The new NASA
The reports on the “death” of America’s manned space program are greatly exaggerated. Contrary to the opinions of some, I think the new budget proposal for NASA is a much-needed course correction that brings the agency back to a focus on its core strengths – research, development, and exploration.
Yes, the Constellation Program will be canceled. The Ares I and V booster rockets and the Orion crew exploration vehicle are going away. The Space Shuttle will be retired as scheduled. In their place will be a robust commercial Low Earth Orbit capability built on the premise of multiple providers competing to provide NASA the best offer for services. NASA will also fund a significant heavy-lift R&D program, likely based out of Marshall Space Flight Center, to develop “game changing” and affordable new rocket technologies.
Don’t just take my word for it, though. Go look at the proposal for yourself. NASA has posted it all to their website.
NASA – FY 2011 Budget Documents and Statements
At the top level, NASA is getting an overall increase of $6 billion over the next five years. Rather than being a provider of launch services to itself, NASA will instead pursue an Exploration Research & Development strategy with three main prongs:
- $7.8 billion over five years for technology demonstrators, including in-orbit refueling and storage.
- $3.1 billion over five years for heavy-lift and propulsion R&D
- $3.0 billion over five years for robotic precursor missions
The Technology Demonstrator program will evaluate such ‘critical path’ technologies as in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable
modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, and closed-loop life support systems.
The Heavy-Lift and Propulsion R&D will target “new approaches” to first-stage propulsion, advanced in-space propulsion, and “foundational” propulsion research.
The Robotic Precursor Missions will expand our practice of “scouting” locations for future manned exploration with new robotic missions to the Moon, Mars and its moon, the Lagrange points, and Near Earth asteroids. Examples might include telerobotic demonstrators on the Moon and automated processing of lunar and/or asteroid local resources.
Additionally, NASA is committing to an extension of the ISS Program to 2020 with a budget increase of $2 billion over four years. The Human Research Program itself will see a 42% budget increase and the National Laboratory function will be expanded. In the interest of full disclosure, I will remind everyone that I support the ISS National Lab Office.
NASA is also investing $6 billion over the next five years in commercial cargo and human spaceflight vehicles. While all such providers will be required to meet NASA’s safety standards, funds will be awarded through competitive allocations, instead of the cost-plus contracts so common today.
Earth and Climate Science missions, Planetary Science missions, Astrophysics, Heliophysics, Aeronautics, and Education will all be sustained at current levels or their budgets increased.
Before I moved to the ISS Program, I actually worked on the Constellation Program. As Administrator Bolden himself said, they are some of the finest people I’ve ever had the privilege of working with and they did a heck of a job with often untenable constraints.
However, I do think Jim Kohlenberger from the Office of Science and Technology Policy was right when he said that we shouldn’t throw another $50 billion at an unsustainable program just because we already spent $9 billion on it.
I think this new proposal is exactly what the spaceflight community needs. It’s a fundamental change in the way we operate and a kickstart to really start innovating again. This is not “Apollo on steroids,” nor should it be. We don’t have the budget for that and we never did. We have to learn to adapt or get out of the way of those who can. I’m excited to see what we can accomplish.
Again, don’t just take my word for it. Check out what Buzz Aldrin has to say.
Today I wish to endorse strongly the President’s new direction for NASA. As an Apollo astronaut, I know the importance of always pushing new frontiers as we explore space. The truth is, that we have already been to the Moon – some 40 years ago. A near-term focus on lowering the cost of access to space and on developing key, cutting-edge technologies to take us further, faster, is just what our Nation needs to maintain its position as the leader in space exploration for the rest of this century. We need to be in this for the long haul, and this program will allow us to again be pushing the boundaries to achieve new and challenging things beyond Earth. I hope NASA will embrace this new direction as much as I do, and help us all continue to use space exploration to drive prosperity and innovation right here on Earth.
I also believe the steps we will be taking following the President’s direction will best position NASA and other space agencies to send humans to Mars and other exciting destinations as quickly as possible. To do that, we will need to support many types of game-changing technologies NASA and its partners will be developing. Mars is the next frontier for humankind, and NASA will be leading the way there if we aggressively support the President’s plans.
Finally, I am excited to think that the development of commercial capabilities to send humans into low earth orbit will likely result in so many more earthlings being able to experience the transformative power of spaceflight. I can personally attest to the fact that the experience results in a different perspective on life on Earth, and on our future as a species. I applaud the President for working to make this dream a reality.
There will be more than enough work to go around for all the centers, so we shouldn’t let parochial concerns stop us from doing the right thing for the country as a whole. We have an opportunity here to really make some progress on transforming humanity into a spacefaring species with a sustainable presence in space. Let’s not waste it.
Cross-posted at A World With No Boundaries.
13 Responses to “The new NASA”
Leave a Reply
Nelson on February 1st, 2010
Justin:
The problem is that the “new” direction of NASA is undefined. There are not any specific destinations and target dates. These questions were repeately dodged at the press conference.
Just announcing the cancellation of Constellation without providing anything definitive as an goal is not going to inspire confidence.
NASA management needs to commit to realistic and concrete goals. Until it does, it can never succeed.
A year ago it would have been perfectly acceptable to say that new objectives are being defined, but NASA can not afford to be stalled for yet another year, selecting an optimal “new” direction.
We cannot be a world leader in space exploration while not knowing exactly where we are going.
Cheers,
Nelson
Justin on February 1st, 2010
Why are “specific destinations” and “target dates” for the ERTD effort so important now?
For what it’s worth, we do have a specific destination through 2020 – the ISS. A destination that Ares I wasn’t going to be able to reach until after the planned decommissioning in 2015. I also note that Ares I reportedly couldn’t even put Orion in a circular orbit.
This is about building up exploration technologies, developing new ways of doing business, and establishing sustainable practices. All of which I think are realistic and necessary goals, instead of bleeding the rest of the system dry to fund a program predicated on a funding wedge that never came. Bolden’s NASA vision is about opening up the entire inner solar system to exploration through fundamental changes in our approach and collaboration with international and industry partners.
That is inspiring to me.
Dan Barker on February 1st, 2010
Yeah, where does NASA human space flight plan to go to and by when? Can we at least get a date for a commercial spacecraft to actually leave low earth orbit? BTW, Does Buzz happen to have any commercial interest in this decision?
Justin on February 1st, 2010
ISS through 2020 and even later, if feasible. The other destinations will be determined by what capabilities we can build. The commercial space effort is entirely geared towards human crew and cargo to LEO. My understanding is that NASA will spearhead exploration research, in partnership with other entities. I am not aware of Buzz having any commercial interest in this decision, though he has been an ardent critic of the “Apollo on steroids” architecture for some time.
BHL on February 1st, 2010
Justin,
I wish I were as optomistic as you. My concern is that commercialization is only good for going up/down to/from ISS. Commercialization advocates like to use the airline industry as an pro-argument, however it’s apples and oranges as a plane can ferry the public from A to B. In this case there’s no real A to B for the public using the type of commercial vehicle NASA needs to shuttle to ISS.
My bigger concern is over the R&D without a lcak of a defined goal. If the economy does an about face and the budget gets under control, then perhaps the public won’t mind the R&D for some years. Eventually though, there has to be a goal. And if the economy doesn’t turn around….
Ares 1 may have been a poor decision. Fine, kill it that and go back to a liquid fuel HLV and return to the moon and establish an outpost. As it stands now, the future of manned space has become a crap shoot with poor odds.
Justin on February 1st, 2010
Initially, that is the primary goal of commercialization. We give them a ready destination, a cargo and/or passenger requirement, and tell them to figure out how to do it safely for the cost we’re willing to pay.
The thinking, though, is that this will free NASA to focus on fundamental research, R&D, and innovation to figure out the most sustainable way to explore the rest of the solar system. It’s not like the Ares rockets were actually going to be getting us anywhere any time soon.
Becca on February 3rd, 2010
I struggled with the same question – why is direction, destination and target dates important if we can just do R&D? Because it gives the R&D context.
Do I design my closed life support system to support 5 or 20 people? Do I spend 20 years working on a plasma propulsion system taht can get me to Mars in 2 weeks, or is a 10 years design that can accomplis a 4 week transfer time good enough? How big should my lunar rover be – should it be like the rovers in Armageddon or does it need to be confined to 500 lbs? If it needs to be light and small, it might drive me to be innovative in a different way than if it needs to carry 8 astronauts. Does my new thermal protection system design need to survive a lunar skip entry or a Mars entry or an entry from low earth orbit? Those are all different heating environments, where do I focus on? Does my in space fuel depot have to be sized for lunar missions or missions to Moons of Jupiter?
Innovation does not come without context. Innovation, by definition, comes to creatively solve problems. Why was Apollo so innovative? Because in the span of 9 years, tons of things had to be accomplished that we had no idea how to do and a time limit in which to accomplish them. Necessity is the mother of invention, right? What do you think wouldv’e happened if JFK’s goal had been to “put man on a moon sometime in the next century, you know whenever you guys are ready”?
I’m an engineer, I believe in the power of paralysis by analysis. Destinations, targets, goals force invention. Just throwing money at people and telling them to “research cool stuff” probably results in some cool stuff being developed, but of questionable usefulness.
I am excited, truly excited about the prospect of commercial crew access to low earth orbit. I am not excited about NASA turning into an R&D and contract monitor firm with no mission.
Justin on February 3rd, 2010
Perhaps I should have phrased the question better.
I understand why those things are important. As you said, they provide context.
What I meant to ask is why we have to have those answers right now.
It seems clear to me, as I discuss in my most recent post, that we are being chartered to determine simultaneously what breakthrough exploration capabilities we can investigate and the missions those innovations will enable.
Becca on February 4th, 2010
Justin, maybe I’m just jaded, because it could be that, really it could. Or it could be away to bring the slow political death of manned exploration. E.G. this year NASA has some tim eto think about new technologies, next yaer the administration can say “NASA’s not really doing anything, so let’s slashed their manned spaceflight budget, these are hard times and all.”
Justin on February 4th, 2010
Everything I have heard from people in the know leads me to believe that this is about putting NASA on a sustainable human exploration path, not a gambit to shut us down. If the latter was the case, why extend ISS to at least 2020 (and, quite possibly, 2028)?