the National Acadamies study as the definitive answer on this:

    “The committee believes that during the brief time of this study, the enormous potential capabilities of the Ares V, for example, were not recognized by the scientific community at large. The committee also believes that the short deadlines associated with the second phase of this study impaired the ability of the scientific community to respond with mission concepts, especially in terms of the weight and volume capabilities planned for Ares V in particular.”

    “Recommendation: NASA should solicit further mission concepts that are most likely to benefit from the capabilities of the Constellation System in each of the space and Earth science disciplines: astronomy and astrophysics, Earth science, heliophysics, and planetary science. The agency should seek mission concepts that are studied in a uniform manner with regard to design, system engineering, and costing.”

    The high costs of the missions studied appeared more related to the technology development needed for the (mostly pre-existing) mission concepts rather than being an inherent property of large SLS/Ares-V class payloads. On this evidence, I don’t think we can justifiably say “The case is closed” one way or the other.

    The report is here:
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12554&page=R1

  • Robert G. Oler

    this is just “find a mission for SLS please find a mission” RGO

  • Mary

    Bolden was sent to Utah to reassure the legislature that the SRB monopoly would continue. The Bush and Obama administrations never intended to build a crew or cargo vehicle for just that reason.

    The public began to complain about hitchhiking with the Russians so the rush was on to jerry rig the Atlas V for the so-called commercial crew effort.

    No party has a defined space policy for space exploration because its still about satisfying the needs of shareholders through Congressional mandates.

    In fact when Congress talks about SLS, what they really want to know is who gets to pocket the next chunk and how soon.

  • Coastal Ron

    Alan wrote @ September 6th, 2012 at 11:11 am

    The high costs of the missions studied appeared more related to the technology development needed for the (mostly pre-existing) mission concepts rather than being an inherent property of large SLS/Ares-V class payloads. On this evidence, I don’t think we can justifiably say “The case is closed” one way or the other.

    OK, maybe not “case closed”.

    But certainly there exists no evidence of any demand for SLS-class payloads, which I would characterize as bigger than 20-50mt mass range (Delta IV Heavy to Falcon Heavy), diameters larger than 5m, or length longer than 23m (Atlas V).

    I actually see this hearing as the beginning of the end for SLS. I don’t think they will find a series of science missions that require the SLS, or would require using the SLS enough to merit depending on it.

    What science team would build a mission dependent on the SLS if they think there is the possibility – no matter how slight – that it will be cancelled in the decade leading up to the completion and launch of their payload? That’s why building payloads that can fit onto more than one launcher is so much less risky.

    It will be an interesting hearing.

  • amightywind

    although whether such missions could afford an SLS is an open question.

    Thanks for the obligatory, slanted editorial comment. Since the country hasn’t had a heavy lift booster since 1972, maybe no one has thought to design a mission for one. Let us hope the committee admonishes the guilty NASA officials for slow walking Orion/SLS.

  • James

    Mary Wrote: “No party has a defined space policy for space exploration because its still about satisfying the needs of shareholders through Congressional mandates.”

    This is because there is no overarching concern/interests of the American public, that is both broad (addressing a concern of the entire nation) and deep (like the fear felt by most when sputnik flew overhead).

    Once we defined how we would address those concerns (beat the Soviet Union to the moon, return safely) there was no more need for Apollo, as the original concerns that birthed Apollo we no longer in existence.

    In the absence of a broad and deep ‘primary’ concern (as was the case with Apollo – hence the extraordinary presidential commitment and congressionally approved flow of money), secondary concerns (locally felt, not nationwide) drive the actions of NASA (which is run by congressional purse strings). so post Apollo, States that had human space flight centers had concerns for going out of business, hence Shuttle and ISS emerged, and NASA becomes fractured, not unified in its goals, as secondary concerns ruled the day. This is more of an issue for Human Space flight, hence the ping ponging of a HSF policy.

    Ask yourself this: What concern is satisfied by human exploration (to anywhere , with any architecture) that is broad and deep in the eyes of the American public? There isn’t one. So we get what Mary points to; fractured interests/concerns trying to address themselves through congressional spending in states that have Manned Space centers.

    This will continue to be the state of human space flight, commercial crew notwithstanding, as long as government is driving and leading human space flight (which needs to address the concerns of it’s citizens)

    Contrast this with Elon Musk. He only needs to address whatever concerns/interests he has, not the populous at large.

    The future, though I am not good at predicting, if it holds human space flight center that satisfies the dreams of the dreamers out there, will be led by commercial interests. Perhaps government will have a ‘follow the leader’ role, but all of this remains to be seen, and will , if it does, play itself out long after I am dead. .

  • Dark Blue Nine

    “The high costs of the missions studied appeared more related to the technology development needed for the (mostly pre-existing) mission concepts rather than being an inherent property of large SLS/Ares-V class payloads.”

    No, mission costs estimates are driven by mass first. Even if technological complexity, usually a secondary factor, is the driver, it stands to reason that larger missions are going to have more and more difficult technological challenges to overcome than smaller missions with fewer technology challenges that are smaller in magnitude. Almost any comparison between large and small missions on instrument number, instrument size, computational demands, deployable size, power demands, communications demands, propulsion demands, etc. will show this to be true. Just compare the numbers on MSL to MERs. Or JIMO to JEO. Or JWST to WFIRST. Etc.

    Moreover, when the report does call out technology development, it identifies cross-mission capabilities in in-space propulsion and deep space communications, the costs of which are not assigned to any particular mission.

    “On this evidence, I don’t think we can justifiably say ‘The case is closed’ one way or the other.”

    No, the report’s summary is very clear on this:

    “Virtually all of the science mission concepts that could take advantage of Constellation’s unique capabilities are likely to be prohibitively expensive.”

  • Dark Blue Nine

    “Thanks for the obligatory, slanted editorial comment.”

    Mr. Foust’s post is not slanted or editorial. It’s a fact that the cost of virtually all the missions that would utilize a super HLV like SLS are estimated to start at $5 billion. And that assumes that these missions don’t grow by billions more, which is what almost always happens with missions in this class — just witness the billions in cost growth on JWST and MSL. And it doesn’t include SLS launch costs, which are going to run at least a couple billion more per mission.

    $5 billion-plus (really $10 billion by the time cost growth and launch are included) is much more than the flagship missions NASA can’t afford but would like to start now, including JEO at $4B+, WFIRST at $2B, and another MSL-class rover at $1-2B.

    “Since the country hasn’t had a heavy lift booster since 1972, maybe no one has thought to design a mission for one.”

    No, the National Academies has examined 17 such missions in a study called “Launching Science”. See earlier posts.

    “Let us hope the committee admonishes the guilty NASA officials for slow walking Orion/SLS.”

    In FY12, Congress cut the MPCV/SLS budget by $1.4 billion (or 33%) compared to what Congress said that MPCV/SLS needed in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act. Based on existing bills, Congress is going to cut MPCV/SLS by another $1.2-1.4 billion (or 29-34%) in FY13. And that’s before sequestration, a Ryan budget cut under a new Romney Administration, etc.

    NASA is not slow-walking these programs. Congress is.

  • Heinrich Monroe

    The idea that Matt Mountain is going to advocate a servicing mission to JWST seems highly unlikely, for the reasons noted. Although a grizzled astronaut packing tools on a tool belt around the waist would probably be happy to advocate it, someone who has any concept of the degree to which JWST is fundamentally unserviceable would avoid talking about it. The idea of servicing big telescopes BEO is a great one, and has been proposed many times before, but it isn’t going to be JWST, and the next one will be decades off.

    Advocating the launch of an ATLAST-type (single aperture very large telescope) seems a slightly more appropriate request except, as pointed out, there will be zero funds available to start working on it seriously until well after the launch of JWST, and it isn’t clearly consistent with Decadal priorities anyway. Two strikes against it. Of course, the trouble with ATLAST from the point of view of science policy is that it’s technologically a dead-end. Constructing a large telescope in space piecewise (perhaps not with astronauts) has a lot more potential. But again, there won’t be funds to even start thinking about that seriously for a decade.

    One wonders what one could do with HST, though significant investment in what is to some extent an obsolete instrument isn’t clearly of value. Perhaps a plane change to put it in an ISS orbit? That would be a neat trick.

  • Heinrich Monroe

    Yeah, actually a plane change for HST is a Centaur-type proposition. Sure don’t need much of an SLS iCPS to do that.

  • Vladislaw

    Good points Dark Blue.

    If you just add up, the average cost of a pound of cargo, regardless of how many science instruments and bells and whistles the probe or telescope has, for science projects for space, and multiply that for 130 tons … how anyone thinks science projects of that magnitude are not going to in a new seperate catagory above the costs for a flagship project is being silly.

  • Dark Blue Nine

    “The idea that Matt Mountain is going to advocate a servicing mission to JWST seems highly unlikely”

    To be clear, I didn’t say that Mountain advocates JWST servicing. I just think it’s more likely that the committee called him to talk on that topic than SLS-sized space telescopes. JWST is going to be the Space Telescope Science Institute’s bread-and-butter when Hubble shuts down, after all — not any SLS-sized space telescope.

    If Mountain has half-a-brain for politics, he’ll nod politely when JWST servicing by MPCV is brought up and say that it’s certainly possible. That way he won’t offend the SLS/MPCV supporters (or SMD AA Grunsfeld) without actually advocating JWST servicing. Such are the tightrope walks required when dealing with Congress.

    “Advocating the launch of an ATLAST-type (single aperture very large telescope)… will be zero funds available to start working on it seriously until well after the launch of JWST, and it isn’t clearly consistent with Decadal priorities anyway.”

    I think there’s little chance Mountain will advocate for an ATLAST-type mission for the reasons you mention. For the survival of his Institute, JWST comes first and foremost, not an ATLAST-type mission. And he’d anger the heck out of his community, which agreed to the WFIRST mission as the next priority after JWST in the decadal survey, not something like ATLAST.

    “One wonders what one could do with HST, though significant investment in what is to some extent an obsolete instrument isn’t clearly of value.”

    Various Hubble extensions were considered in the last Decadal Survey, but none were recommended in the final report.

    Given that NRO has offered up a couple reflectors that could help accelerate WFIRST and given that it was the Survey’s #1 priority, I think we’ll see WFIRST happen before ATLAST, JWST servicing, or HST extension.

    http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/04/12053467-spy-agencys-gift-could-save-nasa-big-bucks-on-super-hubble-mission?lite

  • Heinrich Monroe

    If Mountain has half-a-brain for politics, he’ll nod politely when JWST servicing by MPCV is brought up and say that it’s certainly possible.

    I think we’re in complete agreement. It is very true that this is an extremely inauspicious time to be talking up a brand new ATLAST flagship mission. Here we are, six years before JWST gets launched, crossing fingers and toes that costs won’t continue to increase, and surrounded by the crumbling walls of NASA Astrophysics that JWST engendered. Talking up a new flagship mission would be crazy.

    Sure, you could in principle send astronauts out to ES L2 (or to EM L1/2) to meet JWST to give an stuck and undeployed arm a kick, but the idea of doing real servicing on it, as per SM1-4, is just baloney. To SMD, that kick could be a relatively cheap proposition. HEOMD would gladly eat the cost of a human mission to save the “son of HST”, and Grunsfeld would happily play along. The shuttle HST servicing missions were probably the highlights of the whole shuttle program, producing more free press and taxpayer interest in both science and human space flight than for any other flights. Gosh, now if they just designed a solar panel to get slightly stuck (with a little x-mark that says, “kick here”).

    One has to assume that Matt Mountain is more or less dreading this doing testimony. Hard to imagine that it’s a winning situation for him.

  • Mary

    James wrote @ September 6th,

    “This is because there is no overarching concern/interests of the American public, that is both broad (addressing a concern of the entire nation)”

    I’m afraid I have to agree with you. The public should embrace space exploration not only for the benefit of new technologies and industries created but for discovery as well.

    Unfortunately the space race we haven’t seen in decades has been replaced with modern politically motivated crony capitalism which commonly induces burdensome failure, so the public is not informed or have the desire to be actively involved while billions are wasted on inept projects.

    If an administration ordered a habitat research base built near Whipple Crater in 8-10 years, do you think they would fund SLS to do the job?
    No, of course not. They would cancel SLS in a heartbeat.

  • Paul

    I’m afraid I have to agree with you. The public should embrace space exploration not only for the benefit of new technologies and industries created but for discovery as well.

    Why should they do that, if they perceive the new technologies as being overblown or irrelevant, and they will receive no benefit from the exploration?

  • Heinrich Monroe

    Let me take another guess here. The SDT that is being formed to assess opportunities for the donated NRO optical systems is being charged with developing a baseline DRM, one option of which will specifically include “Opportunity to utilize the Space Launch System (SLS)”.

    If Matt Mountain is going to dare to bring up in Congress a new flagship astronomy mission while JWST hangs over the head of the community, this is it. How could he get away with it? Simple. A donated optical system, even for what would end up being an enormously pricey observatory, makes it look like a forgiveable bargain. In every other sentence, he’d use the words “free” or “donated” or “no-cost”.

    Now, it’s pretty hard to turn a Hubble-sized telescope (in fact, it would be shorter than that) into an SLS payload. NRO wasn’t going to need an SLS to launch one, after all. But one wonders what heavier options there might be. Launch two at a time? A huge multiple instrument package? That would take some cojones to propose facilities like that with a straight face.

  • Coastal Ron

    Heinrich Monroe wrote @ September 7th, 2012 at 6:57 pm

    Now, it’s pretty hard to turn a Hubble-sized telescope (in fact, it would be shorter than that) into an SLS payload.

    The Hubble only weighs 11,110 kg (24,500 lb) and is 2.4 m (7 ft 10 in) in diameter, so using the SLS to launch a similar sized instrument would obviously be overkill – unless they called it a “test flight” (i.e. free to the customer), in which case the “test payload” would be the NRO-based telescope. That could happen, but that only extends the life of the SLS by one launch.

    But one wonders what heavier options there might be.

    That’s the $30B question.

    That would take some cojones to propose facilities like that with a straight face.

    Well, this is Congress they are talking to, so wasteful ideas are routinely funded if the politics are right. They just have to pique the interest of the right person in Congress…

  • Heinrich Monroe

    unless they called it a “test flight” (i.e. free to the customer)

    For a just a Hubble-sized instrument, I suspect the launch cost would be a minor part of the total mission cost. If that’s the case, then why risk your instrument on a new launch vehicle?

    Actually, if you wanted to launch both a major telescope and a highly capable occulter disk w/spacecraft (aka “New Worlds Observer”) mission, and send them out to Earth-Sun L2 to boot, you’re talking about some more mass and also, if you don’t want to do a lot of deployment for the occulter disk, some fairing diameter. Let’s suppose you send several occulter disks up in different places, to optimize the operational efficiency. That would fill more space and mass.

    But jeez, the NRO telescopes are very lightweight anyway. About 2 kg. They don’t come close to the mass of a Hubble. That’s what makes me think we could be talking about launch volume instead of launch mass.

    Yes, that’s certainly correct about Congress funding wasteful ideas. I suspect what the committee is trying to establish is whether there is any glimmer of possible scientific interest in SLS they could stir up. If there is, that just adds to the ammunition for the proponents of it. Betcha Matt Mountain concludes with something like “Yes, with enough investment of dollars (which we don’t now have), we sure could use an SLS!” That plays right into the rationale for the SLS. Building a launcher for payloads we can’t afford.

  • Coastal Ron

    Heinrich Monroe wrote @ September 7th, 2012 at 10:28 pm

    For a just a Hubble-sized instrument, I suspect the launch cost would be a minor part of the total mission cost.

    When NASA uses commercial launch providers, the programs have to pick up the full cost of the launch. Government owned transportation assets are treated differently accounting-wise, so here’s the way I see it.

    There isn’t enough money to build a really elaborate telescope out of the NRO spares, or at least not soon enough to be on one of the first SLS flights (SLS supporters need to build up a launch backlog). And there is no way a low-cost program could afford to absorb the full cost of an SLS operational flight (~$1.5-2.5B). But since any such telescope would be undersized for an SLS flight, they could justify the use of the SLS if it is one of their test flights, maybe one that uses an EDS (Earth Departure Stage).

    It even sounds logical – a telescope cobbled together from spare parts being launched on a test flight. Win-Win. If the test flight fails, not much is lost, right?

    Actually, if you wanted to launch both a major telescope and a highly capable occulter disk w/spacecraft (aka “New Worlds Observer”) mission, and send them out to Earth-Sun L2 to boot, you’re talking about some more mass and also, if you don’t want to do a lot of deployment for the occulter disk, some fairing diameter.

    Here is the dilemma SLS supporters run into with something like that. The idea sounds like a neat program, but it sounds like something that will need lots of money and time to get it going. How many of those types of programs can NASA afford, and afford to use the SLS to launch? Would the SLS really be needed for the launch, or would Delta IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy be less costly transportation methods?

    I wonder if anyone at the hearing will bring up the subject of mission cost for SLS-sized payloads?

  • NASA was required to submit to Congress this summer a document folks call the 180-Day Report which was supposed to be NASA’s proposal for a schedule of SLS missions. Maybe this hearing is to receive this report — or ask where it is.

    Not that Congress particularly cares, since it’s only a jobs program and they don’t care if it ever flies.

  • Heinrich Monroe

    How many of those types of programs can NASA afford, and afford to use the SLS to launch?

    Of course that’s precisely where the problem is for us. Science flagship missions are once-in-a-blue-moon launches, and will never contribute to the wholly laughable 6-per-year number that SLS advocates dwell on. But is that really a problem to them? I don’t think so. Congressional supporters for SLS just want to connect the words “science” and “SLS”. They don’t want to do any hard arithmetic and, as I said, the rationale for SLS is currently based on not doing any fiscal arithmetic.

    As to win-win, I’d have to argue over value. The “cobble together from space parts” strategy is one that was tried in the faster-cheaper-better generation, the main lesson of which was that you could have two out of the three, but not all three together. In fact, that proposition sounds like a recipe for gross undercosting. Of course, gross undercosting is how you start missions, unfortunately, and two out of three ain’t bad. So yes, I could imagine Matt Mountain being pressed to advocate this strategy. But if anything, SLS is likely to take money from science, once it descends into fiscal hell, so for the Director of STScI to come in and make a case for SLS would be, I think, a sad assertion of science leadership.

    NASA was required to submit to Congress this summer a document folks call the 180-Day Report which was supposed to be NASA’s proposal for a schedule of SLS missions.

    That report was released on August 31. It has no schedule for SLS launches but, then again, the congressional text that called for the report didn’t explicitly ask for that.

    “Consequently, the conferees direct NASA to develop and report to the Committees on Appropriations a set of science-based exploration goals; a target destination or destinations that will enable the achievement of those goals; a schedule for the proposed attainment of these goals; and a plan for any proposed collaboration with international partners.”

    That report does have a handwaving schedule for “science-based exploration goals”. But yes, I suspect House Space may be subtly inserting the word “SLS” into the phrase “science-based exploration goals”, even if it wasn’t there to begin with.

  • Heinrich Monroe wrote:

    That report was released on August 31.

    Is it online anywhere? Link?

    I know a report titled “Voyages” was released in June but I was told that probably wasn’t the 180-Day Report.

    Thanks in advance.

  • Egad

    I know a report titled “Voyages” was released in June but I was told that probably wasn’t the 180-Day Report.

    I too would like to see anything that might be the 180-Day Report.

    Meanwhile, there’s a Gerstenmaier presentation from July 24 that surfaced briefly on NSF but hasn’t received the discussion I, IMVHO, think it deserves:

    http://tinyurl.com/95qn9sl

    It contains a remarkably detailed three-page “SLS Top Level Milestone Schedule” that lays out what was being considered for SLS for the period out through mid-FY2026 and even, a little and by implication, a bit beyond that.

  • Egad wrote:

    Meanwhile, there’s a Gerstenmaier presentation from July 24 that surfaced briefly on NSF but hasn’t received the discussion I, IMVHO, think it deserves …

    Thanks for the reference.

  • Heinrich Monroe

    The 180-report was released to Congress on August 31. We’ll have to see if it managed to get leaked publicly. Those other documents are not the report.

    But this is something new that relates to the hearing about SLS. Space Frontier Foundation is looking for things to do with the “Ridiculous Rocket”.
    http://tinyurl.com/9tslh2f

  • Heinrich Monroe

    Well, maybe we’ll get a fresh thread on this, but having watched the session, Matt Mountain’s contribution — “SLS is a key tool needed to answer the question ‘Are We Alone?’ by both being the transport capability for bringing telescope complements into space and by providing the human and/or robotic infrastructure to assemble such a system in space” is pretty much just a lie. SLS may be usable as such a tool, but it’s hardly enabling. Why would he lie? Pretty simple. He needs to do some serious foot kissing in Congress to keep JWST afloat for the next six years. Tell ‘em what they want to hear, Matt.

Leave a 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>