The Committee concluded that the ultimate goal of human exploration is to chart a path for human expansion into the solar system. This is an ambitious goal, but one worthy of U.S. leadership in concert with a broad range of international partners.
That was perhaps the most important statement from today's release of the Executive Summary of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee.
Join me over the fold for more details, and a few thoughts.
Here are the major findings of the committee
- No realistic exploration beyond Earth Orbit can take place at the current budget.
- To finish ISS safely, Shuttle should run until 2011. The committee provides for an option that allows extending the shuttle. While it makes no specific recommendation with regards to retaining shuttle or not, in only one option does it extend shuttle beyond 2011. Thus, the committee is comfortable utilizing International Partners and Commercial Partners
- They find there is potential for actually getting a good return, with regard to station, BUT we need to fund that science, and part of that funding also means funding an extension of the ISS, past 2015.
- Constellation, as planned, can't be done in any reasonable time with the current budget. And to make it work would require a substantial budget increase.
- Ares I is SIGNIFICANTLY behind schedule - The committee thinks first flight won't happen until at least 2017.
- Orion is moving forward, and NASA needs a vehicle that is designed for beyond LEO operations. However, quoting from the executive summary
However, the Committee is concerned about Orion's recurring costs. The capsule is considerably larger and more massive than previous capsules (e.g., the Apollo capsule), and there is some indication that a smaller and lighter four-person Orion could reduce operational costs.
There is reason to reconsider some major aspects of Orion, particularly if your first flight of Orion won't happen until 2020 (which is assumed in almost every plan)
- In a not to surprising move, the committee believes that 25 mT is not enough mass needed for significant exploration. However, they did not determine what the minimum level is.
I personally think this is not necessarily correct, but it would involve even more radical changes, that the committee wasn't prepared to go all out for. (I'll discuss these in more detail in a later diary)
- In terms of potential heavy lift options, the options are (from greatest to smallest payload) Ares V, Ares V-lite, directly shuttle derived (either DIRECT or Side-mount), and an EELV derived vehicle. Also, unlikely the various shuttle derived options, EELV would be a different way of doing business, which is likely to significantly reduce costs. The report notes, however, that
This would come at the cost of ending a substantial portion of the internal NASA capability to develop and operate launchers.
My question is, when has NASA had such an ability, since the early 80s? The most recent launch vehicle that NASA actually brought to fruition is the shuttle.
- One particularly powerful quote from the summary
All of the options would benefit from the development of in-space refueling, and the smaller rockets would benefit most of all. The potential government-guaranteed market for fuel in low-Earth orbit would create a stimulus to the commercial launch industry. In the design of the new launcher, in-space stages and in-space refueling, the Committee cautions against the tradition of designing for ultimate performance, at the cost of reliability, operational efficiency and life-cycle cost.
- The committee came out in a big way for Commercial crew. Again, quoting the summary
The United States needs a way to launch astronauts to low-Earth orbit, but it does not necessarily have to be provided by the government. As we move from the complex, reusable Shuttle back to a simpler, smaller capsule, it is an appropriate time to consider turning this transport service over to the commercial sector. This approach is not without technical and programmatic risks, but it creates the possibility of lower operating costs for the system and potentially accelerates the availability of U.S. access to low-Earth orbit by about a year, to 2016. The Committee suggests establishing a new competition for this service, in which both large and small companies could participate.
- The price to to earth orbit needs to come down, and the committee believes that the commercial sector can help out with this. Three potential markets the committee believes are near term viable - Cargo to Earth orbit, Crew to Earth Orbit, and Fuel transport to earth orbit.
In fact, just go over and read all of section 2.3 - Its damn good stuff
- Destination selection should be driven by what the major goal is, and within the budgets, and time lines being discussed, 2 viable options exist. These are a lunar focused plan, or one that focuses on deep space operations (visit lunar orbit, near earth asteroids, Lagrange points, potentially Mars orbit, and finally landing on the moon)
No numbers were given, and so this was very much an executive summary, with general findings. We'll get much more detail in October, but the battle lines for the future of human spaceflight have been drawn