I am starting a short mini-series of diaries, talking about the White House's Review of Human Space Flight Plans Committee. The point of this mini-series is to advocate action for a specific plan going forward, for NASA and US human spaceflight policy. The main issues I plan to address in this series of diaries is
- We, (Democrats/liberals/progressives) should embrace human space development.
- We should embrace space commercialization, particularly as it relates to all earth to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) transportation.
- We should reject any and all plans that continue to utilize the Space Shuttle, its assets, its workforce, or any derivatives there of.
At the end of this, I hope to have you convinced to pursue action, in multiple forms.
But before I get into the details to convince you, I need to give you the background, so you know what President Obama is considering.
NASA current plan is called Constellation, and the following video shows most of the major elements.
However, there are many problems with it, the primary one being that it will cost billions more per year than NASA currently has, to say nothing of the serious technical problems.
This is why Obama convened the Review of Human Spaceflight Plans Committee. The Committee was tasked with presenting options to the President which had to address the following objectives:
- Expediting a new US capability to support utilization of the International Space Station (ISS)
- Supporting missions to the Moon and other destinations beyond LEO
- Stimulate Commercial space flight capability
- Fit within the current budget profile of NASA.
Fast forward to now - recently, the Committee presented its preliminary findings to the White House (which was largely based on their deliberations from the last public meeting, which available, along with the presentation material). Among the findings of the committee is that Constellation’s current plan is not practical given any realistic budget projection. Therefore, the Committee is providing a series of options whose cost are closer to (or in some cases equal to) the NASA budget. I am condensing their findings dramatically, although you can see them in greater detail by going here. Here are the basics of those options
- ISS+Lunar/FY2010 Budget - This program retires the Shuttle in 2011, extends ISS to 2020, but cancels Ares I and the Altair lunar lander. It would continue development of the Ares V rocket, as well as the Orion spacecraft, but they would not fly until 2028. NASA would pursue Commercial Crew to LEO for both ISS and later exploration missions, plus a technology development program. But we don't leave Earth orbit until after 2030.
This is the only option that fits within the president's budget runout. All of the other options, presented below, require a $3 Billion increase in NASA's spending on human spaceflight.
- ISS+Lunar/Budget increased - This plan is very similar to the previous plan. With the aforementioned budget increase, first flight of Orion, utilizing an Ares V-lite rocket, and its first flight would be 2023, and humans returning to the moon in 2030.
- Shuttle Extension - this program would include an extension of ISS through 2020, and would eliminate the purchase of Soyuz flights by extending Shuttle through 2015. Commercial crew would be funded, as would a technology development program. Ares I would be canceled, and NASA would pursue a shuttle-derived heavy lift rocket, which would be closer to the Shuttle than the current Ares V is. It would retain Orion, and Altair. It would have a human lunar return in 2028, and a lunar outpost in 2032.
The following options utilize what is called Flexible option - this is a plan that would get you into lunar orbit, let you visit Near Earth Objects (NEO aka asteroids), points called Lagrange points, and potentially even Mars orbit.
Initially the goal is NOT to actually land on Luna, or Mars. So these options don't fund a full-scale Altair-type lander during their horizon (through 2030). However, NASA could utilize a partly commercial approach to develop landers sooner.
All of these options retire Shuttle in 2011, all retain ISS thru 2020, all fund Commercial Crew systems for human LEO access, all fund Orion (slowly) for exploration missions, and all include technology development. They differ in choice of heavy lift launch rocket, and when we get to various destinations.
- Deep Space Ares V-lite - This option funds a more realistic version of the Ares V rocket dubbed "lite", and would achieve a first flight of Orion/Ares V in 2023, a Lunar orbit mission in 2025, a NEO mission in 2030, a Mars Flyby in 2034, and Human Lunar Return in 2035.
- Deep Space Commercial heavy lift - This option does not fund Ares V and eliminates or mothballs most of the existing shuttle infrastructure and workforce, and instead utilizes a growth version of existing, commercially available rockets (like the Atlas V). First flight of the Orion would be in 2021, lunar orbit mission in 2025, NEO mission in 2027, Mars Flyby in 2029, and Human Lunar Return in 2030.
- Deep Space Shuttle-Derived - This option also cancels Ares V and instead develops a heavy lift rocket much closer in design to shuttle than Ares V (either something like Direct or the Side-Mount). The flight dates are Orion first flight - 2022, Lunar orbit 2023, NEO mission 2027, Mars flyby 2029, and Human Lunar Return 2030.
These 6 options were ranked against 13 figures of merit - you can find out more about these on the Committee's website.
Finally, a few other developments - Since the White House briefing, reports have come out that NASA will, at best, see only $1 Billion dollar budget increase. However, Ares I is very likely to come to an end (there is even a rumor floating around that Bolden has said that the Ares I-X test rocket should not launch). They are considering the Deep Space options, and will include a technological development program, although not funded to the level that Augustine was recommending. They are looking at utilizing fixed price contracts and the Deep Space option to save money. More data can be found here
And that is where we stand, with regard to the future of space policy