This video shows Norman Augustine's remarks at the 22 October 2009 US human spaceflight review final report publication press conference
These few weeks since the US review of human space flight report (overseen by Norman Augustine above) was published have seen commercial's future at NASA just get brighter and brighter, what with a new advisory committee and some shiny comments made by the agency's administrator Charles Bolden - backed up by remarks from his officials on deep background apparently
One wonders how these advisory committees could inform the process for developing the new spaceflight vision that Bolden is charged with giving Obama, at a meeting before year's end or by February 2010 according to this report and this report?
Will these committees engage with the flexible path option that has been getting some good press of late? And what can really be done along that path? To date there has been near Earth objects and Lagrange orbit talk and then Moon and Mars gets a mention - but where is the money coming from for any of these destinations?
Its something to consider if flexible path really is the new way forward because its appearences in the media are not from off the cuff remarks. This report shows that internally NASA has been thinking a lot about what it wants to do, and it started long before it got the final Augustine report
So can that real purchasing power increase be achieved? President George Bush had for much of his second term a Congress controlled by his own party, the Republican party, and a Moon return vision that was cash hungry. But NASA's budget increased by just $1.15 billion, from $16.62 billion to $17.78 billion, from 2006 to 2009 inclusive
Those figures are based on the previous year's annual figure given in each of the budget requests. I don't believe they are 100% accurate but here a billion, there a billion, its close enough when talking about how likely a less constrained budget is
So now we see that Augustine is talking about an increase more than double that Bush era figure and that does not even include the inflationary factors that will need to be added for that real purchasing power
But even if that increase can be achieved, can it all be spent on exploration? NASA has other costs on the horizon. Space Shuttle programme final mission slippage into FY2011, perhaps? Then there is the likes of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO). With this President's green credentials does anyone think that OCO won't get revived and launched again? The February launch failure report on that was published in July
Leaving cynicism behind and declaring "yes we can" what could be achieved with a proper budget increase on this flexible path? When one looks closely at the Augustine report what it actually says about the timing of this flexible path is that "All variants of Option 5 begin exploration along the flexible path in the early 2020s". Twenty twenties!
This is because all the flexible path options use heavy lift and the cost of that means exploration begins in the 2020s whether that heavy lift is EELV, Ares lite or Shuttle derived. Interestingly the committee endorses Ares V lite for dual launch missions. Two Orions, each launched by a Ares V lite, to L1 anyone?
Whichever is chosen this inspirational flexible path won't show results until the second term of Obama's successor assuming Obama gets two terms?! What happened to programmes surviving a change of administrations? Oh, yes that didn't work the first time
So could that flexible path's stepping stones be reached more quickly? Hyperbola would like to know, could commercial providers deliver a beyond LEO mission spacecraft to LEO using elements launched by multiple rockets in a short timeframe? Thus avoiding heavy lift and the 2020s time line. Now there's a cententnial challenge
Otherwise if you want to show people how the money is being spent with demonstrable results NASA might want to back the likes of International Lunar Network - Hyperbola hears its schedule is slipping to the right big time - otherwise expect the next administration (2014 or 2018?) to take a potentially harsh decision about Bolden's heavy lift vehicle - for which costing work is already underway
on November 4, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply
Yet another moon revival turns into a flexible path, turns into low Earth orbit. How can this program cancellation & vision rewriting accomplish anything since there's no money to do anything?
So you cancel Ares 1 & wait another 20 years for Elon Musk to finally launch a Dragon with his Tesla Motors government grants & by selling Air Force flights on Falcon 1. Hard to see how that improves anything or is commercially based.
on November 4, 2009 9:06 PM | Reply
Q: "Can commercial spaceflight solve the exploration dilemma?"
A: "no"
on November 4, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply
Well after the dogs dinner that was ARES 1-X: the FIRST TIME SRB parchutes failed in flight, dented SRB casing, t partial structural collapse before separation of the Dummy Upper Stage; they need to find somebody else but ATK to supply the Hardware! ARES 1 is a dog. It's time for ULA and Boeing to step up to the plate with a viable - and cheap - EELV based ISS launch system for at least 6 astronauts and 5000kg of payload. I see from a NASA WATCH poll, most enthusiasts consider DIRECT the best technical solution to a post-shuttle launch system. Quite right!
on November 5, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply
Rob - the answer is yes, if you are willing to go to a prop transfer/prop depot based architecture.
http://ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf
on November 5, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply
Look, the HLV "requirement" was nothing but a Trojan horse meant to placate the Shelbys of the world while commercial companies get on with real exploration. Read between the lines of the Augustine report - anything they recommend immediately or within the next 3-4 years is the future of NASA. 15 year HLV developments are jobs programs to be cancelled at a politically convenient time.
Can we do beyond-LEO exploration with EELV-class rockets? Yes. Should we? Of course, obviously, naturally. Flight rate leads to lower costs and higher reliability, and commercial involvement leads to efficient innovation. As a young aerospace engineer, I hope that the HLV bone gets thrown to the socialist national program types and feeds them until retirement. Then we can get on with some actual exploration.
on November 5, 2009 9:22 PM | Reply
Q: "Can commercial spaceflight solve the exploration dilemma?"
A: Yes.
See this ULA paper http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf
for an exploration path based on EELV's and fuel depots. It gives return to the moon AND a permanent lunar base all within the existing NASA budget. (1st moon landing 2018)
The only down side is we have to give up our unhealthy obsession with heavy lift.
on November 6, 2009 9:50 AM | Reply
This is just a guide for people making comments, I had to delete a comment made anonymously that was a reply to this comment because it potentially libelled someone. I don't want to delete any comment, I'm all for free speech but please remember unsubstantiated allegations about people and their websites that could be defammatory will have to be taken down.
Rob Coppinger
on November 9, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply
"partial structural collapse before separation"
Could you elaborate?
I "single frame" stepped through the video footage and my impression was the the booster "rearended" ( and stayed in
contact for a few seconds ) the upper stage after initial
separation imparting a tumbling moment on the
upper stage.
Final separation is with both segments tumbling. ( my very
tentative guess is that the dent stems from that collision
and _not_ from splash down with an excessive sinkrate.)
Interesting to see spurts of flames emanating from the booster
for quite some time after separation even into frames where
the initial first chute is already deployed.
uwe