As a systems engineer who helps put science experiments on the International Space Station, I certainly have a vested interest in whatever the White House decides will be the course of the human space flight program. In my heart, I believe in the importance of exploration and that the continued survival of our species will be ultimately dependent on our ability to become a truly spacefaring species. That's the long-term view, though. We face some pretty tough realities in the near-future.
The Augustine committee has concluded that the Constellation Program to retire the Shuttle and build a new series of Ares I & V rockets and the Orion crew exploration vehicle to go back to the Moon and build a permanent outpost is not viable under the current budget. The program was designed on a promise of increased NASA funding and reduced costs from Shuttle and Station operations. Neither have yet come.
Furthermore, the committee has stated that NASA needs a $3 billion budget increase per year if it wants to do anything that involves exploration past Low Earth Orbit. They were asked to explore alternatives to the "program of record" and have offered a few, including the "Flexible Path" option I discussed in an earlier blog post.
Yesterday, Norm Augustine and Dr. Edward Crawley of MIT sat before the House of Representatives' Committee on Science and Technology to ostensibly discuss their team's report. Instead, it was really a session for Committee chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords (who is married to an astronaut) to slam the Augustine report as not supporting the Constellation program enough and set up her next speaker, former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, to defend Constellation to her committee.
The problem isn't that the Constellation Program has insurmountable technical challenges. Nor is the goal of building a lunar outpost necessarily a bad one, provided the White House and Congress actually come up with the money to do it. The problem is that our political leaders have demanded NASA perform Cadillac missions on a Civic budget for years now and we've come to a point where we can't ignore that any longer.
Ares I and the Orion crew vehicle will not be ready before we retire the Shuttle. There is nothing we can do to close "the gap" except continue flying the Shuttle, which is not really a good option as many long-lead items are already out of production. Commercial providers are working hard to demonstrate cargo delivery to the Station in the hopes of being able to eventually provide crew services, but we aren't there yet, either.
Speaking of Station, no one on the Augustine commission and few in Congress think it's a good idea to de-orbit the ISS as soon as we finish building it and the science really begins to ramp up, so Constellation can't rely on those program funds to go their way. Besides, Orion wouldn't even have a destination once it is built if we de-orbit ISS before we start building the lunar outpost... which raises the question of why we would need Ares I to begin with.
While a few members of the House committee thanked Norm Augustine and his team for helping us face these truths, I am sorely disappointed in Rep. Giffords for choosing to turn her committee into a cheerleading session for the Constellation Program instead of an opportunity to honestly discuss those problems and how to resolve them.
We're not going anywhere fast until the President and Congress articulate a coherent vision for our human exploration program and appropriate the necessary funds to execute the missions in support of that vision. I saw precious little recognition of that fact in yesterday's hearing and a whole lot of turf protection for local aerospace jobs. Instead of bashing the Augustine commission for doing what they were asked to do by the President and deriding the alternatives they offered, our representatives in Congress should have been fairly evaluating the proposals and helping decide what this country should do in space.
Instead, they dug in their heels and just made it harder for us to change gears, if that's what we decide we need to do.
Wired Science live-blogged the hearing yesterday. Let me know what you think.
The Augustine committee has concluded that the Constellation Program to retire the Shuttle and build a new series of Ares I & V rockets and the Orion crew exploration vehicle to go back to the Moon and build a permanent outpost is not viable under the current budget. The program was designed on a promise of increased NASA funding and reduced costs from Shuttle and Station operations. Neither have yet come.
Furthermore, the committee has stated that NASA needs a $3 billion budget increase per year if it wants to do anything that involves exploration past Low Earth Orbit. They were asked to explore alternatives to the "program of record" and have offered a few, including the "Flexible Path" option I discussed in an earlier blog post.
Yesterday, Norm Augustine and Dr. Edward Crawley of MIT sat before the House of Representatives' Committee on Science and Technology to ostensibly discuss their team's report. Instead, it was really a session for Committee chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords (who is married to an astronaut) to slam the Augustine report as not supporting the Constellation program enough and set up her next speaker, former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, to defend Constellation to her committee.
The problem isn't that the Constellation Program has insurmountable technical challenges. Nor is the goal of building a lunar outpost necessarily a bad one, provided the White House and Congress actually come up with the money to do it. The problem is that our political leaders have demanded NASA perform Cadillac missions on a Civic budget for years now and we've come to a point where we can't ignore that any longer.
Ares I and the Orion crew vehicle will not be ready before we retire the Shuttle. There is nothing we can do to close "the gap" except continue flying the Shuttle, which is not really a good option as many long-lead items are already out of production. Commercial providers are working hard to demonstrate cargo delivery to the Station in the hopes of being able to eventually provide crew services, but we aren't there yet, either.
Speaking of Station, no one on the Augustine commission and few in Congress think it's a good idea to de-orbit the ISS as soon as we finish building it and the science really begins to ramp up, so Constellation can't rely on those program funds to go their way. Besides, Orion wouldn't even have a destination once it is built if we de-orbit ISS before we start building the lunar outpost... which raises the question of why we would need Ares I to begin with.
While a few members of the House committee thanked Norm Augustine and his team for helping us face these truths, I am sorely disappointed in Rep. Giffords for choosing to turn her committee into a cheerleading session for the Constellation Program instead of an opportunity to honestly discuss those problems and how to resolve them.
We're not going anywhere fast until the President and Congress articulate a coherent vision for our human exploration program and appropriate the necessary funds to execute the missions in support of that vision. I saw precious little recognition of that fact in yesterday's hearing and a whole lot of turf protection for local aerospace jobs. Instead of bashing the Augustine commission for doing what they were asked to do by the President and deriding the alternatives they offered, our representatives in Congress should have been fairly evaluating the proposals and helping decide what this country should do in space.
Instead, they dug in their heels and just made it harder for us to change gears, if that's what we decide we need to do.
Wired Science live-blogged the hearing yesterday. Let me know what you think.
I agree, Scott. Paraphrasing Archimedes, give us a lever long enough and a fulcrum to place it on, and we'll move planets.
What NASA needs is a clear mission and not less funding. Of course I say that in part because my wife works there. I'm a big believer in the idea that NASA has some of the best minds in the world. They can do what we ask. We just need to ask, then step back and watch them do.
jk: What about NASA working on a "Transporter" or a "tacchyon beam force field"???
I think you just need someone to put a little "positive spin" on things.
Just, let's ALL agree NOT to develop a program to go to URANUS. :-)
jk: What about NASA working on a "Transporter" or a "tacchyon beam force field"???
I think you just need someone to put a little "positive spin" on things.
Just, let's ALL agree NOT to develop a program to go to URANUS. :-)
Wish I would have come back to this post sooner.
It amazes me every time I hear someone complain about the ROI on NASA. If anyone had actually cared to research the facts they would find that NASA is the only government program to actually give an ROI.
The rhetoric behind 'we need to worry about earth first' is annoying. If people would learn the reality about space travel they would realize that exploring and colonizing space has everything to do with us here on earth.
You want to cut spending? Then cut the 1.2 TRILLION we spend on the military. I get so tired of people whining about what we spend on NASA. We barely spend more on NASA than what we GIVE to the oil industry in subsidies. And I emphasize GIVE because we do not expect an ROI on that. Hell, apparently NASA is the only thing the ignorant expect an ROI on. So guess what, they have given us an ROI. Please move on to the next fallacy so I can disprove that one.
Plus, since when did it become NASA's job to solve political problems. Global warming, energy independence, etc. IS a political problem. We all know what it will take to solve those problems. Just getting the whores in Washington to do it IS the real problem.
Lets face it. People are afraid of the unknown. They cringe behind fallacies in order to hide their fear. Space exploration can solve all the world's problems, except willful ignorance.
jk: YOU know I really enjoy your stuff. Please don't get me wrong, I am not "against" expenditures to explore space. But right now, especially right now, we just have a few things we need to get under control.
We're kinda at a crossroads in space exploration. Been to the moon. No real reason to go to Mars IN PERSON. Manned mission to the sun? Too hot. Manned mission to Saturn?. Too far. Until we can leave the solar system, I think we should expand the ISS and be content here on our little rock.
We have to start looking at EVERY penny now with this fiscal catastrophe we're trying to weather.
I think everyone wants to be mesmerized again by space exploration but we also want results. I think we can have both and do have real results now. We just need the public to know what we are getting out of it.
carguy,
I think it was Buzz Aldrin that once pointed out that all those space dollars are actually spent here on Earth.
Do you want clean, renewable energy? The sun always shines in space.
Do you want to stop strip mining our planet? Near-Earth asteroids have more recoverable metals than all of human history combined.
Do you want to ensure humanity can survive another extinction level event? The only way is to figure out how to get human beings off this rock and living on their own on other big rocks.
Exploring space is how we are solving and will solve the big problems here on Earth.
It's probably going to take a personal visit from those in charge (Draconians and Zeta Reticulins) to really map out the future direction. Just kidding, Just kidding...sorta.
Artemus,
How many years ago...hell, that was probably the program I was working... :o(
J,
I'm with you...My personal opinion has long been that the emphasis on saving money is what ultimately compromised the safety and success of the programs...never mind the mantra of "Safety First". I really liked the last estimations that the next generation programs were slated to run on HALF of the shuttle budget. That's as insane as a Rush Limbaugh diatribe. Despite the silence whenever I brought that issue up in staff meetings apparently I wasn't the dumb guy in the room.
arte wrote: Granted, NASA's entire budget is peanuts compared to what the Fed and Treasury spent bailing out failed financial institutions. But that misses the point. None of the non-entitlement programs in the federal budget are beyond reach and ought to always be justified by the social or economic return on investment they produce.
---------------------
I was gonna say that.
Actually, exceptionally well put. So well said, I can't add to that.
People, listen to arte...he's usually right.
People and OUR planet FIRST. There's a reason space is "the final frontier". It costs a gazillion billion $$$$ to get there. And, let's get real, until we can travel a whole lot faster than we can now, we're stuck on this little planet, in this insignificant solar system
And for what it worth, I have put my money where my mouth is, so to speak.
I helped kill off a major federal project years ago, one that had already cost a bunch, and would have cost several million more had it been built, and which had provided a job (my boss called it "welfare for engineers") to lots of people over the years. I was one of those guys anxious to see my federal job disappear. And it did.
I've supported the space program, for whatever that is worth, for decades. Astronauts and aerospace scientists have always been my heroes, kinda sorta.
That being said, it is time for NASA to figure out how it's programs relate to our current national priorities. And I speak as a former federal employee who has wasted more than his share of tax dollars - which is why I quit, more or less in disgust.
If there is no discernible return to taxpayers, or if their work doesn't have something to do with reducing global warming, reducing pollution or improving crop production, for example, I'd say we need to scale NASA way back.
Granted, NASA's entire budget is peanuts compared to what the Fed and Treasury spent bailing out failed financial institutions. But that misses the point. None of the non-entitlement programs in the federal budget are beyond reach and ought to always be justified by the social or economic return on investment they produce.
That's not politicizing space, it's political reality.
I'm involved with a group of young professionals working on better methods of outreach. I know one of the projects underway is to do a "Day Without Space" video to illustrate the impact of space exploration on modern society.
My wife works for Lockheed, but works on the JSC campus. We obviously have a vested interest in the continued funding of NASA. However, it is a simple fact that all government spending is going to be political. One of the things I had to remind my students (especially those in Clear Lake) is that not everyone in the country is going to feel the same way about space exploration. A farmer in the Midwest is going to have strong feelings about farm subsidies. Every region of the country has their bread and butter industry and some are publically supported. This is one of the many reasons why we have a deficit.
If you cut NASA then you know the Pete Olsen is going to get his clock cleaned whether he supports it or not. The same is true in the other regions with their particular interests. You better believe the Michigan reps were pulling hard for cash for clunkers and the auto bailouts. So, you get a system where everyone pulls for their own regional interests and hope that we get wise decisions made.
As for NASA, I've always said they should do a series of PSAs around election time to talk about all of the everyday items we enjoy because of space exploration. People need to know how space exploration has benefitted them. Otherwise, it's foreign to them and then it becomes easier to justify cutting it.
If that is the case, then these morons don't deserve to hold any kind of office. You know, I am all for hearing every side of an issue. But when it involves hating science, religious hangups, or greed we have to draw a line somewhere.
What the hell is cutting the budget of a program that is less than 1% of the budget going to help? 42% of our budget goes to the military. WTF, THEY even have their own space program! It seems everyone has their own funded and viable space program, but NASA.
I remember as a kid thinking "Wow, I might actually be able to travel to another planet some day." 30 years later? No further along than what we were...
Sorry, civilian space exploration was hobbled decades ago. And they are still at it.
Congress actually does seem generally interested in increasing NASA's budget, FL. From what I've read, the budget problem is with a handful of Senators and Congressmen who don't think we should be doing it at all and budget officials who are looking for "easy" places to make cuts.
NASA's budget is minuscule compared to the money we spend on everything else. Why is it so hard to see that Congress and the White House are doing everything they can to hinder space exploration? You really think they care about less than one percent of the budget?
Get real people, something is going on. NASA has returned so many spin-off technologies, yet they claim that NASA isn't viable. The only program to give us an actual return on our investment and they want to kill it. Hello? anyone paying attention?
I think, in the long-term, it will be essential to commercialize LEO operations so NASA can focus on exploration activities.