Subscription Center
Sep 10, 2009 03:40 PM | 14
Back in May, the White House announced that it was convening a 10-member independent panel to take a long, hard look at NASA's plans for human spaceflight. The committee delivered a summary of its report (pdf) to the president's Office of Science and Technology Policy this week, solidifying many of the sober warnings that the panel had aired in a series of public meetings earlier this summer.
The nation's current program for human spaceflight appears to be "on an unsustainable trajectory," the report of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee declares. "It is perpetuating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources."
As we noted in November, President Obama inherited a space program clouded with uncertainties, and the panel, led by former Lockheed Martin Chief Executive Norman Augustine, was asked to provide some clarifying guidance. That guidance takes the form of general assessments and pronouncements, along with five paths Obama could choose to pursue with NASA—two that assume a flat-lined agency budget and three that assume a roughly 15 percent boost over the next five years.
Among the issues dumped onto Obama's plate when he took office: the impending retirement of the space shuttle, an oft-delayed and much criticized replacement program for the shuttle known as Constellation, and whether to keep the International Space Station (ISS) afloat as it nears completion and the end of its assured funding.
The shuttle's final flight, currently scheduled for next September, will likely take place in 2011 given the time needed to prepare for launches with as many safety procedures as possible, according to the new report. Nevertheless, it will be several years after that before the U.S. has a means to get astronauts into orbit, and although the report provides one potential path in which the shuttle could be extended through that period, the committee found the interim reliance on international partners an acceptable alternative. Russian launchers and spacecraft already shuttle crewmembers, including Americans, to and from the ISS.
Constellation, the space launch hardware overhaul unveiled by the Bush Administration in 2004, is well behind schedule and won't be ready to send astronauts into orbit before 2017, the committee estimates. The Bush plan, which had Constellation astronauts returning to the moon by 2020, would not be executable until the 2030s, if ever, on NASA's current budget.
The space station, only now nearing the end of its lengthy construction, would be de-orbited in 2016 without a funding extension. The Augustine panel advises that the U.S. and its partners in the ISS would get a much better return on investment if the station were terminated in 2020 instead. "It seems unwise to de-orbit the station after 25 years of assembly and only five years of operational life," the report states. Without more money, keeping the ISS going would require scrapping the crew-lift rocket now under development for Constellation and relying on commercial operators instead. Exploration of the moon would be tabled for decades.
More money is the key to returning to the moon or achieving any of the more ambitious goals considered by the committee: sending humans on Mars flybys or setting up a rendezvous with a near-Earth asteroid or one of Mars's moons, for instance. With increases to reach a NASA budget of about $22 billion by 2014 (NASA's current outlay for fiscal year 2010 is roughly $19 billion), the report surmises, the space agency could continue Constellation toward a lunar landing in the mid-2020s, but the ISS would have to be junked in 2015.
And even with that increased budgetary profile, extending the life of the space station while simultaneously pursuing the moon or goals deeper in the solar system would necessitate scrapping at least some of Constellation's components and relying on the private sector to boost astronauts to low-Earth orbit.
Photo of a meeting of the Augustine committee in Cocoa Beach, Fla., in July: NASA
More News Blog: Next: NASA picks a moon crater for LCROSS probe's double smash landing Previous: FDA panel approves Gardasil HPV vaccine for males, and competing Cervarix might hit shelves soon
See what we're tweeting about
Horganism Powerful Times essay on Obama’s drone attacks, plus my piece: http://t.co/hjSHOUGZNH http://t.co/G3Fv367JLE
notscientific "Your chemistry teacher said 'atomic weights are constants of nature' but nothing could be further from the truth" http://t.co/g2CRPB4TC1
cassierodenberg Love early morning shopping quests in South Bronx. Actually just traded dry beans for twine at the Associated.
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
14 Comments
Add CommentManned missions in orbital flights are one thing but beyond that are a major waste of resources. NASA is drifting and a strong leader needs to set the plan as to what the future holds for NASA. By the way, the new Hubble pictures are fabulous. Let's spend our limited resources on science that makes sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a sad thing, but a fact. People no longer view manned space missions as having any value. Those of us who know otherwise are dinosaurs from the 60's. In 30 years there probably won't be a NASA anymore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt takes a brave and great nation to back manned missions, and we no longer are deserving of this title.
I agree with dbtinc. The current plans by NASA border on the insane. The space agency needs to have clear, sensible goals that have a high cost/benefit ratio, otherwise it's not going to get the taxpayer funding it seeks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-Scrap manned flights to Mars, expand the ISS; maybe one day it could even serve as an orbital launching platform once a space elevator is a reality. Until then, keep using it to conduct scientific experiments (look at the recent breakthrough w/ vaccines due to zero-g research).
-Another big concern: orbital junk/debris. Collection and clean-up, we need a solution to this.
-Hubble's replacement - also important.
-Manned lunar expeditions - each must go w/ intentions of preparing the way for permanent outposts. Forget just mapping and taking rock samples, start constructing the precursors to settlements for research and mining, this will be a great testing ground for what works most efficiently when we attempt to settle other moons.
-More transparency, which includes no more giving image rights to third parties like MSSS and JPL. You work for us citizens - any images or discoveries you make are ours, not yours.
-Alternative propulsion research. Whether it's nuclear, plasma, etc...find a better and safer replacement, or you could work on the space elevator and then use ion engines once everything is launched from orbit.
-Having to include technology to support human life in many space missions is, as dbtinc said, currently wasteful. More testing and research on robotics needs to happen. It is more efficient to explore this solar system using robots instead of humans.
These are just a few of the points I could think of. Hopefully if NASA has a well-known and defined mission plan for the next 20 to 30 years, it will garner the support and the funding it seeks. If not...well, there is always the private sector - which will have no problem exploiting and benefiting from the bounty of space in a cost-efficient manner.
Frankly, your attempt to attach emotional connotations to manned space missions seems a bit foolish - pounds spent on life support systems for humans consume precious payload weight that could be better used elsewhere. The manned missions will come...but first let us have machines lay the groundwork. This saves money, and also has the potential to save lives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA big shortcoming of the NASA program has been the way it has been commented upon by the media. Most of the time, the focus is on the astronauts (their comfort, their safety, their personal exploits), and there is relatively little emphasis on the long term scientific goals of the project.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe level of discussion, in short, is roughly at that of an 8 to 10 year old child. The discussions tend to be emotional rather than intellectual, oriented towards human interest rather than science. So why support a project whose long term significance is depicted in such a vague and banal manner?
By contrast other high level projects contain much more emphasis and clarity on their long term scientific and technological goals. Examples are numerous: superconductivity, the Large Hadron Collider, nanotechnology, nuclear fusion are examples that readily come to mind.
1.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe know how to build Space Shuttles. Why scrap what we have learned over many years and lives lost? Instead, let's build more! BTW to de-orbit the ISS seems totally stupid.
Instead of trying to build another Saturn-style lifter or Constellation why not design and build a vehicle whose only purpose is to move cargo and people from the International Space Station to the moon and back? Sort of a Moon Ferry for want of a better term (the word Shuttle has already been taken).
Then over time after we perfect the Moon Ferry we can build a fleet of Asteroid Ferry vehicles to go out there, see what we can mine and on the way back bring a massive one to use as an anchor for the Space Elevator.
It's been said that a wealthy person in the class of a Bill Gates could persoally fund the construction of a Space Elevator using today's technology. The only real thing missing is the mass of an asteroid to use as an anchor.
Once the Space Elevator is in place we will no longer need heavy launch vehicles which both pollute and are dangerous to all involved. Plus the cost of getting items to orbit comes down to dollars per pound not thousands.
2.
From what I've been reading over the past years it seems like NASA has gotten bloated with mid-level managers who have no pioneering spirit and only practice the age-old government game of taking no risks and covering one's ass. Let's clear out the dead wood, install former astronauts as management and focus on "Colonizing the Moon" as the next mission.
3.
Let's not forget why we went to the moon in the first place - to gain the high ground. We were afraid the Soviets were going to get there first. Fear is a good motivator. But another and possibly more powerful is greed. If we discover we can make a lot of money in space by mining or manufacturing, businesses and individuals won't let anything stop them. It's the same reason people left comfortable lives in the East in the 1800s and risked getting to California - they could get very wealthy.
I'm 64 years old and won't be around much longer. It is really up to the young folks who are working or yet still in school to set their sights on the horizon, decide what they want then go for it.
Terry Thomas...
the photographer
Atlanta, Georgia USA
www.TerryThomasPhotos.com
Ok, you want a "logical" reason the government should get involved with manned missions? Try this one:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMissions that have a high cost/benefit ratio belong to the corporate world. The government's place is to go where they can't or wouldn't.
Oops, make that a LOW cost benefit ratio. :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's sad that they wish to further curtail our presence in space. The persistent lack of funding and perceived lack of interest have been dogging NASA for years. Last night's landing of the shuttle Discovery issued a sonic boom over Southern California that set Twitter alight with discussion. Many of the people were unaware that it was from the shuttle, but were fascinated when they found out. There you have the basic interest. If NASA had better PR, and got more than the occasional soundbite on the evening news when a shuttle launched, it would increase interest in the space program. What was the line in the Right Stuff, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers, and the people want Buck Rogers."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving the machines lead the way saves money and lives. Human safety always comes first with NASA. But that is not necessarily human nature. Many of great explorers set out accepting that they might die in the process. In a recent discussion on a manned trip to Mars the proposition of a one way trip was brought up (getting someone there is the easy part of the equation). The explorer(s) would stay on Mars while those on Earth tried to figure out a way home. Not one of the people asked shied away from the prospect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNASA is a prime example of a federal bureaucracy that has grown so large and occified that it gets less and less done with more and more resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat they really need is K.I.S.S. engineering and an E.M.F. propulsion system. "j_behl" observes that there is no shortage of willing pilots for almost any space ship. I also find this to be true. Now If I could find some money maybe I can build it.
I agree with AtlantaTerry in most of his comments. I remember reading an article by Boeing Engineers where they felt that NASA was TOTALLY neglecting all of the proven rocket motors already in easy production. The same goes for some of the rocket booster stages that are being thrown out in this new proposal. WHY do we have to reinvent what is already proven and frankly cheap to produce?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt makes me sick that we are extending time lines just to INVENT new technology instead of making good use of what we have available TODAY!
NASA did its best to show a vision to move beyond the cradle as the older generation dreamed, The ideological battle has been lost, human space flight is mainly seen in the West as a total waste of resources while trillions of dollars are spent on war and bankers getting even richer, fortunately other cultures are emerging with totally different views for the colonization of space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnsustainable to say the least.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo lie, Sherlock. " It is perpetuating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources."
(some poet)
How can it be that no one even mentions the lack of energy?