This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Budget

Tough Choices Ahead for NASA

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 4, 2013
Filed under , , , ,

NASA Will Face Solomon’s Choice in 2014, Dennis Wingo
“If a budget in the range of $16.6 billion is what happens NASA will have a major problem maintaining both the International Space Station (ISS) and the SLS/Orion Exploration program. Given that the funds are simply not going to be available to keep the ISS alive and functioning and to fully construct and operate the SLS/Orion system, something has to give. Are we going to have to kill one to insure the other’s survival? That is the choice that that is presenting itself – a clear recipe for disaster as far as NASA’s human space flight plans are concerned.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

84 responses to “Tough Choices Ahead for NASA”

  1. Mark_Flagler says:
    0
    0

    Dennis raises some good points. One thing I’m sure of though. Congress as presently constituted will reach the wrong conclusion.

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      Given recent events, I think they won’t reach a conclusion at all. ‘Conclusions’ imply ‘decisions’. I think it is more likely that they will keep on kicking the can down the road and substituting rhetoric for money until the agency finally collapses.

  2. Spacetech says:
    0
    0

    The heydays of Apollo and Shuttle are gone and likely to never return. NASA has too many field centers and really should look to close a few. The agencies infastructure maintenance is a complete joke and running facilities and equipment until failure is the norm.

  3. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    I think it’s likely that they’ll both get funding, except it won’t be enough for either of them (the worst possible scenario). SLS will get delayed – again – until the 2020s, assuming a future Presidential Administration doesn’t cancel it despite the investment in hardware. The ISS will limp along until it’s literally do-or-die time on whether to fund an extension, at which point it will get enough money to limp along for a few more years while becoming more and more decrepit.

    It’s unfortunately the most politically convenient solution. That way, Congress doesn’t have to decide whether to decisively end the ISS, and they don’t have to deal with political ramifications for nixing SLS in the states where it’s being built.

    • Steven Rappolee says:
      0
      0

      You know, you have a keen eye on our american political process,
      So, what to do?
      what do you think of using a mix of commercial , office of chief technologist,and SLS CBC R & D funding to come up with something that at least in a small way leaks into Falcon XX or a Delta Derived super heavy or……………………….

    • Denniswingo says:
      0
      0

      There is a difference, but it is premature to talk about it right now.

      • TheBrett says:
        0
        0

        Interesting. I’m curious to see what that will be when you feel it’s the right time to talk about it.

  4. Rocky J says:
    0
    0

    Thank you Dennis for the research and analysis presented.

    With two years having passed since the final Shuttle launch, with the disruptive technology of the Falcon 9 and Heavy on the horizon, from the inside of NASA or outside, it is so clear now that NASA wasted 30 years on the Space Shuttle program. It should have maintained Saturn and upgraded its variants. We would have still had some form of space station; perhaps based on Skylab as a building block, arguably at 1/10th the cost of ISS. And over a 30 year period with Saturn capability, even with all of the inefficiencies of NASA, we would have had a Moon base or sent humans to the surface of Mars plus all the great robotic missions.

    NASA use of Federal funds is a disaster for two reasons – external and internal management – how politics has played with NASA objectives and funding levels and the piss poor management of NASA projects. External management – politics driven, works programs for congressional districts, has wasted 10s & 100s of Billions and poor management inside has accumulatively done the same. Constellation ($10B probably lost non-transferable to SLS/MPCV), SLS/MPCV – to be delayed and overrun, MSL – a $1 Billion over budget and only saved by the bell by JWST which made it pale in comparison. JWST is $7 Billion over budget. Unfortunately, small projects fair as poorly but running $100M here and there over budget falls under the radar for many, but it adds up to a lot. And in retrospect Shuttle and ISS stands at $100s of Billions spent over 30 years and represents funds that would have made artists illustrations of Moon bases and/or Mars missions a reality.

    So as Dennis has tackled in this article, what do we do now? Obviously, we don’t tear it all down and start over. With a $16.6B budget we face a shortfall. ISS is likely to remain and be maintained primarily because of the international connections. As much as it pains me to say it, space advocates, supporters of NASA, could wage an effort to terminate SLS. I think it is reasonable to finish development of MPCV (Orion) even if for only a 10 year life space (the 2020s). It can be argued that NASA needs a custom crew vehicle during that time period. But SLS following Constellation has now taken too long. Commercial ventures, primarily SpaceX, is making SLS not reasonable to finish. It means we waste all the funds spent on Ares and now SLS. However, we save in both the short and long term – freeing up funds for other developments (Ion Prop, long duration mission habitats, Robotics to build Moon/Mars bases) and maintaining ISS, finding and surveying Near-Earth Asteroids – the kick starter for the industry that will propel Humans throughout the Solar System. With $16.6B, NASA might well trim other programs. Charlie B. has stated in All-Hands that there will be cherry picking. It is possible that SLS and ISS can be fully funded by taking from other programs but for the reasons already stated, IMO, SLS should be abandoned. I would call for space advocate groups and individuals to take this stand now. I am sorry that this should be done. Without enough loud and forceful voices though, Congress and NASA will not make the right decisions.

    • Tombomb123 says:
      0
      0

      “I think it is reasonable to finish development of MPCV (Orion)” wouldn’t it be more cost effective to upgrade cst-100 or crew dragon for deep space missions?

      • Rocky J says:
        0
        0

        CST-100, Orion, Crew Dragon are really intended for short duration missions – LEO up to the Moon, and for re-entry purposes. Anyone going to Mars or chasing down an asteroid (not one placed in Earth orbit) will need a habitat. But yeah, it could be cheaper but these manned capsules incorporate many design requirements. Lockheed-Martin’s design met those requirements. It is not a simple thing to take one design and modify it to meet the Orion requirements. I think NASA needs that much autonomy (Orion) from commercial efforts. The Dragon will be find for shuttling astronauts to ISS but otherwise Orion should provide exactly what NASA wants for their objectives {whatever they might be 😉 ouch! }.

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          I don’t understand how a capsule is even a spaceship???? Why doesn’t NASA just work with Bigelow and others to build a real spaceship and use dragon as a life boat. Doesn’t a spaceship need to spin for gravity?? a capsule is a spaceship???? Seems like a bad joke to me???

          ADD
          I recall Zubrin being very upset that Orion was to big.
          Why is NASA building a capsule and calling it a space exploration vehicle anyway I thought spaceships stay in space.

          Rocky Shouldn’t the Orion team be freed to design a spaceship with all their talent??

          You said keep orion. Throw that dam can away and keep the orion team to build something!!!

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Why don’t we us ISS to assemble a spaceship out of modules. Couldn’t you stuff these modules with supplies for ISS Don’t we now have a cool little craft at ISS now, that could have been designed to be a part of a spaceship???

            Spacex is using ISS cargo missions to test better launchers. Why doesn’t NASA use these cargo launches to assemble a spaceship instead of burning up trash in human rated vehicles???

            Add
            I only meant that we use ISS as a construction platform as it was originally planned to be. For assembly of spaceship parts or as a garage for satellite repair and repurposing. We have people up in space now that could be building something or repairing stuff where is the space shuttle that flies from ISS to geo to get junk to take back to the kiss repair shop so you don’t has to relaunch it.

          • Rocky J says:
            0
            0

            Modifying ISS to be a habitat to travel to Mars would be about as practical as that old man floating his whole house with balloons – animation movie “Up”. Well, Skylab was a modified upper stage of a Saturn V so yes, NASA knows about re-purposing some things and could in the future or could adapt Bigelow modules for long duration flights.

          • Denniswingo says:
            0
            0

            The ISS modules were specifically designed to be multipurpose. There are many many graphics from the SEI era of ISS modules being used in space and on the Moon and Mars.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            I remember when we dreamed of settling space before the dangerous design of shuttle exploded and we became scared and paranoid.

          • gbaikie says:
            0
            0

            “Modifying ISS to be a habitat to travel to Mars would be about as
            practical as that old man floating his whole house with balloons –
            animation movie “Up”.”

            Problem I see using ISS as habitat to travel to Mars, is you send crew to Mars in 3 months or less, due microgravity, and radiation, and crew health [including mental] in general.

            But ISS could a station in high earth orbit- ie, at L-point. And or ISS could be space station at Mars orbit.

            You don’t need crew or don’t need full crew to travel with ISS during the trip to these location [thru Van Allen belts, and long trip time to Mars.

            Another option could use ISS as Mars cycler.

            But part would have ISS leave LEO.

            Depending on how manage in the future after this, could decide at that point in the future- it could be ISS becomes a museum in high earth orbit. And/or put ISS is *like* grabbing a 700 ton rock and bring it to lunar orbit- provides opprotunity.

            And main thing we not destroying an international “enterprise”, we improving or transforming this international “enterprise”.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Cell only let’s me edit so many lines lolol kiss is ISS, has is have

          • Rocky J says:
            0
            0

            Apollo and Soyuz are spaceships. Just different classifications and purposes. I read a cool article describing the Soyuz design and it is actually a larger living space than Apollo was. Looks smaller, the return capsule is but when in space connected to its additional module, it was actually a more comfortable habitat for a trip to the Moon than was the Apollo system.

          • Denniswingo says:
            0
            0

            It depends on your definition of spaceship. The Apollo CSM (Command/Service Module) was a spaceship, though a short duration one. The CSM spaceship had to carry a lot of unneeded mass used only to carry the crew back down through the atmosphere. A true spaceship would carry none of that hardware and would be designed to be used for more than on off missions.

            A continuously reusable spaceship would dramatically lower the cost of deep space exploration.

          • Mark_Flagler says:
            0
            0

            Dennis is absolutely right, and stating something that he and many others have felt to be obvious for a generation. We can all recall seeing “spaceship” configurations mooted which would have carried Orion-like re-entry capsules all the way to its destination and back–and in great measure, the capsule would have been unnecessary mass.
            A true *space* ship would not use direct reentry, but remain in space; upon return it would decelerate and rendezvous with one or more re-entry vehicles in orbit. The ship itself would be refurbished, resupplied and reused.
            For now, only Mars missions would require a vehicle capable of atmospheric entry, and given the density of the Martian atmosphere, and the prospect of aerobraking, capsules like Orion would probably be massy overkill.
            I think most designers would gladly trade that extra mass for increased livability and capability.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Apollo and Soyuz are not spaceships they are space boats or dingies that take you to land!

            We have never built a spaceship!!

          • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
            0
            0

            With the possible exception of the LEM.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            The LM was still a surface shuttle. A boat, not a ship. The full LM/CM/SM stack was the closest thing to a “ship” so far, but one made from boats stuck together (like a catamaran made from two dinghies and a water barrel) rather than a true ship.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            And look at how well a modular system like that worked in an emergency. A good lesson on how to approach the design of a large space ship I would think??

    • savuporo says:
      0
      0

      “with the disruptive technology of the Falcon 9 and Heavy on the horizon,”

      I believe Elon will be the first to tell you that nothing that SpaceX has built is disruptive technology – its the same old rocketry that has been around for ages.

      Their organization, incentives, and business are quite disruptive if compared to other aerospace dinosaurs, however.

      • Rocky J says:
        0
        0

        I agree except for re-usability intended for Falcon 9 cores. That technology and the manufacturing techniques to lower cost is altogether disruptive. Also, it is going to take some years for the rest of the industry to match SpaceX’s price per lb to LEO/GEO. We’re looking at a long list of legacy systems that were never designed for reuse. Atlas, Delta, Proton, Ariane – all will have to be re-invented, maybe totally new designs replacing the existing launch vehicles in order to be competitive with SpaceX. Why does SpaceX have a backlog? Because the technology is proving itself and the price is incredibly right – low. Only reason others will continue to launch is because SpaceX cannot produce enough to meet all the demand.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Rocky

      Disruptive technology

      Catchy 🙂

      isn’t that just old fashion REAL rocket science disrupting the good old boy network ???

      • Rocky J says:
        0
        0

        Yes you can say that but the term is common and is described well enough in Wikipedia – aka Disruptive Innovation.

  5. Steven Rappolee says:
    0
    0

    But the congress wont agree to kill the giant rocket so we should punt,

    delay parts of the center core and bring foreword funding for the CBC’s, here there might be commonality, How?

    Do SLS CBC R&D under a partially funded space act agreement with out FAR,

    Do encourage a Fly off between CBC’s

    Do encourage the CBC as a commercial stand alone product

    Do encourage Air force participation on any stand alone launcher

    Do look into three stand alone CBC;s as a launcher in its own right, these vehicles would look like proposed SpaceX Falcon XX,Super heavy Delta and Atlas proposals.

    The new F1 and the J2x that Mr Wingo speaks of, ULA suggests that this does not make since for an EELV, it may not make since for a human crewed vehicle, The new F1 as an air force common engine? ummmm well I do not know, to replace an Russian engine perhaps.

    I advocated in the past air force funding participation in common EELV NASA platforms

    An atlas or spacex based SLS CBC could not crossfeed of course but a Delta CBC could, what would be the trades?

    lastly, some thoughtful research by NASA on liquid hydrogen densified with Methane ice has me thinking about boil off,launch vehicle mass and ISP issues any contractor for a SLS CBC should consider looking at this as I think you could cross feed densified LH2 with a non densified core stage or all three stages are densified with methane ice.

    fuel depots or better yet fuel transfer stage could benefit from densified LH2 with methane ice

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      Do SLS CBC R&D under a partially funded space act agreement with out FAR,

      Congress has barred NASA from using SAA’s for major contracts without Congressional approval.

      • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
        0
        0

        There are several types of FAR contracts. NASA may need to add one that has rules similar to the SAA.

        • Mark_Flagler says:
          0
          0

          Be nice if they can.

          • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
            0
            0

            NASA can suggest it as a cost saving measure for the next 10 years. It may even be able to write a report containing a comparison of the method against one of the FARs.

          • Steven Rappolee says:
            0
            0

            thanks for the input about FAR Dennis, Andrew Mark and Paul,
            what is opinion on innovation possibility with a SLS CBC
            I am assumming the SLS disappears mid next decade, but at that point the solids SRB’s are still in use so my idea maybe does not make since unless you are using a space act agreement, and the government promises to use the CBC as a stand alone rocket

          • Denniswingo says:
            0
            0

            NASA and DARPA have it in their charters to use “Other transaction authority” specifically even in the 1950’s congress and the president (ones with brains) knew that the FARS were a killer.

          • Mark_Flagler says:
            0
            0

            NASA has, in effect, already done such a study, comparing two more or less typical procurement models for an EELV-class vehicle with the SAA-like development of the Falcon 9. The comparisons are not exact, but the differences in cost are so large that they really don’t need to be.
            Using NAFCOM, software which NASA and the Pentagon use to estimate probable cost of a contract, NASA computed costs for each procurement, the end product of each being identical. Here we quote from the study:
            “The activity estimated Falcon 9 would cost $3.977B based on NASA environment/culture. NAFCOM predicted $1.695B when all technical inputs were readjusted to a more commercial development approach.”
            Under the firm, fixed-price model characteristic of the SAA, and reflective of SpaceX business model, the actual cost to develop the first version of the Falcon 9 was shown to be $443 million. Quite a difference.
            You can read this report for yourself. It’s available on NASA servers under the title “Falcon 9 Launch Vehicle NAFCOM Cost Estimates,” August 2011.
            While the report answers some questions, it raises many others about the relative efficiency of FARs and SAAs, and NASA procurement in general.

          • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
            0
            0

            A good start. Now a version for Congress is needed.

          • Denniswingo says:
            0
            0

            While this is good reconfirmation, it has long been known that the FARS are not good for the acquisition of anything requiring developmental resources. This is why in NASA and DARPA’s charter that they have the escape hatch of the “other transactional authority” that is implemented by NASA as a Space Act Agreement.

            I have looked at bidding on heavily CLIN-ed, contracts. Way back in the 1990’s AFRL had a bid out for a contract called Mightysat. This was a small research satellite. There were 200,000 CLIN’s (contract line item numbers) that delved as deeply as to define how many hours a technician would spend on any particular task in the development of the satellite. We estimated that just to fill in the CLINS to be compliant with the contract bid that it would cost about $1 per CLIN, just for that portion of the proposal. It was insane!

          • Mark_Flagler says:
            0
            0

            Yeah, but Congress loves FARs, as evidenced by the run up to funding almost every stage of the ‘commercial’ space initiative. Congress loves ‘oversight,’ even though it is a monstrous waste of money.
            One would think when someone comes up with the idea for SAA, which accomplishs a goal at a fraction of what it would cost otherwise, they would go for it.
            But no. So much for fiscal responsibility.

      • Denniswingo says:
        0
        0

        It was proposed. It did not pass.

      • Mark_Flagler says:
        0
        0

        Which is really amazing considering how much more FAR contracts cost than SAAs. “Fiscal responsibility?”

      • Denniswingo says:
        0
        0

        No, they have not. That did not make it into the bill last year. It was proposed though. By a congress critter that was getting tons of money from the incumbents.

  6. LPHartswick says:
    0
    0

    You guys are right…if we dumped ISS in the drink what ever would happen to Mr. Musk’s “business plan”? Sorry, sorry, don’t attack ! I’m being churlish, I apologize. But, I suppose its outrageous to say that we should all get together and tell those self important servants of the people to put the country’s long term interests ahead of politics and fund NASA at a more appropriate level; say somewhere north of 22 billion? We spend money like drunken sailors on everything else. Nah, where’s the fun in that. Lets just sit here and take pot shots at each other, while we fight over the last piece of cheese on a diminishing plate. How sad.

    Mr. Wingo your article was a well reasoned piece of advocacy, but I have one question. If we do cancel SLS with or without Orion; do you really think this administration will take some of the extra money out to Jackass Flats and fire up real R&D on Nuclear Thermal Propulsion? Really? What’s to stop them from making the cheese even smaller? Their love of space exploration?

    • Denniswingo says:
      0
      0

      No, I do not think that the NTR would be funded. It does not have to be and I think it would be counter productive at this time as it would take a billion a year to make any real progress. There are other things that could provide far more leverage at this time than NTR, though I am a great fan of that technology.

      In all of our considerations, what must be paramount is the most bang for the buck in order to build public support and confidence in our space exploration efforts. This is why in other articles all over the place I advocate the industrial development of the Moon. With recent advances in 3D printing and other technologies, this is very doable within the amount of money that NASA gets.

      The problem is that if they keep both of them going with no progress then quite justifiably congress will probably take their money away.

      • LPHartswick says:
        0
        0

        I’m a big fan of return to the Moon also; as well as the goal of in situ resource utilization and industrial development. I just believe you need an HLV to accomplish all of that. There is going to be a significant threshold of hardware & mass that will have to be uplifted to the lunar surface to get the ball rolling. Any long-term habitation or utilization of the Moon is going to require a lot of regolith to be moved to accomplish that; and you won’t get that done with a wheelbarrow and a shovel. 3D printing shows great promise, but its hardly a panacea, because you’ll still need a technology base and all manner of spares.

        • Denniswingo says:
          0
          0

          I just believe you need an HLV to accomplish all of that.

          Please list the payloads that you think must be sent to the lunar surface in order to enable its use.

          • Mark_Flagler says:
            0
            0

            I have to disagree with Mr. Hartswick. While the idea of sending massive payloads to the moon is common, it is not the most sensible or cost effective way to go about lunar development.
            Small payloads designed for specific purposes–testing ISRU, 3-D printing structures or parts of structures, monitoring, prospecting, exploration, etc.–need weigh no more than our present ability to send mass there. One simply substitutes many small masses (say a maximum of 2000-2500 Kg) for one or two much larger masses.
            This has the added advantage of not putting all the eggs in one basket; if one or two of these missions were to fail, the situation would be recoverable. OTOH, the loss of an all-up lunar base, or half of one, would probably put an end to the project.
            Finally, we could begin this very soon, and inexpensively as such projects go.
            At this point, I see no need for the SLS, or its massive payloads, nor do I foresee the budget needed to build them.

  7. BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
    0
    0

    I think that Congress will continue to kick the can down the road. Let’s face it, not many people are interested in space.
    I predict that minimal funding will continue for all programs and when the FH and DragonCrew flies, that will pretty much end the debate. ISS continues to fly beyond 2020 due to international pressure, SLS goes the way of Cx and perhaps, just maybe MPCV flies but there will still be a lot of wasted dollars spent in the meantime.
    Btw, Bigelow is still waiting in the wings for commercial crew. Hopefully they’ll hang in there and, you may laugh but SpaceX has a messiah in Elon Musk who wants to go to Mars and before he gets to old. He was laughed at before, not many of those left now particularly after his latest launch. So far as launch vehicles go, SpaceX are moving into a field of one and they’re gaining experience and knowledge in space vehicle design, construction and operations with every mission. They have a lot coming up. Just saying.
    Cheers

  8. Synthguy says:
    0
    0

    My worry is that they will try to save both – but at reduced funding levels, so SLS Orion is delayed further into the future, and thus more vulnerable to cancellation, taking with it, any real prospect of BEO manned missions, and ISS funding will be cut further making it likely that there will be a reduced US presence on the station through to when it is de-orbited around 2028. Maybe the Russians will offer the Chinese access? In any case, it could mean that the US ends up with neither a viable ISS programme, or a manned spaceflight programme for beyond Earth orbit. What happens then with commercial space access is anyone’s guess, but the bottom line is that the US will decisively lose what’s left of its space-leadership. The US taxpayer can sit back and watch the Chinese and the Russians take over that role.

  9. Denniswingo says:
    0
    0

    Here are some great pictures from an Italian website regarding the Von Braun Bonestell images.

    http://www.fabiofeminofanta

    Note that as late as the Army Ballistic Missile Agency classified Horizon report of 1958, this was Von Braun’s favored architecture.

    Why is this so impossible if Von Braun had it as his baseline? I submit that this judgement was not so much engineer as it was desire to build a heavy lifter. This notion that in space assembly is too expensive and hard is the enemy of progress in space systems development.

    • Mark_Flagler says:
      0
      0

      I concur. Of course, Von Braun didn’t have access to the robotic and computer technologies we now take for granted. It’s much easier now to visualize automated (or teleoperated) assembly of large vehicles in orbit. It’s possible to imagine designs where very little human intervention would be required.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        I think we have to allow for “automated (or teleoperated) assembly of large vehicles in orbit” taking considerably longer, and more money, to design, build and test than old-fashioned hand slugging, at least in the early years. I believe it should be done, but the ROI will be quite a while down the road, which is one of the toughest problems facing space programs.

        • Mark_Flagler says:
          0
          0

          If that’s the case, send humans. Bet that would cost more, though.
          If vehicles can dock automatically, like the ATV with the ISS, ship modules can be designed to mate automatically using technology we already have. The mating could be tested on the ground, minimizing problems.
          Once your Lego spaceship is mostly assembled, send humans to do the finish work and QA.
          In any realistic scenario, there would be a mix of automation and human operations.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            I agree there would, or at least should, be a mix. What I’m thinking about is the tendency of both NASA and the Russians to rehearse everything X number of times on the ground, and then sometimes again in space before doing the actual task. This makes sense in certain cases and did through the early years, but the habit seems to be thoroughly ingrained now, for better or for worse.

            To do this with complex automation, with or without humans, will take forever to accomplish anything. The alternative is to highly develop robotics / automation in general, as opposed to tailored to specific tasks, before beginning the designs for space systems, which again will take lots of time.

            I’m very much in favor of doing it your way, but I think a major paradigm shift is needed first to make it happen at a practical rate.

    • mfwright says:
      0
      0

      Regarding what was portrayed in those early proposals (i.e. presented in Colliers magazine in 1950s), it has fully reusable space shuttle but the wings were huge. This is a lot of mass, a lot of surface area that needs TPS even though this was few years before X15, it seems to me that people like von Braun and Willy Ley would know not to have a winged space vehicle of this shape. Or maybe not reveal then classified configuration i.e. early illustrations of F22 with canards, or Da Vinci’s tank drawing with gearbox shown that if built exactly as shown would not work?

  10. gbaikie says:
    0
    0

    “Have any of you thought about what the ramifications of global
    television coverage showing the fiery death of the ISS will do to the
    public’s desire to fund another hundred billion dollars for space
    exploration after watching a hundred billion dollars worth of their
    money burning up in the atmosphere?”

    Could be the worse PR disaster in history.

    One can say that NASA has broad general public support.
    Such an event, could very well mark to end of that support.

    You all know the media.
    NASA would giving anyone who wants it, a nice big club to beat NASA senseless.

    It’s not as if NASA was ever any good at PR.

  11. wouarnud says:
    0
    0

    Good article, but very, very, depressingly, it is hard not to side with the comments saying that what’s more likely to happen is the worst case solution… I’ve learnt the hard way that cynics are never disappointed.

    Only possible political way out is if, when defining your ISS-based exploration scenario, you were able to outline a district return scenario, i.e. a pork-barrel sharing of the pie, so that one main constraints of the legislators would be addressed. Could you get ATK to develop the in-orbit refuelling tech for instance?

    Another question Dennis: You outline in your fantasy alternate future that if the US had kept the level of Apollo funding we would be living in some kind of utopia. I agree with the energy side (and it’s a pretty big one), but unemployment, education? ? Do you have references to studies about that, or is that your wishful thinking? (Your preface makes me think about the famous “Ministry of Space” comics by Warren Ellis of Marvel fame.)

    w (not THAT one)

    • Denniswingo says:
      0
      0

      I have the congressional record of what was going on at the time (the FY-1966 authorization testimony). The clustered nuclear stage was just one small part of what was happening. Did you know that the VAB from the beginning of its design was set up for the nuclear stage? Did you know that all of the testing was complete for the NERVA Saturn V third stage? Did you know that the FLIGHT NERVA stage had been built by 1967 and was scheduled for flight on Apollo 20? Did you know that this stage (the numbers are in the first graphic in the article) more than doubled the weight delivered to the Moon?

      I am no positing a utopia, just pointing out that we would live in a vastly different world had we not reallocated resources to what we now know are failed programs that did little more than buy votes.

      • wouarnud says:
        0
        0

        Hi Dennis,

        Thanks for that. Is that available from a govt website (once or if the shutdown is lifted), that would be interesting to me. As it happens, I did know most of the NERVA story. It’s relatively known in the field, and it’s also the basis for one of S. Baxter’s best works, “Voyage” about an alternate reality mission to Mars*.

        Don’t get me wrong, I am most certainly not disputing things would be infinitely better if we had had the Apollo funding levels sustained, in particular for the space community of course but in general for the American and global community. We fully agree here (how could we not on this site?).

        I am simply querying whether you know of anybody who has done a social sciences analysis of the impact of a large and sustained programme of space exploration.

        Without that, we have to be careful what we claim. To claim that we could have had solar power satellites online with 4% of US govt budget over 30 years is quite reasonable. To claim that this would have magically reduced unemployment and improved US society is another matter. By doing this kind of hyperbole we are acting like the ones of whom actions we disapprove, i.e. the bunch of nutters on Capitol Hill who play games with the future of the (yours, not mine) nation.

        Please don’t take this the wrong way, I think your article is quite good and in general I agree with your publications. Thanks for all that. In particular I am admiring your persistence to try again and again in the current environment.

        Further, I recently read the seminal “… The heavens and the Earth” book by Mc Dougall. One (of many many) interesting facts in that book is how the architects of Apollo (Webb and Kennedy but others too) saw it as a vehicle for transforming society, a sort of meta-program in terms of solving social problems, essentially by applying the new science of systems thinking to social sciences. So philosophically I guess you agree with that.
        Of course, even at the time there were dissenting voices, with the famous quote of “if you want the byproduct, develop the byproduct”. But it’s an interesting view, specifically considering that very few people in power publicly think on that scale any more, in my view.

        Anyway, sorry that was slightly off-topic. It’s interesting though that in one of your quoted articles Gerst & co actually recognise they can’t, right now, demonstrate the purely scientific value of the ISS. You’d think they’d then push very hard for its justification as an outpost and a base Von-Braun style for other things.

        W.

        • Denniswingo says:
          0
          0

          …So philosophically I guess you agree with that…..

          Actually,no. I love MacDougall’s book and he is right about what the agenda of the technocrats was but there is a vast gulf between what the people who worked on Apollo thought, all the way to von braun, and what the politicians thought.

          The rallying cry was “if we can put a man on the Moon surely we can do, X, Y, or Z”. It is the X, Y, and Z that is bankrupting our nation today as you cannot take the purely technical systems engineering development process and apply it to social systems. This is the key error of the 1960’s who’s true result is the fight we see playing out on the national stage before our eyes.

          Abraham Lincoln called what I am talking about “internal improvements”. There is a key statement to this effect in the preamble to the constitution.

          We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare,

          All the state can truly do is what the founders said above, which is to PROMOTE the general welfare. To Lincoln that was the national railroad. At the time only the state had the financial strength to fund the construction of that railroad. It did not do it by founding the National Railroad and Roadbed Administration and hire government employees to design the locomotives, the rails, and everything else. What it did do in the Pacific railway act of 1862 is to provide certain minimum standards for the construction of the railroad, payments for each mile constructed, and the ability to sell bonds to raise funds to build the next mile. What was said to be impossible was done in six years.

          The steamship was invented by Fulton only because he was able to get funding by having a bill from the New York state assembly passed that gave him a five year monopoly on steamship travel on the Hudson between Albany and New York city.

          What NASA is currently doing with the SLS is the diametric opposite of these proof principles. What the government is trying to do in many areas of our national iife is completely out of the character of the American spirit. The word in the preamble is PROMOTE the general welfare not PROVIDE it. Lest you think that was a mistake in wording, the next phrase is PROVIDE for the national defense, which is a proper role for the state and the reason that for well over 150 years almost all military weapons production was done by the Army at the Army arsenals.

          If we really wanted to ignite private space, just offer a $20 billion dollar prize to the first company to put five people on the Moon and keep them alive for a year and of course return them to the Earth.

          Today’s missive is on taking what is a completely fubar situation and making a slightly wiser decision than the worst possible one.

      • tutiger87 says:
        0
        0

        I wouldn’t exactly call Shuttle a failed program…

        • Mader Levap says:
          0
          0

          Yes, it failed. I am not speaking even about 14 killed astronauts. Shuttle did not delivered on promise of low-cost, quick-turnaround (two weeks, imagine that) vehicle ensuring cheap and safe access to space.

          • Denniswingo says:
            0
            0

            That went out the window in 1972 when the TAOS design was chosen. That was Nixon and Cap Weinburgers choice. They wanted to save a couple of billion dollars in development costs and they were told by Klaus Heiss and others that this would drive the operational costs up but the OMB simply did not give a damn.

            Also, the Shuttle’s capability as an orbital assembly point and its large volume cargo bay was never properly exploited because they did not provide the funding to do so.

          • Littrow says:
            0
            0

            “Shuttle failed…when the TAOS design was chosen..”

            I disagree with you on this Dennis.The money and time in Shuttle maintenance and operation was in the Orbiter and not the SRBs.

            Now think about an SSME powered fly-back booster four or five times the size of an Orbiter with three times as many engines. The price for maintenance and refurbishment would not have been less. And can you imagine how difficult it would have been to fly such a vehicle regularly given the engine problems experiences throughout the program?

            I do think that the Shuttle, as designed, could have been operated and maintained far less expensively. It was in neither the program’s nor the contractor’s interest because they felt they could suck as many dollars as possible from the US taxpayer without reduction in size of the program or cost plus dollars earned.and so it never got less expensive.

          • Denniswingo says:
            0
            0

            The TAOS design (the entire design) was well known a the time (read Klauss Heiss’s work on this as he was there) to have the highest operational cost. Throwing away the ET, the semi refurbishable SRB’s, as well as orbiter processing all figured into the costs.

            Read the history of the program and what Von Braun and co really wanted to do for a less costly operational system that would have cost 50% more for DDT&E. Nixon and Weinburger simply did not want to spend the money on it.

            As far as operation and maintenance, I also have to lay that at the feet of congress. I personally saw several improvements that were being done at the low level for the orbiter that were killed by congress as they did not want to spend even that small amount of money on it. Things like getting rid of the APU’s for a fully electromechanical control system run by the fuel cells. Getting rid of the hypergolic OMS and the attitude thrusters. More advanced tiles…

            All of these were at various stages of development and would have cut orbiter processing times. The airframes were in great shape and by doing these upgrades turn around times would have been cut by well over 75% but were never implemented. There was a report that came out the month that Columbia was lost that had a lot of really good recommendations about keeping the orbiters going till 2020 while cutting costs.

          • Mark_Flagler says:
            0
            0

            Dennis, if you have a link to that report, I’d like to read it. I’m sure it will irritate me, but I’m already angry…
            Anyway, in reading Dennis R Jenkins’ “Space Shuttle,” (link below) an exceptionally good history of the development and use of the STS, I was shocked at how often Congress rejected cost-saving and potentially life-saving designs and modifications to the eventual design.
            Not only were strikingly original, and probably more practical, designs rejected up front, but the eventual design became a horse designed by a committee as NASA was forced to reject the good for the mediocre time after time by an administration and Congresses that didn’t want to spend money up front that would have made for a less costly, safer, more usable shuttle throughout its lifetime. So we got a shuttle that was less costly to develop, but which had a murderous life-cycle cost. In every sense of the word.
            If you read the book and assemble a mental chronology of all the times a bureaucracy or group of politicians rejected good advice and common sense in favor of a short-term saving, it’s appalling.
            In parallel with this, most of the shuttle’s weaknesses were known from the beginning, or soon afterward, and proposals to improve safety and reliability, and to help control costs, were made repeatedly. But again and again, regardless of party or administration, Congress shot them down.
            One could make a good case that, because of the upgrades and safety improvements they failed to fund, the lives of the Challenger and Columbia astronauts, and the huge cost of the entire program all lie at the feet of Congress. IMHO, left alone, NASA would have built a safer, more cost effective STS.
            http://www.amazon.com/Space

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            Several designs were proposed that might have reduced operating cost. For example, had the orbiter been smaller the flyback booster could also have been smaller. Had the Orbiter been stacked on top of the booster rather than on its side, foam would not have damaged the tiles. But having climbed and crawled everywhere I could in the VAB and on the pad, and occasionally in the orbiter and on the SRB ships, I would say that the real reasons why the Shuttle was so much more expensive to operate than predicted are largely unknown because they were never studied or compiled in any comprehensive fashion. Almost all the USA engineers and techs had ideas that could have made a next-generation shuttle safer and less expensive to operate, but no one asked them. Many ideas were proposed anyway and by the end of the program Orbiter maintenance was a much smaller part of mission cost than SRB and ET fabrication.

          • Denniswingo says:
            0
            0

            Yep, but there was no internet around in those days.

          • Mark_Flagler says:
            0
            0

            The title will be enough. I’ll track it down if it’s available.

    • Michael Reynolds says:
      0
      0

      As to your question about the ‘fantasy alternative universe’, although directed at Dennis, here is my take:

      The idea of opening up the resources of outer space (currently just the solar system) and its effect on unemployment, education, social ills, so on and so forth are all directly attributed (not completely but to the largest degree) to our state of economy. With that in mind, opening a near infinite supply of resources in space allows us to solve THE economic problem of all time; human wants and needs are all directly tied and limited by the scarcity of resources available to us.

      The question whether the solar systems resources would have been opened to us much sooner if we stuck with the Saturn V (eventual upgrades applied) and the same funding from that era vice the space shuttle is debatable. But ultimately it would have given a better chance of this than less funding and LEO limited vehicle like the shuttle.

      Moving from what could have been to what can still be a ‘utopia’ of sorts requires two other capabilities besides just access to near-infinite resources; nano robotics and 3D printing. Theoretically with these three capabilities combined humans would be free to do what they wanted, (within societies norms of course), free of hard labor, free of hunger, and ultimately knowing day in and day out that all their needs and wants are full-filled…

      …On the other hand, there is the other suggested outcomes of such a society that both Frank Herbert with his Dune series pointed out and in Von Neumann’s self replication theory giving weight to the idea of nano-bots turning everything into gray goo.

  12. Andrew_M_Swallow says:
    0
    0

    What sort of spacestation do we need to assemble spaceships in space?
    Anything more than a habitation module including lifesupport, a couple of arms, docking/berthing port and station keeping?

    If Bigelow modules were used how many man hours and quantity of supplies are needed to run the spacestation?
    If ISS type modules were used how many man hours and quantity of supplies are needed to run the spacestation?

    • Denniswingo says:
      0
      0

      The one we have will do just fine.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      The “Space Operations Center” as it was called in the late 70’s, had pressurized and unpressurized “hangar” modules for assembly and servicing of satellites and probes, and propulsion stages. The unpressurized hangar was just a thin foil enclosure to protect a spacecraft from micrometeorites and contamination from ISS thrusters and effluents. Recently there was an ingenious proposal to assemble medium-sized ISS-mounted or free-flyer telescopes on the ISS that could have benefited from just such a facility.

      • Denniswingo says:
        0
        0

        These facilities are nice but not required.

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          If one is to do satellite repair isn’t some type of garage needed to make this work safe and affordable? I have heard comments here about how dangerous space walking is and that is part of the logic of heavy lift over in space assembly/ISS. Because of such comments I thought about better safer spacesuits/ships like my avatar.
          I am very much for learning to make space construction cost effective.

      • Mark_Flagler says:
        0
        0

        The basic technology to create “thin-foil” hanger modules has been around since 1960. Two Echo satellite balloons, very light, very sturdy, were flown in the 60s, the second more than 41 meters in diameter. That’s big enough to do significant things.
        And dirt cheap.

        • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
          0
          0

          It may be possible to fasten together the spacecraft parts using Common Berthing Modules. The ISS already has an arm.

          The spacecraft does not have to be aerodynamic so the fuel tanks can be placed on the sides.

  13. Jeffery Barnett says:
    0
    0

    if thats the case then they are making way to damn much money……that way you all can afford it.

  14. muomega0 says:
    0
    0

    “Keeping ISS alive” is not the objective for most of those
    at NASA—they want to explore: ISS is a partial means to an end. NASA should be developing and demonstrating technologies to sustainably provide long duration exploration missions and spinning these technologies back to earth for economic growth. This requires a careful balance of technology development and operation demonstrations in a flexible path forward.

    ISS will allow NASA to extend stays in microgravity to
    study the effects on crew health for a long duration missions and may help scientists develop countermeasures to offset the deficits http://nasawatch.com/archiv…. When and if these countermeasures are
    developed, they will provide one key insight into the continued use of the laboratory. Other considerations where discussed by Dennis and here: http://nasawatch.com/archiv…. ISS however lacks a variable gravity facility,
    unfunded for decades, and options other than ISS based facilities have not been carefully examined.

    Dennis points out that the early 2000s plan under the
    guidance of Golden and O’Keefe was a depot centric architecture transitioning away from shuttle/HLV to an existing, smaller LV fleet to focus NASA on one of its Space Grand Challenges: economic access to space. The future goal, like the original Shuttle program, should be reusability, and smaller LVs. Even von Braun envisioned hundreds of flights for Mars.

    Griffin was able to cancel the Orbiter but retained the Shuttle HLV components/architecture with the 2005 ESAS study with flawed assumptions. To pay for a HLV architecture and a 2x/yr lunar sortie focus, ISS would “splash down” in 2016; additional
    $B/yr would also be required.

    Now carefully examine the Mars DRM 5 figures Dennis provided in the article and note that the architecture contains an inflatable habitat in order to reduce the mass, quite a different design than the ISS approach. Also consider that the earth or moon block ~ half the galactic cosmic radiation.
    Neither the ISS nor inflatable habitats have provided adequate GCR protection that fits the mass and/or cost budget of a trip to Mars with acceptable risk. Where are these design studies? ISS at 300 to 400 km altitude also receives ~ 60 minutes of sun and 30 min of eclipse each orbit, which creates a large mass penalty for any solar electric propulsion system unless EP pulses on and off. Staging EP at L2 rather than LEO offers substantial benefits, with hybrid chemical/EP a strong candidate to and from L2 and Mars, but Dennis does not discuss this option in any detail.

    It is easy to conclude then that “ISS centric” is not an
    architecture.

    NASA needs to demonstrate that a habitat in the proper environment can protect the crew for the round trip to Mars, and that its light enough to meet the needs of the mass and sustainable architecture budgets. While there are merits and significant accomplishments with all the hardware developed over the years, HLV, ISS, and lunar sorties have distracted NASA from stepping up to its Space Grand Challenges–the proper balance of technology development and operations has not been achieved. Why?

    NASA has neglected the law built into its original charter:
    The act specifically charged the new Agency with eight objectives, including “the establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.” All of the committees also fail to conduct complete studies and lack data from technology demonstrations, likely by “design”.

    The logical next step sends Mars compatible, lightweight habitat to L2 for a year with crew in a depot centric architecture with high ISP technology (LH2, EP) to allow sustainable exploration in the flexible path forward. Transitioning the expertise to these “new” challenges is also critical. Needless
    to say, NASA has a significant number of Space Grand Challenges to address in order to reach this small step forward.
    The L2 Gateway Habitat can serve as a staging point for all BLEO missions.

    So saving HSF likely results in phasing out both SLS and ISS, with the latter dependent on the ability to meet the grand challenges. It is quite the exciting future.

    • Denniswingo says:
      0
      0

      60 minutes of sun and 30 min of eclipse each orbit, which creates a large mass penalty for any solar electric propulsion system unless EP pulses on and off.

      Incorrect. Every 200 days the ISS goes into full sun beta (when the beta angle exceeds 68 degrees), during this time, which lasts a few days to a couple of weeks, a full sun climb out is enabled.

      For chemical propulsion the deficit is at worst only 6.3%, per the Delta IV and Atlas V payload planners guides.

      So saving HSF likely results in phasing out both SLS and ISS, with the latter dependent on the ability to meet the grand challenges. It is quite the exciting future.

      This is even worse, end everything and start over again is also not an option or even desirable.

      ISS is there, is already a proving ground for new technologies (Bigelow module), long duration life support, and it can be used as a base of operation with many launch vehicles and payload carriers servicing it.

      Guess what, the GCR problem is going to get a lot worse as the next solar cycle will likely be the lowest in several hundred years. A launch from the earth spaceship is not viable because to be viable it will be too heavy to launch without a heavy lifter or an orbital facility to support it, and thus the circle closes.

      • muomega0 says:
        0
        0

        Start over? To 2020, ISS will have perhaps a half dozen crew with a year in space continuously, while hundreds of others over the decades have multiple, shorter trips so they can recover in gravity. If more crew health mitigation data and mitigation development is required, is variable gravity being considered? Regardless, long term exploration will be on hold.

        NASA requires a balance between technology development and operations in a flexible path forward. Multiple propulsion technologies are needed to reduce IMLEO costs and to reduce trip time, as well as lighter *active* GCR mitigation, to name just a few. How many MWs of power are required for 3 month trip times to Mars? Contrast this with 10 kW of power need for the cryocoolers for active GCR mitigation. Does not the LH2 depot require similar cryocooler technology, as well as ISRU and EP?

        The answer is quite simple: technology development takes a back seat to operations. A depot centric architecture is the most economical path forward for the next three decades and it allows full International Partner participation.

        Yes, GCR is a function of the solar cycle. Active GCR mitigation can be launched in pieces–it does *not* require a HLV. With R&D, active has the potential of significantly reducing the mass and the dose of GCR unlike passive absorbers (H2, water, aluminum, …). Until GCR mitigation is developed, space travel is limited to about ~ 300 days for 55 yr old males at solar max, and ~about half this as solar min (many more assumptions here). Now where is that warp drive when you need it?


        Yes, ~98% time of year one has eclipse, and full sun for the other day or two for an orbit at 51.6 deg inclination; otherwise one needs batteries or one adds a on/off cycle, hence the use of the “~” symbol in front of “~ 60 mins of sun…” Not a very flexible scheduling constraint. The 51 deg ISS inclination is far from optimal, but works well for the primary crew rotation LV from Russia.

  15. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    What I have not seen is a clear vision or direction. I do not blame the President or Congress or anyone beyond NASA and the space supporters. NASA leadership is really at fault since they are supposed to be the ones tha would lead.

    I have never been convinced that SLS is a mistake, though I am pretty sure based onhow the Russians have worked and how the Delta and Atlas and Dragon heavies all work, that a single monolithic booster is wrong! Automobiles and airplanes are built like sausages are made-time, motion, economy, commonality…

    I have always been convinced that the Apollo/Constellation, Orion/MPCV is all wrong. First the Orion capsule is basically redundant with Dragon or CST but at much greater expense of time and money. Second, the single use, one mission a year approach is a complete no go. I have long been bewildered why the NASA leadership should know this but act as though its some kind of a logical step to something. It is not.

    I am quite convinced that the NASA program and DDT&E structure for human space is completely wrong. 90% or more of the NASA technical organization should be organized around technical functions at which they should excel and for which they should be responsible. The idea of putting program administrators who have no technical expertise in charge of technical functions is wrong. I once again fault the current and past NASA program leadership. In this case none of them have any technical experience of note and so they simply do not know that what they are doing is wrong. This screw up, is what cause the exorbitant costs and outrageous schedules in which progress is not made.

    Bottomline-NASA leadership now and in the past many years is a disaster.

    NASA top management’s primary responsibilities are vision and leadership. We see none of that. The last visionary leaders were Seamans, father of Shuttle-a great and logical idea poorly implemented during the later operational phase; and Beggs, father of ISS-another great and logical idea that has been poorly implemented especially in the years since assembly complete.

    With all of these architecture studies and architects interesting to see there is no architecture. Someone at the top is doing something wrong.