There are two things in the Authorization Act that stand out to me.  First, the Constellation Program, as envisioned by former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, is finished.  Congress has made it absolutely clear that his plan to abandon the International Space Station in 2015 is a non-starter.  NASA has been given clear direction to sustain the ISS through at least 2020.  Indications are that we are likely to keep it running for as long as is safe.

Second, the debate has shifted from whether commercial space will have a role in our national space program at all to what the most appropriate plan for developing public-private partnerships will be.  Even if we are only able to get modest reductions in launch costs, for example, through such partnerships, this will help NASA focus resources in its shift from an operationalized culture back to an exploratory culture.

The 2010 Authorization Act directs NASA to work on the following tasks over the next three years:

• Exploration:

1. A multi-purpose crew vehicle (likely derived from Constellation’s Orion)
2. A Space Launch System for exploration missions Beyond Earth Orbit
3. Exploration Technology Development, Human Research, Commercial Cargo, Commercial Crew, and Robotic Precursor Studies & Missions

• Space Operations:

1. ISS continuation
2. A successful run-out of the Shuttle program
3. A NASA infrastructure modernization program

• Continued science research in earth sciences, planetary science, astrophysics, and heliophysics
• Aeronautics and Space Technology Research
• Dedicated Education & Outreach programs

While top-level funding totaling between $19 and $20 billion annually is described for each line item, the real money won’t be laid out until the appropriations bill comes.  That’s not likely to happen until after the next Congress takes office.  Until then, NASA will be operating under a Continuing Resolution which keeps the agency at 2010 funding levels and direction.

Where the Authorization Act is important is in the policies, goals, and objectives it lays out for NASA – particularly with regards to human space flight.  Given that this Act passed unanimously in the Senate and with easily more than a 2/3rds majority in the House, it is unlikely that we will see a change in this guidance for NASA, even if the appropriations law moves around some of the pie pieces.

First, the Act states that the long-term goal of NASA’s human space flight and exploration efforts is to establish and expand a permanent human presence beyond Low Earth Orbit and to involve our international partners where it is practical to do so.

Second, the Act states that NASA’s objectives in human space flight are to fully utilize the ISS (both as a National Laboratory and a proving ground for living in space), to assist and enable the expansion of commercial presence in LEO, to lay the foundation for sustainable economic activities in space, to identify potential space resources, to figure out how to live in space with “decreasing reliance on Earth,” to maximize the contributions of space exploration to our knowledge base, and to build mutually beneficial international partnerships in the pursuit of those goals.

In terms of policy, the Act requires NASA commission the National Academies in 2012 conduct a review of the “goals, core capabilities, and direction of human space flight.”  This is one of the least discussed, but, perhaps, most important aspects of the 2010 Authorization Act.

The NASA science community is guided by a process called the Decadal Survey.  The National Research Council helps NASA identify and prioritize its science objectives and assess the missions required to meet those objectives.  This serves as a check and balance on mission creep and provides the Science Mission Directorate with guidance that survives beyond the political process.

Until now, human space exploration had no such process for providing policy and program guidance based on outside technical analysis.  Our work has been entirely subject to the vagaries of the ever-shifting political winds.  The 2010 Authorization Act explicitly calls for the National Academies to provide such a service for NASA human space flight, as their report will give findings and recommendations for the 10 years following the three covered in the Authorization Act.

Despite what you might read in some blogs, the Moon is not dead as a potential destination, either.  The Authorization Act explicitly states that the “regions of cis-lunar space,” including the lunar surface, should be included in space infrastructure development and that international partnerships in these endeavors will help address national security and economic concerns.

To provide the best value to the taxpayer, NASA is directed to take a “pay as you go” approach and size its crew and launch systems to the minimum necessary to conduct cis-lunar missions.  Missions to other destinations, such as asteroids or Mars, would be based on these technologies.

120 days from the enactment of the Act, NASA is required to present to Congress an assessment of any effort to expand or strengthen international collaboration on the ISS and any efforts in defining near-term cis-lunar missions.  These reports will be assumed to contribute to the development of the multi-purpose crew vehicle, the Space Launch System, and any other space technology the NASA Administrator deems appropriate.

While much has been reported about the Senate supposedly micro-managing the design of the Space Launch System, Section 302 (which covers SLS) is replete with caveats that give the NASA Administrator discretion on technical elements.  This suggests to me that Congress may be amenable if NASA runs the numbers and stands its ground if they’re asked to do something that doesn’t make sense.

The concern is that Congress wants the Space Launch System to be at initial operating capability by the end of 2016.  Under the existing funding profile, the Constellation Program’s Ares I rocket was not expected to be ready by that time and it was an arguably less capable booster than what Congress is asking for.

The only way NASA can accomplish this feat is if they have the technical and programmatic flexibility to develop a booster configuration that meets the schedule and budget constraints.  If this turns out to just not be possible, NASA needs to be able to speak out without fear of political repurcussion.

The Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, based on what has been learned from the Orion project, is also expected to be ready to enter service no later than the Space Launch System.  While a dedicated, versatile exploration vehicle that can operate in conjunction with mission-specific modules would be a tremendous asset to NASA, the concern for this project is much the same as with the Space Launch System.  It’s not yet clear that NASA can meet the schedule within the budget expected.

Section 307 is also important because it establishes as a matter of policy that NASA should have a healthy balance between operational capabilities and advanced technology development.  The NASA Administrator is authorized to make investments in such R&D because of the potential for transforming the human space flight enterprise.

The question now is how soon the appropriations will be given out and how closely those will follow the guidance given in the Authorization Act.  While some appropriations committee members have indicated they will defer to the Authorization Act, other Representatives and Senators who were unhappy with the Authorization Act have said they will fight to get changes made at the budget end.

NASA now has the task of making assessments and beginning initial planning for how it will carry out the direction given by Congress and the President to establish permanent human presence Beyond Earth Orbit, make the most possible utilization of the International Space Station, continue its leadership in basic science and aeronautics research, and research revolutionary technologies that could transform our world or protect it from harm.

We’re not out of the woods yet, but it’s a place to start on the long road ahead.

Over the past week, I’ve had the opportunity and privilege to volunteer with both the United Space School and the International Space Settlement Design Competition.  Both programs bring students from around the world here to Houston to participate in exercises geared towards the design of future ventures in space.

This year, the United Space School has high school students grouped into four teams – mission control, science, habitat, and vehicle design – working together to plan a notional Mars exploration mission.  Everyone came to UH Clear Lake last Monday with a clean slate and interviewed for placement on the teams.   I helped interview for the vehicle design team, given my background in aerospace engineering.

We could all tell which kids were really enthusiastic about spacecraft and engineering.  One student from Australia even said his aspiration is to be a test pilot for commercial spaceflight companies!  Burt Rutan got his start in flight test engineering for the Air Force, so, why not?

On Wednesday, I came back to UH Clear Lake to talk with the United Space School students about all of the things they would need to think about for their Mars vehicle.  My main point was that the design of the spacecraft would be driven by its intended purpose, thus encouraging them to come up with a vehicle that enabled the deployment of the habitat, execution of the science objectives, and safe return of the crew.  The kids asked great questions about propulsion, artificial gravity, radiation issues, etc. and we easily went over my allotted time.

Honestly, I probably could have spent the entire afternoon with them and not even noticed the passage of time. =)  I’m definitely going to try to make it to their graduation ceremony this weekend so I can see what they came up with.

I spent my Sunday helping with both programs.  First, I briefly attended the USS Cultural Faire and brought two trays of homemade, Southern-style banana pudding.  I’m told it was a big hit.  For me, I think my favorites were the servings of kangaroo and emu meat that one of the mentors from Australia brought in!  He said he had to find them at a specialty butcher, but find them he did.  We also had various casseroles, homemade machaca, haggis on oatbread, and a plethora of desserts.  I stuffed my face with rice pudding, Manchester tart, Russian pancakes, ANZAC biscuits, and various other goodies.

Unfortunately, I missed the students’ show because I had to dash over to the Gilruth Center to help with ISSDC.  I spent the next seven hours on the “Red Team,” critiquing the designs and presentations of the four student teams brought to Houston for one weekend to design a 24,000-person Mars settlement.  Also consisting of high school kids from all over, these kids are working fast and furious over three days to make their presentations today.  Like a real competitive RFP, winner takes all.

Because of the short time-scale, we on the Red Team were merciless during our reviews.  Their final presentation is almost as demanding as a real business pitch, so we did our best to prepare them for the high standards expected at the end of the competition.  They were working very hard on little sleep (reminding me more than a bit of college!) and we pushed them to go the extra mile.

More interesting to me than a lot of the engineering and architecture of the main structures were the groups’ approaches to how the people inside might live.  Most of the students expected to have a high level of automation, with robots doing everything from housecleaning to fire-fighting to law enforcement.  We hammered them on privacy concerns when they’d suggest things like ingested or implanted RFID chips and widespread infrared cameras for security control.

We also drove home the idea that a system should only be as complex as it needs to be, otherwise you’re just introducing extra points of failure.  All of the teams had to consider how to traverse Valles Marineris and most looked at elevators.  We asked one team why would you need pressurized elevators for cargo trucks that are just passing through to other destinations.  Another team considered using a gondola system, instead .  We asked them to consider what would happen if someone built a cargo vehicle too big for the skyway.

By the time we finished, after 10:00 pm last night, we were all pretty tired and ready to go home.  I think everyone had fun, though, and learned a lot from the process.  I know I certainly did.  If I ever go help Elon Musk build his retirement community on Mars, I know some people I’ll call. =)

I had the opportunity yesterday, though, to sit down with some friends who have a little more insight into what’s really been going on up in DC.  Plain and simple, Senators Hutchison and Nelson quietly formed an alliance in the Senate and even more quietly pre-coordinated with the White House to come up with something that everyone can live with.

For all the suggestions of his inability to lead, it was NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden who made the case for a heavy-lift vehicle and that was the carrot Hutchison and Nelson used to get the support from expected intransigents like Sen. Shelby, who just earned a rather ignominious distinction from Citizens Against Government Waste.

There is an important clause in the language on heavy lift that leaves NASA an escape if it finds shuttle-derived components are impracticable.  Thus, the staffers that helped put this bill together say that NASA is not technically constrained by the Senate language.  The authorization committee also accepted amendments to provide more funding for tech R&D and robotic precursor missions.

At this point, it’s a matter of making the trades in the budget lines to come to an amicable conclusion that funds one more Shuttle flight, ISS continuation, exploration and space technology research, and a human exploration program beyond Earth orbit.  While commercial crew development is constrained in FY2011, I hear that was intended to actually provide commercial developers cover for moving out strong in FY2012 and beyond.

In any event, the Senate appropriations committee just approved the full $19 billion the President and the Senate authorization committee asked for.  This is a bonafide example of how the system really is supposed to work.  Senators, staffers, and the White House set aside partisan politics to develop a plan that we can move forward on, even while acknowledging that it isn’t perfect.

By contrast, the House legislation is a scattershot proposal, with its only clear goal being the restoration of the status quo.  Forty-three – yes, 43 – amendments were submitted against it, even as the House committee meeting was ongoing.

Our own Rep. Pete Olson filed an “emergency” amendment intended to short-circuit their own priority queue to immediately fund the Constellation spacesuit project.  Other Representatives squabbled over the $15 million CRuSR program to sponsor suborbital science research and whether NASA should foster the growth of commercial space industry at all.  (Note: The Space Act explicitly directs NASA to help grow American industry in space.  It doesn’t actually say anything about flying people in space.)  Towards the end of the day, it was silly season on display.

Senator Hutchison is showing some real leadership here and has done good work for our state and our space program.  I hope Rep. Olson and his colleagues in the House will learn from her example and stop tilting at windmills.  Rep. Kosmas from Florida submitted an amendment calling on the House to follow the Senate’s approach, so at least one person in that chamber gets it.

If the Senate’s strategy is adopted by the House and emerges from conference committee intact, we could have a bill that he will sign on the President’s desk before October and avoid a continuing resolution – which would keep NASA in limbo perhaps as long as another year.

This would be a more evolutionary change for NASA, as opposed to the revolutionary approach outlined in the President’s FY2011 budget.  Even so, NASA still gets an overall increase in its budget and breathing room for needed investments in commercial space services and technology R&D.  JSC, in particular, will have plenty of work to do.

As long as NASA retains the freedom to make appropriate technical decisions within the budget and schedule provided, I think we can make this work.

Cross-posted at A World With No Boundaries

The National Space Policy is an outline for the goals, objectives, and guiding principles of all US government activity in space.  It is a high-level executive document that is intended to bring together the various disparate elements under a single framework that generally explains the Administration’s thought process.  Nothing more, nothing less.

As the newspapers and many other bloggers have already reported, the Obama Administration’s document largely returns to the language of Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton with its focus on collaboration and eschews the “no one else can tell us what to do” language of Bush II.  Instead of rehashing the boilerplate verbiage, I’d instead like to examine the various elements of the National Space Policy that stand out to me.

First, the very Introduction gives attention to the increasingly inter-related nature of space activities.  In particular, the problem of space debris is mentioned.  I find this interesting in light of recent articles that suggest the Kessler Syndrome may be closer than we realize and, especially after the Iridium-Cosmos collision, the powers-that-be are taking the issue much more seriously.  By putting this topic front-and-center, the Administration seems to be telling the space community that we have to recognize the impact of our activities and shape the way we work to be more conscientious and sustainable.

The section on Intersector Guidelines reads pretty blandly, at first.  At least, it did until I got to the part on “International Cooperation.” It lists “space nuclear power to support space science and exploration” as a potential area for international cooperation.  That caught my attention given our country’s tenuous relationship with nuclear power.  We haven’t really embraced it like some other industrialized countries, but I think it’s increasingly being seen as an alternative in an era where we’re trying to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

“Preserving the Space Environment” directs NASA, the Department of Defense, and other related agencies to work together to prevent conjunction events, minimize the creation of debris, and devise measures to “mitigate and remove” the orbital debris that’s already there.  I think this is likely to be a significant growth opportunity for entrepreneurs and innovators.  It’s going to take some very creative thinking to tackle the problem of orbital debris in a cost-effective manner.  Sadly, there’s plenty of work to be done on the problem, too.

“Space Nuclear Power” does, in fact, get its own section.  The direction is reasonably unambiguous, too.  “The United States shall develop and use space nuclear power systems where such systems safely enable or significantly enhance space exploration or operational capabilities.”  This is a serious commitment at the policy level, as lightweight nuclear reactors developed for space exploration could be just as useful for helping address America’s concerns about meeting base power load needs while reducing fossil fuel emissions.

I think it’s encouraging that the Department of Energy is specifically directed to “Maintain the capability and infrastructure to develop and furnish nuclear power systems for use in United States Government space systems.”  For the time being, I’m sure most of that effort will be focused on maintaining our radioisotope thermoelectric generator capabilities, but this also means DoE has an explicit directive to work with NASA if the agency determines space nuclear power systems are a key element for Beyond Earth Orbit exploration.

As we move into the Sector Guidelines, the first section is on “Commercial Space Guidelines”.  More or less, it says that the US Government should develop its own space systems only when there is overriding national interest and there is no existing or adaptable commercial service that is suitable.  This is very much consistent with the Space Act that governs NASA, but now a standing policy directive across the Executive Branch.  Unlike what was suggested in the rumor mill, the policy encourages prizes, competitions, and innovative, nontraditional methods of acquiring services.

The “Civil Space Guidelines” largely cover NASA’s area of responsibility. NASA is chartered to set the exploration milestones, with direction to begin crewed exploration of asteroids by 2025 and to Mars and back by the mid-2030s.  The blogosphere is largely reading what they want to in this statement, but I find it interesting more in what it doesn’t say.  It doesn’t say NASA can’t do these things sooner.  To me, they read more like “No Later Than” dates than “No Earlier Than” dates.

The subsection on Near-Earth Objects also catches my attention because it doesn’t just address the issue of hazard mitigation.  I think that’s important in and of itself, but the National Space Policy takes this a step further and recognizes the potential for asteroid mining.  Some studies have shown that a single metallic asteroid could have more recoverable rare earth metals, nickel, and iron than have been mined in the history of all civilization.  Given growing concerns over China’s dominant market position with the rare earth metals that are essential to modern technology, this could become an increasingly attractive prospect.

The National Security Space Guidelines are fairly boilerplate. I suspect the really interesting bits are in the classified annex that most of us will never see.

While the National Space Policy is neither the blueprint that some were hoping for or the travesty that some expected, I do think there are nuggets in there that suggest we have an opportunity to make American activity in space more sustainable, more widespread, and more relevant to national interests.  The question before us is whether we are willing to take advantage of this opportunity or not.  We now have the policy directives to do it.

Given the shock that has accompanied the pending Shuttle retirement, the continuation of a Space Station that I doubt most Americans know exists, and the proposed cancellation of the Constellation Program (that I think even fewer Americans really knew about), I think it’s clear that we haven’t done that.  Instead, we have people arguing back and forth over what largely amount to platitudes.  I hear friends and colleagues, who are understandably disenchanted with the political process, wishing aloud that the government would just give us the money to go do what we want and leave us alone.

That’s never going to happen, of course.  Whether civil servant or contractor, all of us involved in NASA’s human space flight endeavors are stewards of the taxpayers’ money.  Members of Congress and the President are the duly elected representatives of those same taxpayers.  Between the Executive and Legislative branches of our political triad, policy is crafted, funded, and executed.  Human space flight is inherently tied to the political process and we fail to bridge the technical and policy worlds at our own peril.

There have been many strategies put forth to try to help NASA better navigate the winds of political change.  Most that I’ve seen propose some mechanism to make it more difficult for politicians to change course mid-stream.  The politicians control the purse strings, so that’s never going to happen, either.

I think the most effective strategy for NASA exists at a much more basic level.  It’s something I always kinda knew in the back of my head, but I didn’t really learn how to start explaining it better until I had the opportunity to serve on the Barrier Analysis Team for JSC’s Inclusion and Innovation Council.  Mark Craig, a NASA veteran and senior executive at SAIC, was one of the mentors for our team and I think I learned more from him than anyone else over that period.

If you keep up with OpenNASA, you’ll know that this isn’t the first time I’ve broached the subject.  I think NASA’s best defense is to design and pursue programs and strategies that are relevant because they contribute to solving America’s strategic problems.

On May 5th, I had the opportunity to listen to Mark discuss this topic in more detail.  He was gracious enough to let me share here on OpenNASA what I took away from his talk.

Since it was presented under the auspices of the JSC Storytelling program, Mark opened up by defining what a “story” is, according to his friend and colleague, Bob Rogers.  A story is ” a deeper level of truth by which we explain the world and our place in it to ourselves.”  (Note: Ask yourself how you explain, honestly, the world and your place in it.  How do you relate that story to other people? We’ll come back to that.)

Mark also explained that he sees relevance as having two parts.  There is the “why” and the “value.”  “Why Relevance” explains our reason for being.  It tells us where we go and what we do.  Mark offered the statements of the Augustine Committee and John Marburger, OSTP Director under President Bush, as examples.  The Augustine Committee said we go into space to expand the human presence in the Solar System, while Marburger stated that our goal was “to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program.”

These statements aren’t necessarily contradictory, but they illustrate different perspectives on the “why” that must be taken into account.

“Value relevance” is defined by Mark as a “critical mass” of benefit delivered to a “critical mass” of stakeholders.  This recognizes that you probably can’t please everyone, but you can and should satisfy enough of your stakeholders to press on.  This form of relevance must actually be experienced by the stakeholders, though.  We can’t just go do something that we think is great and, then, try to sell it to everyone else. Value relevance is fostered through a continual process of research (identify what is important to your stakeholders), creation (make something that meets their needs), delivery (make sure they get it), and self-improvement (evaluate how well you did the last iteration).

This is not just a communications problem.  We’ve labored under the assumption for far too long that we don’t do a good enough job “selling” the space program to the public.  Mark rightly points out that this process of creating value relevance must be built into architectures and designs early on.  The research part is key because we have to meet other people where they are to effectively engage them, both on a technical and emotional level.  One commenter in the audience noted that, in the business world she came from, you have to know your audience or you will fail.

Mark also had a few recommendations and “Red Flags” for us to consider.  First, he advocates the creation of an external guidance and accountability function, similar to the Decadal Survey process, for human space flight.  Having an external group of “thought leaders” in science, industry, art, and culture would provide the outside perspective that we in the human space flight community lack.  This would help keep us from drinking our own bathwater.

NASA would also need its own value management system to engage external marketing experts, employ industry best practices in value management, and document the structure in NASA processes.  This gets back to the point about needing to build value relevance into our system early on.

From his experience as a NASA veteran and consultant to museums, Mark also suggested some areas where we could make a real impact.  For example, the movie Apollo 13 was compelling because it showed, in detail, what the people went through.  NASA TV’s view of Mission Control, by comparison, looks like a security camera.  We have experiences and emotions to share with the public.  Why don’t we?

Mark also believes that we could be doing more in the area of medical research for the benefit of people here on Earth.  My personal opinion is that we have a similar opportunity in the area of energy.  American-owned and operated powersats and miniaturized, passively-safe nuclear power could revolutionize both industry and space exploration while giving us avenues to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

Changing our approach to how we build and conduct the space program doesn’t just involve top-down management, though.  Mark also identified what he called “red flags” for us to push back against when we see them.

1. Don’t just assume change is happening.  Ask how programs are being shaped to bring it about.  Who is in charge? What is the funding and where does it come from?
2. Ask how something improves sustainability. Changing a vehicle, destination, or program isn’t enough.
3. In regards to outreach, are we just showing up? Or are we deliberate and thoughtful in our approach so that we listen to what the people we are reaching out to are saying?
4. “We just need to explain it better.”  Be careful.  It’s a trap to convince ourselves our original idea is right.
5. “Congress is our customer.”  Be careful.  It’s a trap to blame our missteps on politics.
6. “The public is our customer.” Be careful.  It’s a trap to abrogate accountability because it’s too nebulous.
7. “Marketing is illegal.” No, it isn’t. Lobbying and advertising are, but those aren’t all there is to marketing.

I agree with Mark’s argument that we can build human space flight into the fabric of society, if we can build relevance and accountability into the human space flight program.  We just have to remember that this is relevance that is researched, understood, and delivered; not just assumed.

So, with that in mind, I ask you to consider the following questions.

What is the compelling story for the human space program?

How can we make it relevant to America’s needs and values?

How you can be a part of changing the narrative?

Not only do we have external and internal threats to our continued existence, we have a final time limit of about one billion years.  The Sun is in its “middle age,” but it will eventually expand – in about five billion years – into what is called a red giant star.  At this point, it will have stopped fusing hydrogen in its core and will only be burning in the outer shells.

These regions where fusion is still taking place will expand out from the core and, eventually, engulf the Earth itself.  Long before its physical destruction, though, the planet will be rendered uninhabitable by the increased radiation as the Sun continues to age.  Even before the transition to a red giant, the Sun’s output will be so strong in a billion years that the oceans will boil off and the hydrogen lost to space.

Red Giant Sun
Video of the Sun expanding in its red giant phase

There are no “ifs, ands, or buts” about it.  We will not be able to call Earth our home forever.  By that time, we must have learned how to live on other worlds and, eventually, even how to cross the vast distances between the stars.  Though we may be able to live on Mars or terraformed moons of the outer planets for a time, the Sun’s expansion is likely to eject Mars and the outer planets into deep space.

Even if we figure out a way to stay in the solar system on entirely artificial habitats, the Sun will eventually die.  The outer layers will be cast off into a nebula of gas and dust.  Fusion will cease completely.  All that will remain is an extremely dense white dwarf, cooling away until it no longer even emits heat.

Yes, a billion years is a very long time from now.  The fact that we can even conceptualize such a problem, though, is a credit to our species.  We will have to solve it, eventually.  With today’s space programs, we are taking the first steps.  Russian rocket pioneer Konstantin Tsiolkovsky said that Earth is the cradle of humanity, but that we cannot stay in the cradle forever.

Artist’s concept of a lunar base (NASA)

So, what role should the government have in all this?  Why should we even have a NASA?

First, I look to the Constitution itself.  At the very beginning, the Preamble says that our government was created, in part, to “provide for the common defence” and to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Given the potential near-term threats from space hazards to life, liberty, and property and the long-term necessity of space travel for our continued survival, I’d say we’re pretty well covered there.  A just government exists to protect the rights of its citizens through reasonable measures and in accordance with the rule of law.  Thus, a just government has an inherent interest in protecting its citizens against space-based threats and developing the means to do so.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to pay for such a capability and the President the authority to direct both the armed forces and any other agency established by Congress to execute that capability.  Some also argue that the Constitution grants Congress the ability to promote science and “the useful Arts,” but I think that is an overly generous interpretation of the clause granting Congress power to establish patents and copyrights.

If we agree that the US government has a just role in protecting its citizens and American property (including assets in space) from threats beyond our atmosphere, you still might ask why we don’t just let the military handle it all.  Until the Space Act of 1958, that’s precisely what the case was.

President Eisenhower and Congress agreed that the United States should have separate, but parallel, military and civilian space programs, unlike the centralized military system in the Soviet Union.  NASA was created to coordinate all non-military activity in space, as the commercial and civilian benefits of space applications were recognized early on.  This had the added benefit of initiating multiple development paths for American rocketry in its race with the Soviet Union for space supremacy.

Sputnik
Sputnik – The first artificial satellite and the beginning of the Space Race

However, we won the Space Race.  We beat the Soviets to the Moon.  Since then, our government has largely taken the position that what NASA does best is inspire the nation through its pursuit of science in space.  We’ve spent the past forty years trying to either figure out “what’s next?” or get back to where Apollo left off.

While basic science research is more important than ever, especially with the closing of private research institutions like the venerable Bell Labs, and is a vital component of ensuring NASA has the knowledge it needs, I don’t think that is necessarily the best attitude to have about NASA as an agency.  I think NASA has an obligation to be directly relevant to the country’s vital interests, beyond nebulous claims of our importance to prestige and technology research.

The Space Act itself says that “the general welfare and security” of our country require that NASA seek and encourage the “fullest” commercial use of space.  It also requires NASA have a watch program for Near-Earth Objects to “provide warning and mitigation of the potential hazard,” I might add.

Space exploration for its own sake is enough to get me out of bed in the morning, go for my run, shower, and head down to Clear Lake.  However, it has become clear to me that isn’t enough to justify the cost to the American taxpayer, as much as many of my colleagues wish the politicians would just give us the money and leave us alone.

In the process of carrying out its Congressionally-designated mission to protect the Earth from space-based threats and increase our understanding of the planet and space phenomena, NASA can and must undertake initiatives that help solve America’s strategic problems.  By thoughtful selection of NASA’s programs, we can all get the best of both worlds.

For example, rare-earth metals are resources both vital to modern technology and largely supplied by foreign countries, like China.  There is serious concern that China may restrict the supply of these materials to feed their own domestic needs.  Preliminary surveys of some Near-Earth Objects suggest that they might have more usable metals, including rare-earth elements, than has ever been mined in the history of civilization.

NASA technology developed to study, track, and deflect threatening asteroids could possibly be commercialized to provide the United States with vital commodities that we lack in abundance within our borders, if it can be done economically and safely.

Artist’s concept of an asteroid mining operation (NASA)

Perhaps that’s a bit too much of a stretch, though.  After all, it might turn out to be cheaper to cut some kind of deal with a country that has the resources we need, but lacks the capability to extract them on their own.

Let’s consider energy independence, then.  Solar power is often criticized because it doesn’t work when the weather is bad or at night.  The Sun is always shining in space, though.  The fundamental technology already exists where we could collect solar power in space and beam it to the ground on a frequency largely transparent to the atmosphere.

It just hasn’t been demonstrated on a large enough scale to be useful – yet.  The National Space Security Office has done studies showing how space-based solar power could allow the military to provide clean, safe, on-demand power to forward-deployed bases.  In some places, the cost per kilowatt-hour for the military today is 20 times what we pay stateside.  Space-based solar would also eliminate costly and dangerous powerplant fuel convoys.

The European Space Agency sponsored a study that showed a powersat system could pay back its energy costs of being established within its first year of operation.  However, the problem is that the cost of launch to orbit is still very high, so much so that the commercial space industry tends to be very conservative.  It would be hard to get a powersat initiative going without a large first customer.

Advances in technology are reducing the size and increasing the efficiency of solar panels, though.  New designs currently in development could provide as much power as all eight arrays on the International Space Station on a single array a fraction the size.  Such high-density production will also be useful for electric propulsion systems that are orders of magnitude more efficient than chemical propulsion in space.

Artist’s concept of a powersat (NASA)

Author Ben Bova laid out a possible roadmap to a powersat future, though, in 2008.  The United States built its giant hydroelectric dams through public-private partnerships where private investors were backed by low-interest, long-term loans guaranteed by the government.

A similar program where NASA demonstrates the technology for in-space applications and turns over mass production to private industry for such customers as the military could be just the thing to spur the creation of this new industry – an inherently high-tech field with direct security and economic benefits to the country.

If you’re still skeptical about solar, though, there is always nuclear power to consider.  To minimize crew exposure to cosmic radiation and dramatically reduce transit times (perhaps to intercept an asteroid or comet), nuclear-based propulsion in space may be required.  This will require the development of safe, simple, but highly-productive nuclear reactors suitable for launching into orbit and propelling spacecraft.  Such advanced nuclear power would certainly be useful for terrestrial applications, as well.

In partnership with the Department of Energy and private industry, NASA could play a key role in developing lightweight, but safe, nuclear reactors that would reduce our dependence on fossil fuels for energy production.

NASA has published its successfully commercialized technology since 1976.  However, Tang and Velcro remain – incorrectly, I might add – the “spinoffs” captured in the public psyche.  I think this is because we have not been successful as a community at designing our leading programs and missions to simultaneously contribute to solving America’s most pressing issues.  Once we do that, I don’t think there will be any question of NASA’s relevance.

Just as President Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark out into the frontiers of America to see what opportunities awaited us, NASA is the Congressionally-empowered civil agent of the government to explore our opportunities in “the High Frontier”, gather the knowledge and develop the technology we need to protect ourselves and our investments, and foster America’s best utilization of space resources.

Artist’s concept of an aerobraking Orbital Transfer Vehicle (NASA)

Cross-posted at A World With No Boundaries

The fundamental reason I think we should explore space at all is pretty straightforward, actually.  We are almost certain that we know what killed the dinosaurs.  Sixty-five million years ago, an object 10-15 kilometers in size impacted the Earth near the present-day town of Chicxulub on the Yucatan Peninsula.  For a sense of perspective, this asteroid or comet was almost as big around as the Inner Loop/610.

The Chicxulub collision was more powerful than one billion Hiroshima bombs and left a crater more than 100 miles in diameter, now mostly covered by the Gulf of Mexico.

Artist’s rendition of the Chicxulub impact (NASA)

While there are a variety of collolary theories regarding other environmental stresses that led up to or followed the impact, the scientific consensus to-date is that this was what triggered the mass extinction that ended the reign of the dinosaurs.  Sedimentation layers around the world that correspond to the time of the impact have much higher concentrations than normal of iridium, an element that is rare in the Earth’s crust and relatively abundant in asteroids and comets.

The impact itself would have generated dust clouds and sulfuric aerosols that blocked the Sun’s light and devastated plant life.  This triggered a catastrophic collapse in the food chain.  We have also found evidence for the tsunamis generated when the asteroid hit the water, such as marine sand in places where there were no seas, at the time.  The heat pulse from the impact and the re-entry of debris cast out into space would have also ignited firestorms across the planet, dumping pollutants into the atmosphere.

Even if there were multiple impacts that triggered other calamities, as some scientists suggest, the Cretatious-Tertiary extinction event stands as a lesson for us in the fundamental value of having both knowledge and understanding of the workings of our solar system.  As one science fiction author once astutely put it, the dinosaurs died because they didn’t have a space program.

A study of Earth’s geological record will show the evidence of past impacts, some perhaps even larger than that which killed the dinosaurs.  An asteroid or comet impact is believed by some scientists to have played a role in the immense Permian-Triassic extinction event 250 million years ago, though we are much less certain about its causes.

However, we do know that 96% of all marine species and 70% of land-based vertebrates were wiped out.  The Permian extinction is also the only known mass extinction of insect species.

In more recent times, we have actually observed dramatic collisions between asteroids and comets and other planets in our solar system.  Perhaps the most notable example is from July 1994, when Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 was seen striking Jupiter after having been broken up by the planet’s immense gravitational influence.

The actual impacts occurred on a side of Jupiter pointed away from Earth at the time.  The Galileo probe, though, was already en route to Jupiter for its planetary science mission and observed the collision as it happened.  The first impact created a fireball of nearly 43,000 degrees Fahrenheit and with a plume nearly 2000 miles high.  The Hubble Space Telescope even saw the fireball plume rise over the edge of Jupiter’s visible disc.

Hubble Space Telescope imagery of the fireball (NASA)

Twenty-one impacts were observed over six days.  The largest created a dark spot in Jupiter’s clouds approximately the diameter of the Earth and released energy equivalent to 600 times all of the nuclear weapons on the planet – combined.

Closer to home, the Tunguska event of 1908 is believed to be an airburst of an asteroid or comet fragment a few miles above the surface of the Earth.  The blast was likely equivalent to the most powerful thermonuclear weapons ever built – between 10 and 30 megatons of TNT – and destroyed over 800 square miles of Siberian forest.  Such an impact could easily devastate a metropolitan area.

Asteroids and comets, of which over 1000 are classified as “Potentially Hazardous Objects,” are not our only worry, though.  The Ordovician extinction, approximately 440 million years ago, is theorized by some scientists to have been caused by a gamma ray burst from a relatively nearby supernova.

In such an event, one study showed that a 10-second gamma ray beam could destroy half of the Earth’s ozone and expose life on the surface to intense prompt UV radiation.  Following the event, the Earth would be vulnerable to increased absorption of solar radiation, as well.  This could have catatrophic effects on the food chain, because of mass die-offs of plants and plankton, and lead to widespread disruption of the biosphere.

Artist’s rendition of a gamma-ray burst (NASA)

Put simply, there are things out there in space that can kill us and our only defense is to go out there, study and understand those threats, and develop strategies for mitigation.

Human beings tend to cluster in groups for mutual benefit and survival.  It is an evolutionary strategy that usually works well for us.  However, there are always a few who break out on their own to explore new areas and establish new groups.  Most do not succeed.  However, those that do ensure the continued survival of our species and introduce tremendous growth.

If fact, I would argue that the United States itself is a perfect example of that.  Our nation was founded by people who left the Old World behind to start anew and make something special for themselves.  That is how the original Thirteen Colonies were started.  That is how “the West was won.”  As a nation, we have been at our best when we are out on the frontiers.

Now, we live in a world with a globalized economy.  The leadership of the United States is in question.  History is starting to repeat itself.  Like many great nations before us, we are becoming fat and complacent, more concerned with entertainment than accomplishment.  However, we still have advantages in resources and ingenuity.

Artist’s rendition of an exploration mission to an asteroid (NASA)

I can think of no more fitting legacy for the United States than to lead the way in what Gerard K. O’Neill, physicist and space advocate, called “the High Frontier.”  The problems of space travel, asteroid and comet deflection, and the colonization of other worlds are immense.  We are, quite literally, just scratching at the surface.

The balance here on Earth is tenuous, though.  Every human being that has ever lived and died has done so here on this planet.  All of our proverbial eggs are in one basket.  There are many threats to that balance from within, such as global climate change, natural disasters, and our own propensity for violent political and economic struggle.  We cannot assume that our fortune at living in a time relatively conducive to human civilization will continue indefinitely.

Just as the United States escaped the majority of the devastation of World War II to become the world’s technological and economic powerhouse, I think it likely that our descendants on other worlds will one day be called to do the same by avoiding calamity here on Earth.

So, what role is there for the government in all of this?  That will be the subject of Part II.

Cross-posted at A World With No Boundaries.

He reiterated that NASA will build a Crew Return Vehicle for the ISS based on the Orion capsule, begin development of heavy-lift rockets, expand scientific and robotic research, and begin a series of programs intended to expand the state-of-the-art in space technology and on-orbit operations.

There was no mention of the much-rumored Shuttle extension.  Instead, President Obama announced that NASA Administrator Charles Bolden had been tasked to put together a workforce realignment program by August.

While the President’s speech did not have the Cold War urgency of Kennedy’s challenge to beat the Soviets to the Moon, it was a clear recognition that we cannot sustainably explore and develop the solar system for the benefit of humanity by doing the same things over and over again.

Interestingly, President Obama indicated that his ultimate goal is to build a virtually indefinite human presence in space with the United States at the lead.  He set milestones of heavy-lift rocket construction beginning in 2015, manned long-duration missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (perhaps to an asteroid) by 2025, and manned missions to Mars orbit in the 2030s.

I disagree with his “been there, done that” attitude about the Moon, as it was recognized as a viable exploration destination by the Augustine Commission and recent discoveries by orbiting probes indicate there is much more to it than we first imagined.  However, I don’t think we should let ‘perfect’ be the enemy of the ‘good’.  The focus on building capabilities and deciding destinations based on their merit means the door is not fully closed.

As was indicated in the center assignments released by NASA Headquarters, Johnson Space Center will be home to the ISS extension, a deputy program office for the Commercial Crew Development program, and the Flagship Technology Demonstrators Program.  Mission Control, the Astronaut Office, and training functions will also stay at JSC.

The International Space Station is an asset now and a valuable platform for testing exploration technologies on-orbit and sustained microgravity science research.  JSC’s participation in the Commercial Crew Development program will ensure that the highest safety and mission assurance standards are kept.

I am particularly interested in the Flagship Demonstrators, though.  This program will put JSC on the forefront of developing and testing, both on the ground and on-orbit, new operational technologies for space transportation.  There will be four projects in this new program.

The first three are already identified – automated docking & rendezvous, inflatable and/or lightweight structures, and in-orbit propellant storage & transfer.  The fourth project is likely to be closed-loop life support demonstration or advanced Entry/Descent/Landing systems.

All of these are enablers for building an in-space transportation system that cycles between destinations and will allow us to only launch what we need for a given mission.  The fact that JSC has been given the lead for this program is a testament to the institutional knowledge and engineering capabilities of the center.

Space policy consultant Angela Peura describes this as “Gemini on steroids,” in direct contrast to former NASA administrator Michael Griffin’s description of the Constellation Program as “Apollo on steroids.”

The simple reality here is that decisions were made six years ago that put us on this path.  Congress stood by and did nothing while the march to Shuttle retirement began.  Congress did not object when President Bush did not put in his own budget proposal the funding he had promised for the Constellation Program.

Once again, we found ourselves in a situation – just as in Shuttle – where attempts to short-change development costs in the near-term were leading to increased operational costs further down stream.  Ares I was going to cost 50% more than the Shuttle to operate to put half the crew and a fraction of the cargo in orbit.  Not only that, it wasn’t even likely to enter service before ISS decommissioning.

The Augustine Committee found that the Constellation Program would have, first, had a crew launcher with no destination, and, then, a heavy-lift launcher with no lunar lander to deploy.  Rather than punt this problem to another President to deal with, President Obama decided to expend the political capital and risk the popular backlash to face this problem now.

I don’t agree with all the decisions in the proposal – particularly, retaining Orion as a crew lifeboat for the ISS – and I think the rollout was awful, but I do think this strategy puts us on the right path forward.  NASA staff are working even now on developing this strategy into actionable plans and programs.  With the exception of the Orion lifeboat, the President was right to leave the technical decisions to those with the best knowledge to make them.

Most Houston-area politicians are, predictably, steadfast in their opposition to the President’s plan and continue to fight for the status quo.  While Rep. Olson and his allies may be hardening their stance, some Congresspersons representing other NASA centers have expressed their provisional support for the new plan and several leading aerospace contractors have dropped lobbying efforts for the Constellation Program.

Despite the accusations from some pundits that Texas is being retaliated against for being predominantly Republican, I think JSC has still gotten a fair deal in the new plan.

The President has set his policy, now it’s time for those of us in the trenches to figure out how to implement it.  There is opportunity in the midst of uncertainty and we shouldn’t squander this chance to transform the way we explore space.

Cross-posted at A World With No Boundaries

We have a Congress that, amongst the members who seem to care, largely doesn’t like this proposal, but is split amongst the various local concerns about what the best response to the budget is.  I have to admit that I share Rep. Dana Rohrabacher’s sense of irony at a Democratic White House arguing for increased privatization against Congressional Republicans advocating the continuation of a monolithic government program.

The space community itself is just as divided.  You can see it on the space blogs and in the press, where we argue amongst ourselves about extending Shuttle, building a more direct derivative of it, saving Constellation (or not), supporting commercial endeavors, and just about every iteration in between.

This goes beyond just a technical debate, though.  People are taking this personally.  I experienced it first-hand when I found myself leaving a young professionals group that I had eagerly helped launch last fall, largely because I felt that dissenting views were no longer welcomed or respected and messaging decisions were being made on the basis of their marketability, not their content.

Speaking as someone who grew up watching the Shuttle, once worked on Constellation, and who now works on the Space Station Program, I can see where most people are coming from.  Putting aside the typical politics that seem to be dominating the debate on Capitol Hill for a moment, I understand why people would feel trepidation at the vanguard of human space flight for the past 30 years coming to an end and discomfort at the uncertainty of what the future holds.  As an engineer myself, I know my first instinct is to prefer the comfort of being pointed in a certain direction and told to go forth.

Personally, though, I do think NASA needs to focus on core strengths – exploration beyond LEO, scientific discovery, and technological innovation.  The Space Act is clear that NASA is not to compete with private industry where such capability exists.  The Vision for Space Exploration and the 2004 Aldridge Commission both said that NASA should not replicate existing LEO launch capabilities.  It’s long past time we stop thinking everything will be alright if we can just pick up where Apollo left off.  The world has changed since then and so must we.

When I search inside myself, I find that my strongest loyalty is to the enterprise of space exploration itself, not necessarily any particular program.  As long as we are moving forward and I am making a meaningful contribution, I’ll be happy.  If that means I have to change my own personal notion of what the future holds, so be it.

So long as we support an endeavor that is subject to the vagaries of the political winds, we will not have any hard-and-fast guarantees. The reality of the matter is that this could all change again when the next President comes along. Our best insurance against having change imposed on us against our will is to pursue missions with clear, unambiguous benefit to the nation.  I think we can take a lesson in this from another part of the government.

Few question the value the military, as an institution, provides our country. No one lamented the “end of the Army,” though, when the immense, $340-billion Future Combat Systems program was canceled.  FCS, despite completing its Systems of Systems Functional Review, was over budget and failing to meet its original requirements.

Before its cancellation, critical funding elements were already strapped and advanced technology development had been deferred.  The Pentagon was recommending further deferral as early as 2005 because of budget strains elsewhere and expected funding declines.  Sound familiar?

The Army is now working to figure out how to manage their programs better, what from FCS is really of value, and how to roll that forward into building its next generation of ground combat vehicles.  Studies of program management have repeatedly shown that there is a declining trend in successful completion with increasing size, budget, and complexity.  Instead of one monolithic program, the Army is now separating their modernization effort into role-specific programs.

We must not make the mistake of conflating the vision with the implementation, nor can we let ourselves fall victim to the sunk costs fallacy.  We need to be honest with ourselves and our stakeholders – the American public – about where the space program is now, where it is going if we stay on the present path, and where we really want to take it.

I think the Vision for Space Exploration is still a good one and that the findings of both the Aldridge and Augustine reports validate it.  Instead of fighting amongst ourselves, we should have a conversation about how to best realize that Vision within the political and fiscal realities we must face.

The traditional disdain of engineers and scientists for dealing with politics has only hurt us over the past few decades.  We must bridge that gap if we expect policymakers to hear us, but we must also be careful to not lose our objectivity in the process of advocacy.  Otherwise, we will fall into the same trap that has recently discredited climate science in the public eye.

I believe with all of my heart that our civilization’s future is in space.  Our continued evolution and survival depends on our ability to explore the solar system, peel back its mysteries through scientific inquiry, and utilize its resources for the benefit of both our country and the rest of the world.  As far as I am concerned, that is our mission. Let’s not lose sight of it.

NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden has repeatedly reiterated that he believes there will continue to be a role for a professional NASA astronaut corps.  Deputy Administrator Lori Garver said at last week’s Commercial Space Transportation Conference that the “wonderful people working Constellation did not fail,” but that they were not given the resources they needed and that it did not make sense to continue developing a system that would not even be ready to arrive at the ISS until after its planned de-orbit.  There will still be a need for specially-trained scientists and engineers for on-orbit operations, probably even more so as the number of “spaceflight participants” increases.

With regards to the commercial launchers themselves, SpaceX has launched a paying customer on their Falcon 1 (after sorting out their initial test issues) and will begin testing Falcon 9 in the spring.  Their Dragon vehicle is on schedule to begin deliveries to the station next year. Orbital has launched a multitude of vehicles from Wallops and for the Air Force and has partnered with the Italians to base their cargo module off the MPLM, a proven flight technology.  I’ll also note that both companies have former astronauts, Ken Bowersox and Frank Culberston, respectively, as senior company officials responsible for safety and mission assurance.

Boeing is leading one of the CCDev proposals – in a partnership with Bigelow Aerospace – for a new crew vehicle capable of being launched on either a Delta IV, Atlas V, or Falcon 9 rocket.  One can hardly say that the prime contractor for the ISS and half-owner of both United Space Alliance and United Launch Alliance isn’t capable of sending crew to the Station.

Mark Geyer himself said at the Orion all-hands last week that there is nothing in the new proposal that precludes Lockheed or Boeing from being commercial crew providers. I also heard the commanding general of the US Air Force Space Command say last week that they already depend on commercial providers for small and medium launch vehicles and that he sees commercial space development as essential to national security.  To achieve their goal of Operationally Responsive Space access, they need higher flight rates and lower costs than can be accomplished with monolithic, centrally-planned programs.

Also, no one is proposing a wholesale privatization of NASA.  The commercial space industry fully expects NASA to take the lead on manned and unmanned solar system exploration beyond LEO.  They are committed to enabling that by providing as many services as they can to LEO – and safety is as much a priority for them as it is for the rest of us.  DARPA, Space Command, the National Space Security Office, and the FAA all expressed their support for these ventures last week.

We must also consider that the passback on the budget was only given to NASA two days before its release.  For whatever reason that happened, the agency simply hasn’t had time yet to turn the broad policy outlines in the budget proposal into actionable program plans.  If we trusted our NASA leadership to make Constellation work, despite the tens of billions of unallocated dollars it would need, then we should at least give them the time they need to get this initial planning done.

That way, we can make informed decisions  and conduct a fair debate.  I think those us that are professionals in this field have an obligation to be honest about whatever personal biases we may have, but to also render objective analysis to our stakeholders and provide benefit to our profession, as a whole.

Call me a utilitarian, if you will, but this is what it comes down to for me.  Our focus should be on doing the right things to move the space program forward, honestly and with integrity.  Even when it hurts in the interim.  If we don’t work together to make our profession more inclusive and innovative and to support American industry, we will fall behind.  Everyone I talked to at the AIAA/FAA conference last week said that their foreign counterparts aren’t afraid of NASA continuing to do business as usual.  It’s how far we’ll leap ahead, if we unleash American industry, that concerns them.

I have no doubt that our future is in space and I am more certain of that now than ever before.  I agree with Alan Stern; who said over telecon that this is the best chance we’ve seen yet to build something more like what we all dreamed of when we watched 2001: A Space Odyssey.  There is opportunity in uncertainty, if we are willing to embrace it.