Note: Check out the tip jar for SpaceUp info.
Yeah, yeah, I know. With the health care debate, Copenhagen, Afghanistan, the holidays and everything else that is rushing at us, human space exploration policy might not be at the top of everyone's list of priorities.
However, to drink successfully from the fire hose we need to multi-task and last Wednesday afternoon NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden did have a private face-to-face meeting with President Barack Obama. Thus, this diary.
There are two reports coming from the meeting, however the Administration is downplaying the rumors presented in this reports. Here are the links; analysis after the jump . . .
Exclusive: Obama Backs New Launcher and Bigger NASA Budget
and
New Course for Space Exploration Promotes Private Firms
On December 17th Science Insider offered this about the December 16th meeting between Obama and Bolden (see 1st link above the jump):
by Andrew Lawler
President Barack Obama will ask Congress next year to fund a new heavy-lift launcher to take humans to the moon, asteroids, and the moons of Mars, ScienceInsider has learned. The president chose the new direction for the U.S. human space flight program Wednesday at a White House meeting with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, according to officials familiar with the discussion. NASA would receive an additional $1 billion in 2011 both to get the new launcher on track and to bolster the agency’s fleet of robotic Earth-monitoring spacecraft.
* * *
According to knowledgeable sources, the White House is convinced that scarce NASA funds would be better spent on a simpler heavy-lift vehicle that could be ready to fly as early as 2018. Meanwhile, European countries, Japan, and Canada would be asked to work on a lunar lander and modules for a moon base, saving the U.S. several billion dollars. And commercial companies would take over the job of getting supplies to the international space station.
This report promptly fueled rampant speculation all around the space themed blog-o-sphere.
On Friday, the Administration responded that "The meeting with Bolden was informational, not decisional."
Jeff Foust, at space politics dot com concluded this meant no decisions have been made however if the purpose of the meeting was to inform Bolden what Obama has decided, that technically would be "informational, not decisional" and one commenter's suggestion that the leak is a "trial balloon" strikes me as a very real possibility.
On December 21st another story appeared, this time in the Wall Street Journal (2nd link above the jump), limited key quotes here:
By ANDY PASZTOR
The Obama administration appears set to chart a new course for U.S. space exploration by promoting the use of private companies to ferry astronauts into orbit, according to people familiar with the matter.
* * *
NASA officials have declined to discuss the deliberations, except for the renewed focus on international cooperation. In a speech earlier this month, Mr. Bolden indicated he has explicit instructions from the president to engage the Chinese, European governments and other countries. "There are not a lot of things I can tell you with certainty" about the agency's direction, the NASA chief said. "But I can tell you, [Mr. Obama] said, do that."
* * *
One of the biggest outstanding questions is what happens to the current plans to develop and build the Ares I rocket, intended to start its NASA work by blasting astronauts into orbit. The Augustine study group basically recommended killing Ares I, partly due to its large price tag and longer than anticipated development. Congressional supporters have argued equally strongly that it should be continued. Indeed, Ares supporters are campaigning for accelerated development of the booster, plus as many as three extra test flights over the next few years. . . .
But according to people close to the situation, the White House hasn't yet decided which way to go. In any event, NASA's revised spending plan is expected to emphasize development of a so-called "heavy lift" family of follow-on rockets, able to blast 100 or more tons off the launch pad.
While the details remain unclear and while the Administration is doing their usual skillful job of not showing their hand in advance, I am cautiously optimistic that President Obama will send NASA on a course I can enthusiastically support. Therefore, I shall describe what I believe would be an ideal set of policies for NASA, going forward from now.
What follows below is nothing more than my opinion, perhaps bolster by the reading of tea leaves.
Bill White's Policy Suggestions:
(1) Cancel Ares I. Just cancel it. If 5 segment RSRM research is sufficiently well advanced maybe incorporate that into other plans, below.
(2) Aggressively support commercial cargo and crew initiative to support the International Space Station, and extend ISS at least until 2020.
From the WSJ link (2nd above the jump):
While no firm decisions have been made and budget numbers remain in flux, there appears to be broad agreement inside the administration over using private rockets and capsules to access the orbiting space station. "There is clearly a recognition that if you want to do that, it should be done seriously and with enough funding" to succeed, according to one senior administration official involved in the deliberations.
(3) Actively engage international partners and return to the Moon:
Again, from the WSJ link (2nd above the jump):
The White House also intends to jettison policies that have been in place for more than a decade, by pushing for international cooperation and funding to develop spacecraft able to land and explore the surface of the moon, and ultimately perhaps Mars or one of its moons.
A few months ago I wrote a Daily Kos diary on this exact subject - Buzz Aldrin (and "our" Troubadour) are both right - and in that diary I wrote this:
Rather than run a NASA dominated program for returning to the Moon, we facilitate other nations - India, Japan, China, the European Union and anyone else who wishes to participate - in achieving their ability to land humans on the Moon. Private sector space companies within the United States should be fully welcome into this collaborative effort.
I believe this offers a genuine geo-political opportunity. In the 1960s, one purpose of Project Apollo was to prove to the world that the United States had better technology than the Soviets. We did that. Today, what we need to demonstrate is our ability to work cooperatively and in collaboration with other nations and a cooperative lunar exploration effort provides an opportunity to do exactly that.
Buzz Aldrin's piece at HuffPo - A Different Kind of Moon Race - remains valuable reading and I encourage folks to visit this link.
I believe to return to the Moon in a spirit of global collaboration shall greatly enhance our nation's geo-political soft power. Apollo proved our tech was better than Soviet tech. That is undeniable, today. Today, we need to prove we can work cooperatively and collaboratively with the rest of the world.
(4) Develop the least expensive, most flexible versions of heavy lift we can, and point NASA beyond cis-lunar space towards near-Earth asteroids, Phobos and eventually Mars.
Yes, this means a variant of the DIRECT Jupiter series of rockets although there is an original version of Ares V that is suitable, if NASA wishes to preserve the Ares V "brand name" -- critical point?
Use the SSME engine: RS-68 has higher thrust but lower ISP and when clustered they over heat. A regenerative version of RS-68 can be developed but that adds to the expense.
By using the more efficient SSME, Ares V can retain the 8.4 meter diameter tank. After the design switch to RS-68, the Ares V tank grew to 10 meters because the less efficient RS-68 drank more fuel.
Use either the existing 4 segment solid rocket motors or the 5 segment solid rocket motors. I'm cool either way. I've read reports that ATK is ahead of schedule on the 5 segment, so no big deal.
Use proven RL-10s on the 2nd stage. Because RS-68 is less efficient than SSME, when Ares V was switched to RS-68 it became necessary to develop the J2X upper stage engine. Switching back to SSME allows the use of existing RL-10s saving considerable R&D costs while maintaining performance.
Returning to the original Science Insider "leak" we see this:
According to knowledgeable sources, the White House is convinced that scarce NASA funds would be better spent on a simpler heavy-lift vehicle that could be ready to fly as early as 2018. Meanwhile, European countries, Japan, and Canada would be asked to work on a lunar lander and modules for a moon base, saving the U.S. several billion dollars. And commercial companies would take over the job of getting supplies to the international space station.
The bold language strikes me as a rather direct reference to DIRECT.
A quick simplified summary of what I would like to see for NASA:
=1= Robust support for commercial crew and cargo to ISS combined with encouragement for non-NASA privately owned destinations in LEO.
=2= International collaboration doing human exploration and development on the Moon.
=3= NASA is pointed out beyond cis-lunar space using the "Flexible Path" approach and the older "classic" design version of Ares V.
Three simple bullet points. So, what do you think?