Presidential panel reports on manned space options
Amid work to ready NASA's Ares I-X rocket for a long-awaited test flight next week, a presidential panel charged with reviewing the nation's manned space program submitted its completed report Thursday, concluding NASA's planned shuttle replacement will cost too much and take too long to build to be a viable option.
Even so, panel members said they looked forward to the $445 million test flight Tuesday and the data it will generate to help validate computer models and processes that will be useful in any future rocket design efforts.
"We do think it's appropriate to fly the Ares I-X," said Norman Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin and chairman of the U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee. "We think there are important things to be learned that will help the program."
Norman Augustine, left, chairman of a presidential review of manned space options, and panel member Edward Crawley, right, brief reporters Thursday.
(Credit: NASA)The panel's completed report contained no major surprises--an executive summary was released in late September that included the same five basic options for future manned space activity--but the coincidental timing of the report and next week's test flight highlighted the uncertain future of NASA's plans to replace the space shuttle and return to the moon.
"The premier conclusion of the committee is the human spaceflight program the United States is currently pursuing is one that's on an unsustainable trajectory," said Augustine. "We say that because of a mismatch between the scope of the program and the funds to support the program. That's of great concern to us because human spaceflight, where safety accounts for everything, is a very unforgiving sort of pursuit."
In the wake of the 2003 Columbia disaster, the Bush administration ordered NASA to finish the International Space Station and retire the shuttle by the end of 2010, and to develop new rockets and spacecraft to return astronauts to the moon by the early 2020s.
The plan NASA developed--the Constellation program--calls for a new rocket known as the Ares I, and an Apollo-like crew capsule called Orion, to ferry astronauts to and from low-Earth orbit. A large, unmanned heavy lift rocket known as the Ares V then would be built to launch Orion capsules and lunar landers to the moon.
President Obama expressed general support for the Constellation program during the presidential campaign, but earlier this year he ordered an independent review of NASA's manned space program in the context of the current budget environment. At the same time, the Office of Management and Budget cut some $3 billion from NASA's projected "out-years" budget, money earmarked for development of the Ares V.
Against that uncertain backdrop, NASA pressed ahead with development of the Orion capsule and the Ares I booster envisioned as a replacement for the space shuttle. The new rocket features an extended shuttle solid-fuel booster, a hydrogen-fueled upper stage and an escape rocket that could pull the crew capsule to safety in an emergency.
NASA plans to launch a test version of the rocket Tuesday on a sub-orbital flight to verify computer models being developed to help design the Ares I. For the test flight, a standard four-segment shuttle booster is being used, along with a dummy upper stage and an Orion capsule simulator that duplicate the mass and shape of the Ares I rocket.
"We've reviewed the Ares I and Orion elements of that program, which are the two parts that are principally underway," Augustine said Thursday. "We found those programs to be reasonably well managed, we found them to have technical problems of a nature that's probably not uncommon for complex undertakings of this type.
"It's our belief that given ample time and funds, the engineers at NASA and their contractors are certainly capable of solving those problems. So we think the program within itself has a very good likelihood of succeeding. The issue that comes up under Ares I is whether the program is useful when it has succeeded because of a mismatch of the time schedules and the costs with what will be needed for it to do."
While that observation suggests Augustine and the panel do not support continued development of Ares I, panel member Leroy Chiao, a former astronaut, said "it's important to emphasize that we were presenting options, not recommendations."
"Despite what's been going on in the blogosphere, the panel didn't come up saying (NASA) should cancel Ares I, which a lot of people think we actually did," he said in a telephone interview. "It's really up to the decision makers as to which path to go down. So Ares I is not dead by a long shot."
NASA believes the Ares I could be ready to fly by 2015. The Augustine panel concluded it would take until at least 2017 to complete the work, coming on line too late to provide more than token support to the International Space Station. In the meantime, NASA will be forced to buy seats on Russian Soyuz rockets, at $50 million per ticket, to get U.S. astronauts to and from the lab complex.
The Augustine report also concluded that NASA will be unable to extend human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit without additional funding, suggesting an additional $3 billion per year, plus a hedge against inflation, to fund a realistic space exploration program.
The panel did not make recommendations, but members seem to favor a commercially developed launch system to get astronauts to low-Earth orbit and a government-developed heavy lift rocket to extend human exploration to the moon and beyond.
The so-called "flexible path" option presented by the Augustine panel would allow NASA to launch orbital moon missions and even flights around Mars or to its moons by the early to mid 2020s, while long-term development of landers and associated hardware is developed in parallel.
"The current plan focuses on going to the moon (with) the longer term goal of going to Mars," Augustine said. "There are a lot of things one could do along the way that are very interesting, that let you build up gradually to the immense undertaking of the Mars program.
"The sort of thing we're thinking of, one could fly circumlunar missions, you could circumnavigate Mars, you could land on an asteroid, a near-Earth object, you could land on Phobos or Deimos, the martian moons, and do some very exciting science from there. It seems to us that is a more sensible program than to wait 15 years or so for the first major event."
A White House spokesman thanked the panel for its report, saying "the president has on numerous occasions confirmed his commitment to human space exploration, and the goal of ensuring that the nation is on a vigorous and sustainable path to achieving our boldest aspirations in space."
"Against a backdrop of serious challenges with the existing program, the Augustine committee has offered several key findings and a range of options for how the nation might improve its future human space flight activities," he said. "We will be reviewing the committee's analysis, and then ultimately the president will be making the final decisions."
William Harwood has been covering the U.S. space program full-time since 1984, first as Cape Canaveral bureau chief for United Press International and now as a consultant for CBS News. He has covered more than 115 shuttle missions, every interplanetary flight since Voyager 2's flyby of Neptune, and scores of commercial and military launches. Based at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, Harwood is a devoted amateur astronomer and co-author of "Comm Check: The Final Flight of Shuttle Columbia." You can follow his frequent status updates at the CBSNews.com Space Place, where this story was first published. 
Hopefully Brazil, China and India will have more interest in space.
Well, why should you be ashamed if an joint Anglo-American Team can't put a "Quieter Engine" in the "Concorde" to make it fly - Commercially again! It will appear that with all the cash and newer technologies around our engineers and scientists are becoming less smarter than they were in those Albert Einstein-like days.
I would suggest that before attempting to answer these questions we should attempt to answer a more fundamental question: what can man do in space that cannot be done at least as well by remote controlled or automated systems?
To take just one example; the Mars rovers have returned huge amounts of scientific data at a tiny fraction of the cost of a manned expedition to the planet. For over five years they have roamed the planet sustained only by sunlight and when their mission is finally over there will be no need to bring them back to earth.
The rovers were designed nearly 10 years ago and there have been massive advances in all the relevant technologies since then.
Additionally is there any experiment carried out or proposed for the international space station which couldn't be done equally well using current technology without putting men into orbit?
This isn't Startrek. There is no point in "Boldly going" if the objective can be achieved at a tiny percentage of the cost without going at all?
David
A mobile robot laboratory can probably accomplish ten times of what a human up there can. But it does not have the same appeal and national pride, that sort of thing. Of course in the US people are more conserned about american idol than space exploration.
http://www.moonsociety.org/reports/LIDCendorsement_announce.html
- by fokkwp October 27, 2009 2:44 PM PDT
- I think a high percentage of high-school age kids do *not* believe the US ever landed people on the moon (and of course there is a cottage industry in the similar conspiracy theory).
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(14 Comments)In 1968 we thought we would have a colony on Mars before 2000. Now it would take us until 2020 to get a human on the moon (again) if we had that kind of drive and desire, which we don't.
And I think it's just as well that we are essentially abandoning the space colonization SciFi nonsense. Look how exciting the unmanned space probes have been, and the continuing spectacular advances in astronomy from Hubble (which did require reasonable human space work, so it's good we've retained basic capabilities).
Read Tom Wolfe's "The Right Stuff" for an engaging explanation of what motivated us in the 1960's to put a man on the moon. It's easy to see that those motivations are of another era.