The blogosphere is all abuzz with the outcome of yesterday's final public meeting of the Review of US human space flight plans committee
Hyperbola, despite being in Washington DC this week and the US for the past two and a bit weeks, has been somewhat hampered in its efforts to monitor proceedings because of the EAA Airventure airshow in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, the AIAA 45th Joint Propulsion Conference in Denver and the AUVSI Unmanned Systems North America 2009 conference, right here in the USA's capitol city (and some tourism around Utah and DC's national mall)
Despite that I found the time to write an analysis piece for our print title Flight International which you can find here. I was interested in how NASA was re-examining Constellation and what the committee's comments were about the "program of record", to use the technical term, when the Ares rocket work was presented at the Hunstville, Alabama meeting on 29 July
Looking at the media coverage now the final public meeting has taken place, Hyperbola's reacton is, but is that news, we knew that already? We knew that Constellation, in its current form, was unaffordable, we knew back in June that opting for Delta IV was not a cheap option, but I would have to say that the best headline prize goes to the RocketsAndSuch blog
Examining the realistic options we know that Atlas V is ruled out because of its Russian engines, and Augustine panel member and former Boeing Space Shuttle programme director Bo Bejmuk thinks its margins are to close to call
Delta IV could do the job apparently but you have to man rate it especially the RS-68 engines, and so why not use the Falcon 9 Heavy, it and its Merlin engines have been designed with NASA man rating standards from the get go?
Some panel members do indeed think that "commercial" has some sort of magic wand to do it cheaper and faster but in the Aerospace Corporation's view, people who have actually looked at the numbers, that is not so - and Hyperbola agrees
If you choose a Delta or Falcon then you have to redesign Orion for those launchers, unless you want to start again? Why not use SpaceX's Dragon you might ask, well that has not been designed to be lunar capable and until now the intention is to go back to the Moon
This all might sound like an argument for Ares I but it is in fact an argument about why the alternatives are not as great as their proponents claim. And as Bejmuk said at the 29 July meeting, and I qouted in the analysis article referred to above, if the US is going to change from Ares to something else it is got to be something "overwhelmingly better"
Hyperbola, despite being in Washington DC this week and the US for the past two and a bit weeks, has been somewhat hampered in its efforts to monitor proceedings because of the EAA Airventure airshow in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, the AIAA 45th Joint Propulsion Conference in Denver and the AUVSI Unmanned Systems North America 2009 conference, right here in the USA's capitol city (and some tourism around Utah and DC's national mall)
Despite that I found the time to write an analysis piece for our print title Flight International which you can find here. I was interested in how NASA was re-examining Constellation and what the committee's comments were about the "program of record", to use the technical term, when the Ares rocket work was presented at the Hunstville, Alabama meeting on 29 July
Looking at the media coverage now the final public meeting has taken place, Hyperbola's reacton is, but is that news, we knew that already? We knew that Constellation, in its current form, was unaffordable, we knew back in June that opting for Delta IV was not a cheap option, but I would have to say that the best headline prize goes to the RocketsAndSuch blog
Examining the realistic options we know that Atlas V is ruled out because of its Russian engines, and Augustine panel member and former Boeing Space Shuttle programme director Bo Bejmuk thinks its margins are to close to call
Delta IV could do the job apparently but you have to man rate it especially the RS-68 engines, and so why not use the Falcon 9 Heavy, it and its Merlin engines have been designed with NASA man rating standards from the get go?
Some panel members do indeed think that "commercial" has some sort of magic wand to do it cheaper and faster but in the Aerospace Corporation's view, people who have actually looked at the numbers, that is not so - and Hyperbola agrees
If you choose a Delta or Falcon then you have to redesign Orion for those launchers, unless you want to start again? Why not use SpaceX's Dragon you might ask, well that has not been designed to be lunar capable and until now the intention is to go back to the Moon
This all might sound like an argument for Ares I but it is in fact an argument about why the alternatives are not as great as their proponents claim. And as Bejmuk said at the 29 July meeting, and I qouted in the analysis article referred to above, if the US is going to change from Ares to something else it is got to be something "overwhelmingly better"
The blogosphere focuses greatly on a rocket's LEO payload capability and perceived costs and safety levels. But rarely do I see issues of workforce and infrastructure and industrial base tackled
The reality is that what is on the ground is as important to the decision makers as what goes up into the air. Obama's decisions are more likely to be shaped by the impact his decision will have on the workforce and industrial base than any heroic notions of Mars or Moon return
For this reason I suspect that Ares V will be replaced by the Shuttle derived-Heavy Lift Vehicle that in turn will take the place of Space Shuttle, which will have its retirement stretched out, and Ares I will continue in the background as a crew transport to LEO for an Earth Orbit Rendezvous architecture for beyond-LEO missions with a beyond-LEO capable Orion. In the meantime Russian transport will be purchased. Commercial will just do cargo, if it achieves that
What of course happens five years down the road when Congress has had the time to meddle further with future budgets is anyone's guess but I suspect that for the remainder of Obama's first term the plan I have sketched out will be followed
For those of you who say, oh but the Augustine panel's options don't say that, I say, do you honestly believe that Obama will not simply use bits of that report to justify his own plan that reflects his political priorities?
I finish this post with one comment on Mars as a goal. If the red planet becomes the new goal, Constellation will become a technology programme to develop the systems to get there and in the years to come that technology programme will be whittled away, Shuttle will retire, the US will buy Russian transport until International Space Station ends and then there will be no US manned spaceflight programme
The reality is that what is on the ground is as important to the decision makers as what goes up into the air. Obama's decisions are more likely to be shaped by the impact his decision will have on the workforce and industrial base than any heroic notions of Mars or Moon return
For this reason I suspect that Ares V will be replaced by the Shuttle derived-Heavy Lift Vehicle that in turn will take the place of Space Shuttle, which will have its retirement stretched out, and Ares I will continue in the background as a crew transport to LEO for an Earth Orbit Rendezvous architecture for beyond-LEO missions with a beyond-LEO capable Orion. In the meantime Russian transport will be purchased. Commercial will just do cargo, if it achieves that
What of course happens five years down the road when Congress has had the time to meddle further with future budgets is anyone's guess but I suspect that for the remainder of Obama's first term the plan I have sketched out will be followed
For those of you who say, oh but the Augustine panel's options don't say that, I say, do you honestly believe that Obama will not simply use bits of that report to justify his own plan that reflects his political priorities?
I finish this post with one comment on Mars as a goal. If the red planet becomes the new goal, Constellation will become a technology programme to develop the systems to get there and in the years to come that technology programme will be whittled away, Shuttle will retire, the US will buy Russian transport until International Space Station ends and then there will be no US manned spaceflight programme
on August 13, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply
You make some good points that Obama and Congress will take the bits of the committee's report that serve their interests and dump the rest. I disagree, however, with your assertion that Ares I will continue in the background. The committee found, and has solid data to back up its findings, that Ares I is unaffordable in an operating exploration program at current budget levels. Obama isn't going to request a budget increase large enough to make it a reasonable option. Without a massive budget increase, he would have to put his neck out to keep Ares I, with a near certainty that even if it eventually flies, there will be no mission for it. I don't see any reason for him to intentionally choose that course of action.
on August 13, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply
Bob,
As a native born U.S citizen who has followed the political scene in America very closely for 50 years, I can only say that your implication that Obama is going to go along with Ares I (because what already exists is the most expedient way to keep job numbers up) may be in for a shaking. Obama's mantra has not just been about keeping employment up, but doing things in such a way that he is perceived as doing things in a more efficient manner that he proclaims will help the country in the long run --- even if some extra money has to be spent up front now.
For instance, he has emphasized the development of more "green" energy sources even though political opponents say that can hurt the country because of de-emphasizing the conventional energy supply. His stated position is that it will eventually create more energy jobs that will have a more sustainable future in the long run, so we pay up front now for increased benefit later.
Similarly, if he determines that one or more of the alternate options offered by the Augustine panel gives the impression that he is offering the public an option that is better for the economic long haul, don't be surprised if he takes that route. It is doubtful that if Obama makes such a decision that Bolden will diverge significantly from it. Add to that the fact that a lot of the Ares development areas lie within districts represented by Republican rivals and there are all the elements for a possible surprise.
However, no matter what, I think there will be some concession on the heavy-lift front to keep some current shuttle related jobs by replacing Ares V with the side mounted option, if for no other reason than to at least partially silence the opposition. But it would not surprise me to see Ares I totally replaced by one or more EELVs. Regardless of your optimism, you may find yourself eventually leaving out the word "Not" in one of your favorite phrases, "Ares I Is Not Dead"
on August 13, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply
"Going as you can afford to pay" was absent from the quotes. That was the main difference between today's committee & past committees. They want any program to happen in 20 years or not at all. The voters put free cars & mortgages ahead of the space program in their election, so now the constellation budgets are gone & they're getting what they voted for.
Don't think Elon Musk could produce a manned vehicle sooner than Ares 1 as the committee proposes. We're already paying him $400 million for electric cars that aren't materializing.
on August 13, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply
If you choose a Delta or Falcon then you have to redesign Orion for those launchers, unless you want to start again? Why not use SpaceX's Dragon you might ask, well that has not been designed to be lunar capable
What makes you think that? Elon's original goal for Falcon/Dragon was to go to the Moon and Mars. ISS is just a consolation prize Bush offered him.
on August 14, 2009 2:11 AM | Reply
Rob, you have no clue what you're talking about. Elon Musk does, you don't.
on August 14, 2009 3:02 AM | Reply
Rob what similarity does the SDHLV bear with DIRECT?
on August 14, 2009 4:22 AM | Reply
If Obama chooses the SD-HLV for both the Orion and the Altair, I will be extremely happy!
But eliminating the Ares 1 booster will only provide enough money (an extra $1 billion annually) to fully fund the development of the Orion over the next 5 years. However, there would still be no significant money available to fund the development Altair until the Orion development is complete, unless NASA goes a head and decommissions the current Space Shuttle. But that would would create a 5 year space flight gap for the US.
However, if Obama wants to keep a critical political state happy and eliminate the gap between the old system and the new, he's going to have to add at least a couple of billion dollars more to the annual NASA budget to have at least 1 or two shuttle flights until the Orion-HLV is ready.
I think the political and bi-partisan pluses to this are substantial for Obama if he chooses the SD-HLV while raising the budget by about $3 billion annually.
1. It eliminates the manned space flight gap
2. Both HLV vehicles could be ready for full testing by 2015
3. It allows NASA to fully fund the development of the Altair starting in 2010 so that it can be ready for full testing in 2015 or 2016.
4. America could be back on the Moon by 2016 instead of 2020 or 2027. And the first astronauts to return to the Moon could thank a second term President Obama by phone from the lunar surface for sending them there!
on August 14, 2009 5:53 AM | Reply
A descoped lunar mission (launched on two 70-tonne launchers) seems the most feasible option, but the perverse fixation on "the flexible plan" gets in the way of real science...
on August 14, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply
Good essay and better-than-average comments. However, I am perplexed at Simon's characterization that the 'flexible plan' gets in the way of 'real science.' From the NAC to the NRC to the science directorate at NASA HQ, the science communities -- with the obvious exception of hard-rock lunar geology -- have responded notably coldly to the Constellation plans to put humans onto the dusty, deep gravitational well of the Moon. Earth scientists have laid out plans for missions of all sizes in LEO and GEO, astronomers aim for libration points, planetary scientists push for more ambitious robotic missions to Mars, Venus, and the moons of Jupiter, and so on. Humans to the lunar surface does little to advance scientific knowledge and the larger human experience of exploration.
As an aside, many of us wonder how much further NASA and human spaceflight would be if the agency had adopted the recommendations and plans of the Decade Planning Team in 2000 and 2001.
on August 14, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply
You visit the U.S. for two weeks and now you are some sort of an expert on American space policy - and you know what our President is going to do? Gimme a break.
on August 15, 2009 7:24 AM | Reply
--
I hope that Barack Obama and his W.H. experts will NOT believe in what the Augustine Commission will say them, since...
--
first of all, the AC hasn't really examined ALL proposals it has received
--
I've sent them over a dozen emails and links without receive just ONE answer or feedback!
--
that, despite, I've two blogs that talks about Space from four years and are regularly visited weekly by space agencies and aerospace companies, I've contributed to several space and science forums and blogs with (at least) 8000 posts (so far) in four years, I've developed and published dozens suggestions about Space, ESAS and Constellation and, despite, the rocket that will (likely) be used, could be one of which I've designed and published the concept 3.5 years ago:
--
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html
--
I'm not alone in saying that, since, on the HSF Facebook Wall page, other have claimed to have send documents and suggestions NEVER taken in consideration by the HSF Committee!
--
since I've not received any answer to my email to the HSF, I've posted many ideas, opinions and links on the HSF Facebook Wall page
--
well, the (unknown) moderator of the HSF page, has FIRST warned me to send my ideas ONLY through the HSF-email/BLACK-HOLE, then, he has BLOCKED my comment privileges
--
but, before and after that, the HSF moderator HASN'T blocked the guys that posted LOTS of propaganda for the Ares-1/5 and (try to imagine...) ..."Direct"... (from the homonymous LOBBY)
--
ALL the (7-8) "options" proposed by the AC's "experts" (but, which kind of "experts" are they, if not able to know EXACTLY what is the right choice?) are WRONG and PRETTY SIMILAR, that, since, the AC looks DEEPLY INFLUENCED by LOBBIES and, with their conclusions (like the big delays to 2019-2028) they JUST want to demonstrate that NASA, contractors and new.space companies need MUCH MORE MONEY (maybe, also the $35 Bn to develop the Ares-1) if the US President did not want to be the one that allowed NASA and USA to be surpassed by China, Russia and India in the new (commercial) "moon-race" (that, however, could happen anyway...)
--
there are SEVERAL OTHER options that can be taken in consideration to come back to the Moon or go to Mars, but the AC hasn't discussed proposed them, while, they have discussed and taken in consideration old/wrong designs like the Shuttle-C, crazy and expensive technologies like the "orbital refuel" and things like the RESIZED-Ares-5 called "Direct"... (from the homonymous LOBBY)
--
in fact, it's NOT TRUE that $81 Bn in the next ten years are "not enough" to accomplish ALL the orbital and Moon mission planned and it's NOT TRUE that NASA absolutely needs three more billion$ per years to accomplish these missions
--
clearly, if NASA will receive more funds will be a very good news (hoping they'll not burn them like the $9 Bn spent in last four years for nothing...) but, $81 Bn (or a slightly higher) budget could be enough just IF the right choices are made and no one further cent is burned in crazy and bad things!
--
on August 15, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply
--
nearly everything the Augustine Commission is saying is (simply) NOT TRUE !!!
--
it's NOT TRUE that they have evaluated ALL possible options but just a few! (and bad!)
--
it's NOT TRUE that there are only 7-8 possible scenarios (despite they are too much for a report written by "experts"!) but many more! (and better!)
--
it's NOT TRUE that NASA must kill and deorbit the ISS to have enough money for the Moon!
--
it's NOT TRUE that NASA needs $3 Bn of extra funds per years for Constellation! (this level of funds is necessary only to continue the development of the over-expensive Ares-1) despite, more funds, are good, if NOT "burned" with things like the Ares-1, Ares-5, SRB-5 and J-2X !!!
--
it's NOT TRUE that NASA could launch the Orion in orbit only in 2017-2019 ! (this is true only if the want to build and use the bad Ares-1)
--
it's NOT TRUE that NASA must slip the next Moon landing to 2028 since it's only an over exaggerated claim to convince the W.H. to give more funds for the bad Ares-1 !!!
--
it's NOT TRUE that things like the RESIZED-Ares-5-called-Direct or the old Shuttle-C/HLV or the (bad, wrong, crazy and expensive) "orbital refuels" are "viable options" to be considered!!! (or, at least, to be considered now for the orbital refuel)
--
it's NOT TRUE that a Moon mission can be accomplished with today's (very weak) EELVs! (surely, not a Moon mission with heavy vehicles like the Orion!)
--
it's NOT TRUE that the new.space industry can replace now the Shuttle or help soon NASA to go to the Moon! if they will be LUCKY the new.space companies will be able to safely carry small cargo to the ISS within 4-6 years and launch a manned capsule to orbit in the not earlier than 6-8 years!
--
it's NOT TRUE that it's impossible or too expensive to start develop a Mars mission now! (despite, build the full hardware could cost very much if we want to accomplish a real mission)
--
it's really INCREDIBLE that a commission made of "ten space experts" has worked over TWO months for NOTHING !!!
--
if Barack Obama and the W.H. science teams will consider the A.C. advices as true, they will decide LOTS of very bad and wrong things!!!
--
on August 16, 2009 6:53 AM | Reply
Paying government committees to rediscover what we already know is very American. Got to do more of it.
on August 16, 2009 8:17 AM | Reply
The $3B added to the budget seems like a prudent and reasonable figure, but as everybody has realized it's a tough sell in the midst of huge other politically expensive programs the President is supporting.
SD-HLV is hiding a major engine development or redesign program. Chances are slim this program will avoid delays and ballooning costs.
The ISS is a national lab. It could be funded separately from NASA, purchase resupply as necessary from low bidders or national priority, and could pay NASA for the services it provides (shuttle flights, even). Shell game? Yes. Shell games work well in congressional budget battles. The benefit to NASA is ISS would have to live off its own goodwill. It might someday be seen as a great investment, like Hubble (I can hope). Or maybe it would be seen as a money pit that needed to be de-orbited to stop the bleeding. Either way NASA would not get blamed, or bled.
on August 18, 2009 6:48 AM | Reply
Sure you would need to redesign Orion somewhat for a Delta IV, Falcon, or Atlas ELV, but hasn't NASA been redesigning Orion to work with ARES I since the inception of ESAS. Reduce diameter from 5.5 meters to 5 to deal with Ares I performance shortfalls, get rid of air bag landing system and safety systems to meet more performance shortfalls, reduce the crew from 6 to 4 to make up for more Ares I performance shortfalls.
The question regarding Ares I vs. ELVs is ignoring sunk costs which option will cost the least going forward, provide a reasonable margin of safety, and be ready the earliest. Most studies have shown a considerable cost advantage for EELVs, and given that Ares I safety margin has always been theoretical based on on simplicity rather than practical factors such as the fact that Ares I has a blackzone (exploding solids during the first minute of flight) while EELVs don't claiming superior safety for Ares I is dubious, finally, given that EELVs have been flying for several years they should be ready a year or two before the Ares I, I simply don't see much to support the claim of continuing Ares I. Some form of SDLV will be kept simply to preserve the shuttle jobs/industrial base. However the commission has refered to a directly derived Shuttle Launch Vehicle, which includes the sidemounted shuttle C or the in-line Jupiter launch vehicle.
I think going with ELVs (Falcon or Delta IV) plus Orion is more likely than going forward with Ares I, given their supperior cost, performance, and availability, along with fewer questions about their saftey (shaking the crew to death or drifting into their launch tower after launch in a modest to high wind, or incincerating the Orions shutes after an abort) gives ELVs a technical edge over Ares I. Assuming that Obama will keep some shuttle derived systems alive is a valid politcal assumption, assuming keeping Ares I around to accomplish this goal when other options are avaiable is not.
on August 21, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply
Rob, can you please report on Bigelow's Orion-Lite concept. We wanted to know about the extent of Lockheed involvement, similarities with the actual Orion beyond a common pressure hull and NASA'a willingness to accept a Crew-taxi form of the vehicle with a 7-man crew and a limited independent operation.
on August 22, 2009 1:16 AM | Reply
NASA can't decide to deorbit the ISS because they only own a piece of it and failure to support it will make them loose face in the international community. They are pretty much locked into it. Really, the only plausible reason I can come up with for them to go back to the moon is if they didn't really make it the first place. Also the moon is just a dust ball plus they should already have rock samples. What other new science are they are going to do there?
on August 24, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply
I beg to differ on TESLA cars. They ARE appearing...to perform at nothing like their hyperbolic(sorree Robb!!) claims, as in the latest TOP GEAR road test where, instead of a claimed 200 miles range regardless of lead-footedness,TG only managed 55 and both tested units had major charging and reliability problems during the test. Par for the course on anything Musk seems to get involved with in the non-computer software field...
on August 24, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply
I consider the converse to be true: although when it comes to hype Musk is unbeatable.
on August 26, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply
@Rob Coppinger
The comments by Augustine panel was to the effect that there were no programs focused beyond LEO that was affordable under NASA's current budget. The gist of the public forum was that the US would need to increase NASA's budget if their goal is to move beyond Earth's orbit and establish a spacefaring society.
on August 27, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply
I don't question that for a minute. The need to increase the budget has been stated by lots of people now for lots of years. And then Congress cuts it, immediately after they pass an authorisation act that tasks NASA to do lots. I'd be very interested in a conclusion by the committee that says that beyond-LEO missions using a commercial and/or EELV architecture would be no cheaper than Constellation.
on October 12, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply
Then of course, there's the $47Billion shortfall NASA management has been moaning about. Since that corresponds to almost 3 years total budgetfor NASA, it's a wonder they are able to do anything at all: if they're telling the truth about that!