House Appropriators Seek To Defund Asteroid Mission – Push NASA To The Moon & Mars
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Approriations Bill 2007 (draft report)
NASA begins on Page 54. On page 61 the report says:
“Mission to Mars. While the Committee recognizes the benefits of some of the technology that is under development as part of the asteroid redirect and retrieval missions, namely advanced propulsion technology research, asteroid deflection, and grappling technologies, the Committee believes that neither a robotic nor a crewed mission to an asteroid appreciably contribute to the over-arching mission to Mars. Further, the long-term costs of launching a robotic craft to the asteroid, followed by a crewed mission, are unknown and will divert scarce resources away from developing technology and equipment necessary for missions to Mars, namely deep space habitats, accessing and utilizing space resources, and developing entry, descent, landing, and ascent technologies.
Toward that end, no funds are included in this bill for NASA to continue planning efforts to conduct either robotic or crewed missions to an asteroid. Instead, NASA is encouraged to develop plans to return to the Moon to test capabilities that will be needed for Mars, including habitation modules, lunar prospecting, and landing and ascent vehicles.
Further, the Committee is supportive of NASA’s efforts to use the International Space Station (ISS) to conduct research necessary to enable long-term human spaceflight, or ”Earth-reliant” technology development; cis-lunar space activities, or ”proving ground” efforts such as Orion flights on SLS in the vicinity of the Moon, and deployment and testing of deep space habitation modules; and finally, NASA’s ”Earth independent” activities which include using cis-lunar space as a staging area, mapping potential human exploration zones and caching samples on Mars as part of the Mars Rover 2020 mission.”
All too predictable from the start.
L2 satellite servicing…go TO an asteroid….CxP…SLS…
Q: “We’ve seen VERY little elements that relate past the moon, despite Mars being an integral part of the VSE, do studies such as Constellation Propellant Options hold Mars and beyond as critical factors for deciding moon elements”
“I wish I could allay your concerns, but the main focus within NASA is unfortunately on the Moon. There is a limited focus on Mars…” Doug Stanley, 2006
They call it ‘brownian motion’. Lots of activity at standstill
In my opinion this was an interesting mission…but not an exciting one. I would love to see that budget applied to something more relevant toward a manned Moon or Mars mission.
The original idea (before SLS was forced on them) was more interesting. A manned mission to the asteroid. Everything you need for a Mars moon mission, except a bit shorter flight duration to make ECLSS easier for the first run. A nice stepping stone to develop long duration flight.
Once they had to send a robot out to fetch something to bring back to within the range of SLS/Orion, but not all the way back to LEO oh no, then it became bizarre and ridiculous.
“A manned mission to the asteroid.”
Obama told ’em to get it done by the mid 2020s. No way was that gonna happen under any scenario. That’s how we ended up with the multi billion dollar rock in a bag scheme.
Without SLS/Orion, and with Obama’s original proposal, there was around $4b/yr for a technology development program, starting in 2010. So fifteen years of development at $4b/yr ($3b/yr from Constellation plus $1b/yr new funding); accelerated commercial crew, new HLV engine development, depots, long-duration hab, etc.
It might have ended up as screwed up as SLS/Orion, and Constellation before it, this is NASA after all, but with $3b consumed by SLS/Orion development and no new funding, there was no possibility of developing long duration mission hardware.
(Of course, it would have been better if the Administration had accepted that once Congress forced SLS, the hardware was no longer compatible with BEO missions (asteroid then Mars) and dropped the idea altogether, instead of proposing a fake asteroid mission with ARRM.)
I agree on all counts. If Obama had laid out a rational plan that included all of the NASA Centers that were about to get decimated by the cancellation of Constellation and Shuttle, he might have made it happen. But he didn’t, and Congress stuffed their pockets with lobbyists’ money, and gave us SLS/Orion.
Why is “includ[ing] all of the NASA Centers that were about to get decimated by the cancellation of Constellation and Shuttle” a criteria for success?
Actually, it’s a damn expensive way to do things. But, if a president wants Congress to support his agenda, he’d better pass them some pork.
You’re making me get into requirements and process, and I hate being the person who ends up doing that. Passing pork to the required officials and districts is (or may be) a necessary part of implementing a plan. It isn’t, in and of itself, a success criteria. By analogy, if I want to have dinner with friends, driving downtown may (or may not) be necessary. But it isn’t inherent to my plans for the evening.
I didn’t mean to work you so hard. Politicians will fight to bring jobs and keep jobs in their states and districts. That’s one of their jobs. And, when Obama cancelled Constellation and Shuttle, the politicians gave their workers Orion/SLS.
Obama created a vacuum by eliminating Constellation and thousands of highly skilled labor with no replacement or road-map in place. Saying we’re going to Mars in 2020 essentially eliminated any significant costs since the big money expenditures would be required after he left office. The leadership vacuum was filled by SLS. Now we see Congress attempting to provide leadership such as going to Europa, cancelling the asteroid mission.
Everyone who gives a squat about space exploration and settlement is excited about putting a lander on Europa. Unfortunately, it doesn’t give us space geeks much to squabble about. But maybe someone will prove me wrong. https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
The President presents a NON binding budget PROPOSAL it does not have the force of law… a bi partisan CONGRESS refused to fund Constellation because it was falling a year behind with each year that passed.
development costs would have been significantly LOWER if we had followed the technology path .. we already have the new engines, commercial crew would already be operating, there would be a fuel depot in LEO right now .. so it is TOTAL BS to say there wasn’t a roadmap .. there WAS
just not the one you liiked.
But why didn’t Obama fight for that? He just caved in to the Senate and Congress.
Congress has NASA funding tied to a massive spending bill. No President has vetoed that entire bill to get at the few billion spent by NASA. Congress is well aware of this. I was shouting at the rafters for Obama to veto the SLS spending push his plan .. but apparently that really is something that won’t happen.
Wish there was a line item veto…
Your’re right. The way that the game is played is that the president works out a deal with the relevant senators and congressmen BEFORE the bill is passed. Obama has never done this on any issue that I’m aware of.
The leadership vacumn was not filled with SLS. CONGRESS refused to fund Constellation the two new rockets to nowhere. But the space state members were able to get a ONE rocket to nowhere funded.
AGAIN more BS
Case for the Moon: Another ISS this time orbiting the moon, lunar based observatory, an orbiting refueling station.
The problem: Anything on the lunar surface and those that are working on it will have to deal with the hazardous dust.
There are some solutions and mitigation techniques, but they’re going to have to actually go there and test them – the technology is not fully settled. But using the external suit lock idea would make at least half the problem go away.
Mars, same.
No the dust is far more abrasive on the Moon than on Mars where atmospheric actions ie. wind, has reduced this significantly. Mars has more sand-like attributes although still plenty of dust but not apparently so abrasive in nature.
Cheers
Mars dust, which about 10 times finer than baby powder, is chemically reactive and will damage human respiratory tissue.
Both dusts are bad for humans, though in different ways. On the Moon, it’s abrasive; on Mars it’s oxydizing.
Neither bad effect is a showstopper, but both will require careful engineering solutions.
Congress told NASA how to build the SLS/Orion down to the the payload mass, engines, and SRBs, so it’s no surprise that Congress has finally decided to tell NASA what to do with it. The problem is not whether the goal should be the Moon or Mars, but whether we should first develop more practical and affordable technologies for human spaceflight.
Looking at some of the other elements listed, including the space hab, looks to me like at least someone is planning ahead.
Now the question is whether NASA can get its game together to do this in less than a three presidential terms.
When there is a lack of leadership the vacuum will be filled. BTW what “practical and affordable technologies for human spaceflight” are you suggesting?
Deliberate, destructive opposition is not a “leadership vacuum”, it’s “enemy action”.
Obama’s 2010 plan was to divert the $3b/yr being wasted on Constellation towards a major technology development program. Focusing on gating technologies for long duration space-flight, along with an extra $1b/yr of entirely new funding to develop a new family of large hydrocarbon/LOx rocket engines. To focus NASA, these technology development programs were to have the goal of enabling a manned long-duration BEO asteroid mission by the mid-2020’s and Mars landing a decade later.
Doesn’t sound like a “vacuum” to me.
ULA/LM estimates that it will take them around 4 years to develop Vulcan. Similar numbers were thrown around by Rocketdyne on developing a domestic version of the Russian RD-180 engine. So, give them a year of faffing around to get started, another year lost due to government shutdowns, and we’d have had a new generation of heavy engines reaching test-firing last year. Assuming the problems with Russia had been the same, ULA would have known that a new engine in going to be available (and with a push from the USAF) they could have been at least two years further into the design of an AtlasV/DIVH replacement by now. Probably a first flight next year or so.
Likewise, with full funding of commercial crew right from the start, we’d be about a year or two ahead of schedule. So the first flights to ISS would be likely be this year or the next, ending the dependency on Russian flights.
With money going in to long-duration habitat development, we might have seen a push for a lower-cost next-generation ISS replacement (or expansion) as a stepping stone towards long-duration BEO missions. That potentially gives you more value from ISS’s excessive $2-2.5b/yr funding, especially when combined with commercial crew.
And developing fuel depots, another gating technology that everyone (from NASA to Boeing to SpaceX) seems certain is worthwhile, would enable a whole range of new mission profiles. Including unmanned science missions (refuelling an upper-stage in LEO drastically increases the payload BEO.)
The sucking sound you hear is the opportunities we lost in 2010.
Yeah in a Utopian world powerpoint charts are…. well almost as having actually done it. With out a mission, developing technology is very expensive and highly inefficient, if you don’t understand those 12 simple words you never will. What Obama did was naive in thinking he was king for the day and quickly found out that for every action there is a reaction (real world not Utopia). Which has brought us to this Quagmire we are in when it comes to Space Exploration. What he could have done and gotten allies in Congress was to have refocused CxP and integrate CCP into an overall integrated plan that takes into account the Industrial base, the Human resource skill set etc. those are the relevant factors not some “wish upon a star” powerpoint fantasy driven by his political anti Bush agenda, or has everyone forgotten?
If we start by defining people as good and evil on the basis of their political party then our chances for a meaningful future in space are pretty slim because we can never reach a consensus.
Agree, I would rather define people based on their actions
Technology developed to enhance America’s commercial aerospace industry is more valuable than simply putting on a spectacular show, because it leads directly to high-tech jobs and value-added exports, not as an inadvertent byproduct, but as a primary goal.
NACA’s first significant aeronautics project was not flying across the Atlantic, a low-drag cowling for radial engines. Not spectacular, but it added 20 knots to an aircraft’s speed, made Lindberg’s flight possible, and saved enough fuel to pay the entire NACA budget.
Its seems you are making a good vs. evil comparison. Both technology development for commercial aerospace and “Spectacular” missions have been demonstrated to effectively contribute to the body of advancement of America’s Space capability, economic power and standing.
I would suggest the Obama administration initiallyshowed leadership by directing the available funds to the programs that would bring practical benefits, specifically commercial crew, Earth observation, aeronautics, and space technology. Congress demonstrated its power by forcing NASA to buy the SLS/Orion (essetially a continuation of Constellation) istead, funding it with massive cuts to these programs.
Unfortunately there are major cost drivers embedded by law into the SLS design which raise its cost of operation to an unsustainable level. These include the used of Shuttle-era SRBs which are dependant on multiple legacy facilities which must be maintained and require a complex, hazardous and expensive processing flow. Because of potential contingencies associated with the SRBs, the launch abort system had to provide a very high acceleration, requiring a large solid-fueld escape rocket and a large and heavy blast shield over the capsule. The core stage of the SLS utilizes liquid hydrogen fuel, resulting in a substantially larger fuel tank than would be needed for a hydrocarbon-fueled stage and again raising cost. The engines are RS-25s, an engine designed for for reuse and at a cost of ~$70M each, perhaps reasonable if the engines are reused, but on the SLS they are expendable.
In the case of the Orion capsule, the design for independant life support for 30 days resulted in a capsule that was quite heavy. This resulted in the Ares I having insufficient payload capability, and in the deletion of the air bag landing system and the decision to recover at sea, again with higher operational costs. Estimates of operational cost for SLS/Orion seem to be at least $1B per flight for launch alone. It does not appear possible to sustain a permanent manned lunar base of meaningful size and capabilities with a system of this cost under any credible future NASA budget.
If Congress wished to show leadership and actually send Americans to the Moon they could direct NASA to solicit proposals as it normally does.
One advantage of lunar missions are that the innovation cycle times are lower. Any issues identified can be fixed and launched quicker.
I don’t understand the political system over there – does this committee markup have zero chance of being adopted?
“I don’t understand the political system over there – “
Neither does anyone over here. 😉
This is the first step (or one of the first steps).
As refreshing as this news is, about Moon First and the apparent indication that someone over there is actually considering, in detail, the need for well tested tech for Mars missions, I’ll wait to see the signed bill before celebrating. I always disagreed with the whole “been there, done that” attitude regarding the Moon anyway.
As a technologist, i’d like to believe that innovation cycles closer by are shorter too. Unfortunately when you observe HSF programs on LEO over the last decades, there is very little to support this notion.
This markup has an excellent chance of being adopted.
The Moon is the most realistic location to build a Rotating Space Station with it’s shallow gravity well and no atmosphere to interfere with getting something so Large and Odd shaped into Space. Plus rapidly resusable rockets would be a techincal cakewalk compared with on earth so not just the less fuel that saves money.
The Moon has a distinctly lumpy gravitational field (“mascons”) which will force constant orbit adjustments, and these in turn will be more problematical the larger and more odd-shaped the spacecraft is.
Not that it’s impossible to do, but it isn’t a textbook two-body problem in celestial mechanics.
well if it put in orbit in pieces and finalized there that should be reasonably avoided.
Actually, the problem gets worse the larger and less symmetrical the assemblage is, so the gravitational effects will accumulate as the structure is put together. And before assembly, each of the pieces will want to follow its own path, meaning that you can’t just send up all the pieces at once and then assemble them. Sort of like herding cats.
Because Apollo 11 ignored mascons, the lander overshot its landing area. Based on that experience, flight controllers took careful accounting of the gravitational perturbations on Apollo 12, which is why the crew was able to land at its intended site, close to where Surveyor 3 had landed more than two years earlier.
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, at an altitude of 50 km/ 30 mi, needs to adjust its orbit continually or the cumulating effects of mascons will perturb the spacecraft’s orbit enough that it crashes into the surface. If these are ignored, LRO will hit the lunar surface in a week’s time (if I’m remembering it correctly).
A manned structure in lunar orbit will probably orbit higher, but while that smooths out the perturbations somewhat, it doesn’t remove them. Constant orbit maintenance is a given for every Moon-orbiting object.
Hah! Would any of this be happening if SpaceX and more lately Blue weren’t in the picture? Someone’s getting a bit worried methinks.
Cheers
I have to say that I think that commercial space’s actions aren’t relevant to this. Congress would probably be agitating for NASA to “do something” with SLS no matter who else was doing what.
Congress does not seem to be actively obstructing New Space anymore, but you are correct. They are still ignoring them (at least in public) as far as projections of future impact go.
The more old money flows into companies like Planetary Resources, the less relevant Congressional priorities (and with them their pet corner of commercial space) will become.
FWIW, despite everything everyone has tried to contribute, it’s amazing how quickly SLS has degenerated down to ‘sitting in the Orion’ capsule for a week staring at the EML-2 point (i.e. empty space)’.
Funny how there is no outrage here over Congress giving NASA direction (unlike the Europa discussion). I guess Congressional intercession is OK if you don’t like what the White House told NASA to do!
“Provided further, That the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration shall use the Space Launch System
as the launch vehicle or vehicles for the Jupiter Europa mission.”
The above 3 lines in the full draft are the difference. Congress is not forcing NASA to do testing and research around the moon using the SLS outside of briefly mentioning an Orion mission around the Moon. If the bill said that all missions around the moon and mars must now use the SLS then there would be an argument to make.
Congress is forcing NASA to develop the SLS and use it for human flight to the Moon
I know. I was referring to the difference between the two specific parts in this bill. Where the Europa mission(s) must use the SLS based on this legislation, there is nothing in this specific piece of legislation that requires all missions to the moon to require the use of SLS…not to say that congress wont push a bill through at a later time forcing NASA to do so.
I do not have any problem with congress directing NASA to go somewhere or do some mission, but I do have a problem with congress micromanaging a program (i.e. forcing them to use specific hardware such as the SLS/Orion).
A good point. If Congress has failed to direct NASA to use only the SLS for lunar exploration, I suspect it is because they do not realize that there may be alternatives. Let’s not tell them.
Nice to see others talking about the Moon instead of just Paul Spudis and Dennis Wingo.
Even if they were adding funding for such development, which they aren’t (there’s no funding for ARM either, so “cancelling” ARM doesn’t free up funding), there’s no real technological overlap between a lunar mission and a Mars one. 1/6th g and no atmosphere, vs 1/3rd g and just enough atmosphere to utterly change EDL.
A lunar lander can’t be used on Mars. Lunar “prospecting” and ISRU are completely different from Martian. (And if a lunar ISRU focus is on polar ice, the requirements for the rest of the architecture are even more different.)
Habitat systems intended for the moon will have almost no overlap with a Mars habitat. Remember, “pressurised cylinder” is not a habitat, it’s everything else that goes into supporting life. ECLSS, power, thermal control.
(Even the damn spacesuits and rovers will need to be designed differently because of the differences in the composition of dust, thermal issues, radiation levels, etc.)
The engines for the ascent stage will probably be different. Not just in scale (1/6th g vs 1/3rd), but also in fuel choices. If you are doing ISRU refuelling on the moon, you probably will want LH/LOx engines. If you are doing ISRU refuelling on Mars, you would want Methane/LOx engines.
(We might get lucky, carbon monoxide was one of the main ices detected by LCROSS, along with water. So it might be possible to produce methane and LOx from polar ices. The ISRU systems themselves will be radically different, but at least the ascent-stage engines will use the same propellant.)
And operations (“tactics, techniques, and procedures”) will be completely different. With just a 3 second radio lag, short trip times, and fortnightly launch windows, a lunar base would operate very similar to ISS. Six months crew tours, direct communication with ground ops, high-bandwidth, near real-time telemetry. Mars means 8-20minutes radio delay, low bandwidth, even periods of complete black-out, a multi-month trip duration, long crew tours, and 2yr gap between launch windows; a Mars mission will have to be extra-ordinarily self-reliant. The moon won’t provide any more operational training than ISS.
It’s very common for people to assume that the moon lets you “test” Mars hardware, or at least develop something half way towards Mars-capability, but in reality there’s so little overlap that you’d save nothing. Moon, Mars, LEO and Earth are equidistant from each other, like the four corners of a tetrahedron, not four points in a line.
An analogy I saw recently was: “It’s sort of like saying ‘Before we use this bathyscaphe to descend to the Challenger Deep, let’s test it by descending from the rim to the floor of the Grand Canyon.’ Nice idea in theory, but the environmental conditions for each descent are so very different that it won’t provide any useful information to apply to the mission for which you’re designing the bathyscaphe.”
Long, long overdue decision. About NASA is allowed to get on with what it does best, explore!
The last time NASA explored with a human was more than 40 years ago. Clearly what we do best is robotic, and what we waste most is time and money in the name of human exploration.
Where’s the funding?
Cheers
It’s happened again.
It’s happened again.
Congressional Rocket Scientists…
Its happened again.
It will always end bad.
It will always end bad.
Congressional Rocket Scientists…
It will always end bad.