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.
Congress

Two Hearings Point To A Fading NASA

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
September 27, 2018
Filed under , , , , , ,
Two Hearings Point To A Fading NASA

Keith’s note: A hearing by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology yesterday competed with another hearing being held simultaneously by the Senate Commerce Committee. Not much happened in the House hearing other than the usual routine posturing by both sides. The main topic of discussion was the future of the ISS. Bill Gertsenmaier repeated the same incomplete jingos used concocted by NASA to describe how NASA somehow expects the ISS to be paid for by the private sector in the 2024/2025 time frame. Gertsenmaier referred to the NASA ISS Transition Plan (not really a “Plan”) required by law, but was delivered months late to Congress. The three NASA Center directors present to testify said nothing particularly interesting.
Rep. Babin announced that he’s introducing H.R.6910 “To specify goals and objectives of the United States with respect to human spaceflight, and for other purposes.” This bill includes language that would extend the life of the International Space Station to 2030. Similar language on ISS extension was included in S.3277 – Space Frontier Act of 2018 which was passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee in August. The topic of ISS extensions was a conversation between Jim Bridenstine and Ted Cruz in the other hearing held yesterday.
Hearing charter
Video recording of hearing
– [Statement] Full Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas)
– [Statement] Space Subcommittee Chairman Brian Babin (R-Texas)
– [Statement] Ranking Member Johnson
– [Statement] Ranking Member Bera
– [Statement] William Gerstenmaier, HEOMD Associate Administrator
– [No prepared statement] Mark Geyer, JSC; Jody Singer, MSFC; Robert Cabana, KSC
In the Senate NASA Administrator Bridenstine Testified before the Senate Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, In reality Bridenstine testified before Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA). Bill Nelson did a flyby appearance and no one else really stayed long enough to say much of anything. Cruz pushed on the issue of not being distracted by the Moon as we head for Mars, not abandoning the ISS, allowing NASA to derive financial benefit from better ISS commercialization and use of its logo, and making sure that the U.S. remains the global leader in space exploration. Bridenstine agreed with Cruz on everything – and was intrigued by Cruz’ s comments on space commerce. Sen. Markey was all over NASA’s Earth and Space Science plans and the fate of NASA’s Education Office and Technology Directorate to which Bridenstine gave the stock NASA answers.
At one point Cruz referred to the NASA report “National Space Exploration Campaign Report – Pursuant to Section 432(b) of the NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017 (P.L. 115-10), September 2018,” which was required by law and due for delivery in 2017 which NASA delivered late (just like the ISS Transition Report). Cruz asked Bridenstine about the report’s stated intent of putting humans back ont he Moon by 2029 and asked why it only took 7 years to go from statement of intent to landing on the Moon in the 1960s and why does it take so much longer now? Bridenstine said that this was the first question he asked when he arrived at NASA. His answer: NASA is going back in a sustainable fashion – to stay – and is doing so with partners in a more constrained fiscal environment. OK. That works for the time being – he’s new to the job. But additional digging on his part is going to show that there is more to this than the talking points that he’s been given.
Webcast
Global Space Race: Ensuring the United States Remains the Leader in Space Bill Nelson Opening Statement
– Prepared statements by Jim Bridenstine, Sen. Cruz, and Sen. Markey were not posted
One thing sticks out of these two hearings: both focused on important topics that NASA was required, by law, to provde reports to Congress about. Both reports, authored by Bill Gerstenmaier’s HEOMD, were delivered many months after their due date. The reports provide no meaningulful information as to what NASA plans to do, why it wants to do these things, how it plans to do them, what it will actually cost, and who will pay to make all of this happen. These questions were, of course, what Congress wanted NASA’s reports to answer in the first place. This pattern from NASA HEOMD of foot dragging and vague responses to simple questions from Congress has typified the way that NASA has explaining its human exploration plans for the past ten years. These responses are filled with Powerpoint cartoons but are otherwise lacking in real substance. And when the real programs go awry its hard to see why or understand what the consequences are – other than the need for more money and time.
A new Administrator now has to look at his agency’s lackluster performance and, as prompted by Sen. Cruz, answer the question as to why it takes NASA longer to do things it once did much faster – and whether this is the way that the agency is going to comply with the current Administration’s intent that NASA regain and/or maintain its leadership in space. Quite honestly it seems to be exactly the opposite of what is required.
Yet Another NASA Space Policy Report That Reveals No Policy, earlier post
NASA Quietly Submits ISS Transition Plan To Congress (Update) , earlier post

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

70 responses to “Two Hearings Point To A Fading NASA”

  1. swbates says:
    0
    0

    Maybe if Congress wasn’t chaining NASA to a rocket to nowhere while perpetually starving them of funding. But i’m sure no one has the guts to say that to their face.

  2. Donald Barker says:
    0
    0

    The heyday of the US space program in sheer volume and action, can be considered the 1990’s where we had “63” Space Shuttle launches in 10 years. We may never again see such volumes of human space flight again in our lifetimes. NASA (human spaceflight) can and has performed at a very high level when it has a very specific goal at hand. Not a nebulous goal such as Moon, Mars and Beyond or any of the variants. And even given the 0.05% of the Federal Budget its been working on for decades. Around 2000, many things in this society began to change rapidly as a result of technologies being used (e.g., internet usage went form 6% to 12% of the planets population in just the first 4 yeas of this century), setting the stage for all the social and functioning problems and lack of focus and commitment we have today. This needs to be explored more. And NASA (human spaceflight) needs a clearly defined goal that is attainable in a reasonable amount of time while having a budget that adequately supports all NASA work and and without the fear of being cut, canceled or changed.

    • Bob Mahoney says:
      0
      0

      And NASA (human spaceflight) needs a clearly defined goal that is attainable in a reasonable amount of time while having a budget that adequately supports all NASA work and and without the fear of being cut, canceled or changed.

      One the rationales behind the Gateway (not that I necessarily consider it a tenable one) is this very thing: an attainable, affordable goal that (at least as originally conceived) establishes a sustainable enabling capability designed to support further steps out into the solar system. The original notion of the Gateway was primarily as a fuel depot with spacecraft servicing capabilities with an eye toward supporting lunar surface activities…and possibly other farther-ranging journeys.

      Shuttle was meant to be such an enabling component of a larger, outward-reaching architecture. Originally, Station was meant to be one too. BUT…something happens to government programs, and (sadly) it seems to be happening again…to Gateway. They get warped away from their original engineering elegance of purposeful effectiveness as they accumulate barnacles of over-bearing bureaucracy and obstacles of over-assigned obligations to far too many constituencies.

      Another challenge, too, is that mere components that are meant to ‘play their part’ in enabling a panoply of future opportunities don’t seem to offer the inspirational punch (and indisputable soon-to-be achieved finish line) that something like a first landing on the Moon was able to provide.

      I do not know the solution to this quandary. NASA (especially in terms of its PR & optics) doesn’t seem to be equipped to bring it forth, either.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” Abraham Maslow

        NASA knows how to build and operate a space station, so it decides it will build one in lunar orbit, even if there is no need for one, because NASA has learned how to build and operate a space station…

        • Bob Mahoney says:
          0
          0

          I’m pretty certain it’s more complicated than that, and I think you realize this too, Dr. M. NASA isn’t as monolithic in its viewpoints, its motivations, it capabilities, or its weaknesses & limitations (including its external constraints) as you often suggest.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            So explain to me exactly how a Gateway will make it cheaper and easier to reach the surface of the Moon?

          • tutiger87 says:
            0
            0

            It’s not just about the Moon. It’s about setting up a sustainable cislunar architecture.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            And exactly how will a Gateway in lunar orbit contribute to that?

          • DP Huntsman says:
            0
            0

            Not just ‘in lunar orbit’; but in that particular lunar orbit, which was chosen solely because it was an orbit Orion can get to.

          • wwheaton says:
            0
            0

            That’s easy! It gives economical access to essentially all the places “near by” that we might like to go to, which involve going via some point energetically close to Earth-Moon L1. This includes HEO, and all 5 Earth-Moon Lagrange points.

            So it makes sense to have a place “near by”, where you can hang your hat in that vicinity: back-up life-support supplies; fuel depots, crew support facilities, including medical needs; inter-connectable modules for cargo or passengers, propulsion modules (chemical rocket, ion-electric, solar sailing,..), solar power facilities small and large; repair shops for things that need various kinds of maintenance; communications hubs (DSN II, etc); instrument maintenance, upgrades, and replacements, materials stockpiles (water ice; ores; whatever), that are useful at other points nearby.

            It does not make sense to put all these things at some place energetically far away (earth surface, ~11.2 km/s; lunar orbits or surface, a few km/s; Earth-Sun L1 & L2, (fairly close in energy, but distant weeks or months in time); near Earth asteroids; Deimos and Phobos (closer than the surface of the Moon in energy, distant in time), etc, etc.

            Just as New York became a useful interchange point in 1700, a developing space fairing civilization can be expected to discover points that turn out to be economical or convenient for its transportation needs. No doubt these will be very small and simple early-on. But these needs will be discovered, and I believe Earth-Moon/L1 is likely to be the first and most important point for us in this century. As geography was key to the value of points on Earth after 1492, 3-D (& time) “astrographics” will be key in the future, with orbital energy difference the new metric, replacing geographical separation.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            That’s a reasonable justification for facilities in an Earth-Moon L1 or high lunar orbit. I’d add the fact that electric propulsion takes forever to get from a Low Earth orbit to escape. To use it for planetary trips, you want to start from a much higher orbit. (Well, that’s to reuse the same vehicle, and assuming the need for a refueling and maintenance station.)

            But, unfortunately, that doesn’t necessarily mean the Lunar Orbital Platform/Gateway or whatever they are calling it this month. I don’t see the design as suitable for any of the applications you mention, or easily adapted as we learn more about what is and is not required. It isn’t even clear to me that it’s suitable for learning what is and is not required.

          • Christopher James Huff says:
            0
            0

            But the gateway isn’t at EML1, it’s in an orbit that’s rather inconvenient to get to/from if you’re anything but an Orion launched on an SLS.

            And lunar surface activities are a prerequisite for an orbital transportation hub to be useful, the converse isn’t true, and is in fact several km/s away from assisting those activities. The obvious place to base lunar exploration from is the moon, the cislunar hub can come when there’s something there to drive cislunar activity.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            It is a solar powered communications hub. NASA stated they may buy two of them and that would make LOP-G almost purely for a communications hub and experiment hub but NOT for long term habitation. This is not planned for 100% occupation anyway, not like the ISS. Everyone seems to forget the main thing it is for is and it is NOT THE MOON.. it is for phase II and going to Mars . it always has been about Mars and never about the moon, that was just tossed in to shut the moon first people up.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.c

          • Christopher James Huff says:
            0
            0

            So, what, the astronauts can replace burned-out tubes? The concept of manned communications platforms became obsolete about a decade after Clarke proposed them in 1945.

            It’s not a communications hub, we have satellites for that. And it’s worse than worthless for Mars, greatly multiplying the cost of and limiting the size of supplies and components for any orbitally-assembled spacecraft while excluding commercial involvement as much as possible, and adding an extraneous stop for anything originating from Earth. BFR will go straight to the moon/Mars and back. Lockheed’s lander would be better served by meeting directly with a tanker/transport in Lunar orbit. LOP-G is a destination for Orion, nothing else.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            It is not about the moon and never has been. That was simply a bone tossed to the “moon first” advocates to shut them up.

            It is about Mars and Phase II .. it always has been .. https://uploads.disquscdn.c

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Of course, the advocates of a Moon mission would say the opposite. That Gateway has always been about the Moon, and the “Phase 2” Mars stuff is just viewgraphs and bones tossed out to placate the advocates of Mars missions. Since we aren’t going to get an official statement from NASA to resolve that, I’m not sure if we can prove who is right. Personally, I’m seeing something designed to use SLS and Orion, combined with an undecided search for an application which doesn’t imply pork and jobs programs.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Sorry, but I really disagree. NASA may have peaked then, but space commerce is gaining traction and will soon leave it in the dust. And that is the basic problem. NASA is basing all of its plans and strategies on the old paradigm of government dominated space flight. It needs to start recognizing that a new world is emerging that will have its technology driven by space commerce, not NASA.

      The FH is a good example. Although costing a fraction of the SLS, and available now, NASA has no clue what to do with it. And they will be even more lost when BFR starts flying. I hope Administrator Bridenstine is able to wake the agency up and turn it around, or it will just be left behind in the dust.

      • Bill Housley says:
        0
        0

        Ya…ummm…What he said!

      • rb1957 says:
        0
        0

        To be fair to NASA, the range of Falcon rockets was developed by SpaceX to their own specifications and not responding to a specification issued by NASA, and so it doesn’t mesh with NASA strategies and plans.

        Now of course, NASA could easily develop plans based on commercial rockets now that they are a reality.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          The B737 was not developed based on NASA specs, but I bet NASA employees use it. But your post shows just what is wrong with NASA, namely that it lives in its own little bubble, inside the larger bubble of Washington, and ignores the advances of industry or the desires of the public it is suppose to serve as a government agency.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Better examples might be the U-2 (well, ER-2) or 747 (SOFIA). They weren’t designed to NASA specifications, and NASA does operate as well as flying on them. I don’t believe NASA operates 737s.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            No, NASA just pays for tickets to ride on them from commercial airlines and so has no input into even the design of the seats. It’s just how they get their employees from one NASA Center to another. It should have been the model for CCP, but instead NASA is micro-managing it. Hopefully it will be the model to servicing NASA facilities on the Moon once BFR starts service.

            In terms of planes, the T-38 is a good example, designed as a supersonic trainer NASA uses it for astronaut training. The USAF is in the process of replacing it, but NASA will probably continue to fly their fleet for decades. Another example are the WB-57s NASA flys. It dates to an early 1960’s conversion of a 1940’s bomber. The USAF scrapped theirs in the 1970’s except for the ones they transferred to NASA that are still flying.

          • space1999 says:
            0
            0

            The 737 was not built to NASA specs, but it looks like they used NACA airfoils…

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I’ve lost track. I thought we were talking about whether NASA formulates plans and then develops hardware to match those plans, or if they look at the available (off the shelf) hardware and base their plans on what’s available.

            The fact that Boeing used NACA airfoils doesn’t seem relevant to that. NACA didn’t decide they would need a 737-sized passenger aircraft, realize it would require currently-unavailable airfoils (and engines), and formulate a plan to do in-house development of that technology. Nor did they follow up by issuing an AO for companies to develop and build them aircraft along those lines.

        • rb1957 says:
          0
          0

          And so you guys make my point!
          NASA is capable of using the tools around that fit their purpose (transporting people from point to point).
          On the other hand, if the USAF wants a new plane it issues a spec, selects a design from the competing bids (weathers several lawsuits) and eventually gets the plane they chose for the mission they wanted. It is rare for someone to build a plane then go to the USAF and say “here’s a plane for you, now buy it”. Possibly the USAF may say “gee, thx, we were thinking of just this mission”; mostly likely the response would be “wtf?”.
          So today we have SpaceX (and others) with some very nice rockets, and NASA saying “well, ok, but they don’t fit our plans (and we’re not adjusting our plans to fit your rockets)”.
          NASA could easily (IMHO) rewrite their plans to include these commercially available rockets. I suspect that missions in planning are committed to a specific rocket so we’re looking at late 2020s to do (say) ISRU based on a (say) FH.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Sometimes the USAF does buy pre-existing designs. They still announce what they want and that includes fairly specific requirements (not specs, those are a different beast.) Sometimes an aerospace contractor comes back with a proposal for a slightly-modified version of an aircraft they are already producing. The USAF is quire willing to select such a proposal.

            Nor does NASA always use existing designs. For major (large strategic) unmanned missions, they issue requirements and observational goals, and expect custom designs to meet them. Modifications of existing designs are also acceptable, but the modifications must satisfy the requirements NASA put in the AO or RFP. I’ve only once seen NASA ask about what people already have lying around. That surprised everyone I talked to, and was actually just a RFI (Request For Information.) Anything involving astronauts also seems to be all custom designs to NASA requirements. They don’t _have_ to do it that way, but it’s what they’ve generally done for sufficiently major projects in the past.

    • SouthwestExGOP says:
      0
      0

      I started at the Johnson Space Center in Jan 1985 and the excitement was amazing. But NASA (according to the two accident investigation reports that I read) let itself get swept up in an ever expanding flight rate. Between NASA and Congress someone should have stood up and said that we were just going to fast – had that happened we probably would still be flying the Shuttle today. The “heyday” of the US government space program was a time when safety was an afterthought – and that let us make some big mistakes.

      The future is in the commercial flights, they will partly support government operations but also will generate commercial interest.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      “We may never again see such volumes of human space flight again in our lifetimes”

      Six human space flights per year is your high end benchmark that we will never again see?

    • Bill Housley says:
      0
      0

      Oh, we’ll see much more than that now that human space launch is being spun off to commercial space and Congress no longer has to set the pace or the envelope.

  3. SouthwestExGOP says:
    0
    0

    We all must realize that any government agency works at the direction of Congress, the problem is not the people of NASA (or any Federal agency) but the ever changing direction from Congress. Today is far worse than it has ever been, the Administration could change its direction by a Tweet at any minute. How do you write a report when your direction could change at any minute?

    One of NASA’s main priorities is the SLS – which they wanted something like that but the size, etc was foisted on them by Congress (to preserve jobs).

    Today the marching orders are that the US remain the leader in space exploration – that still sounds a lot like America First and our partners can watch us from the ground. The Shuttle and ISS both benefited tremendously from the contributions from our international partners, I hope that they are still welcome in today’s environment.

  4. Neal Aldin says:
    0
    0

    After having worked going on 45 years in the program, and having worked on Apollo, Skylab, Apollo Soyuz, Shuttle, Mir and Station, I have to agree than NASA’s human space efforts have declined and personally I have zero faith that the current set of program administrators can do the job. I had a little hope that Bridentstine might turn things around but if he is just going to continue to rely on the old guard, as did his predecessor, then the program is over and we are just wasting time and money. I do not foresee the current Orion, SLS and Gateway efforts resulting in anything of value for the near term or for the future. And I reject the notion that NASA works entirely at the direction of Congress or the President. They look to NASA for the expertise to know what to do, and in the last 15 years zero expertise has been shown.

    • tutiger87 says:
      0
      0

      “Last 15 years..”

      I take umbrage with your quote. Congress sets direction, tone, and kisses the arses of the big contractors. It is they who are the problem.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        There are problems on both sides in human spaceflight. For better or worse, the future of launce belongs to SpaceX and Blue Origin.

    • savuporo says:
      0
      0

      > They look to NASA for the expertise to know what to do, and in the last 15 years zero expertise has been shown.

      Exactly this. Since VSE speech in 2004, NASA has bungled multiple opportunities to come up with a workable, fiscally and politically viable plans to do anything relevant in human spaceflight. It’s NOT the job of Congress or WH to develop these plans. But in vacuum of actual thought leadership at NASA you’ll get things like SLS shoved down your throats, because you didn’t come up with a better alternative.

      • tutiger87 says:
        0
        0

        NASA has come up with plans. They just didn’t satisfy enough people with pork in enough states.

        • savuporo says:
          0
          0

          That makes these plans non-plans by definition, ergo they didn’t come up with a plan. You could as well say you are going to Pluto on a an antimatter flame, but reality is reality.

  5. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    I disagree with his Bernoulli theory. Works in water not air. Planes fly because AOA. The Universe was opaque at one point. We will never see the start of the Big Bang by WST I think.

  6. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    A great country will inevitably suffer when leaders rail against the institutions that define it.

    “starve the beast”
    “fake news”
    “FBI is lying”

    The failure of government, or the fifth estate, or of national security will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, repeated with sufficient frequency.

    NASA is just a symptom.

    • Not Invented Here says:
      0
      0

      Well, most people here agrees that congress is the cause of NASA’s problems, so it looks to me that the institutions definitely do have some issues to work out.

    • tutiger87 says:
      0
      0

      A symptom of what? Being subject to the whims and aims of a bunch of old doddering fools in DC?

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        It’s funny how the other agencies in Washington have learned how to get things done working with Congress. Look at the NSF, NIH, USGS, DOE. Why is NASA so disfunctional in working with Congressional staffers?

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          Perhaps the congressional expectations are different. NASA has a media presence that NSF, NIH, etc. don’t have. The budgets aren’t too different (within a factor of two or so, except for the USGS), but I think the budgets for individual programs and awards are. Single programs with multi-billion dollar budgets are more of a NASA thing. And, despite the words in the charter, NASA is expected to impress, inspire and advertise American technology. Very few people care if the US is behind China when it comes to accurate, updated survey maps (perhaps more should be, but that’s another story.)

  7. Bill Housley says:
    0
    0

    Listen to all of you Negative Nessies…
    1) Congress can’t rely on NASA for answers because Congress is too clueless to ask the right questions.
    2) Nobody goes to Mars without talking to NASA…unless they want their spacecraft to go somewhere other than Mars.
    3) Congress still wants big government launch services…a dying industry…and has made NASA tie itself to that sinking anchor. Once someone cuts that chain NASA will do fine.

    • Tom Billings says:
      0
      0

      “1) Congress can’t rely on NASA for answers because Congress is too clueless to ask the right questions.”

      They’re not too clueless. They simply don’t want the true answers in public, because that would expose their real use for NASA, which is, jobs in their districts.

      “2) Nobody goes to Mars without talking to NASA…unless they want their spacecraft to go somewhere other than Mars.”

      People will talk to NASA before going to Mars, but not after settling there. Which is what Congress does *not* want to hear about.

      “3)Congress still wants big government launch services…a dying industry…and has made NASA tie itself to that sinking anchor. Once someone cuts that chain NASA will do fine.”

      But Bridenstine realizes that cutting that chain from the Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee too quickly will get NASA’s budget cut as well, and he will not risk it. Nor will any administration risk telling the American people that Shelby’s playing a game that’s run for nearly 50 years by now.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      1) I’m fairly sure some people in Congress, or at least some of their staff, are smart enough to know what the right questions are. And they are also smart enough to make sure questions aren’t officially asked (e.g. in hearings) if the answers don’t support their agenda.

      2) It’s interesting to consider what it would take to go to Mars without talking to NASA. It would mean launching from a private launch facility, but those exist or are in development. (Rocket Lab’s site in New Zealand is too small, but SpaceX is building a facility at Boca Chica with Mars-capable launches in mind. I don’t know what Blue Origin is thinking of, but they can certainly afford to build their own facility.) A Mars mission without NASA would require something like the Deep Space Network. If you’re willing to be out of touch (or only getting very limited data) for eighteen hours a day, you could get by with only one large antenna. Building the equivalent of 34-m DSN station and a couple of ~10 meter stations at other locations wouldn’t stretch some people’s bank accounts. There is the matter of regulatory approval and planetary protection, but those issues can bypass NASA with appropriate legislation.

      3) Congress isn’t the only group who likes big, government launches. Many people inside and outside NASA think that’s an important part of NASA promoting national prestige and awareness of US technological capabilities.

      • Bill Housley says:
        0
        0

        1) Same thing. If they know the right questions and are too clueless to think it’s a good idea to ask those questions.
        2) You mean like Russia? Where did their Phobos Lander and China’s orbiter that launched with it end up? I’m referring more to knowledge base and quality control than facilities. In other words I’m not referring to logistic capability of planning and launching a Mars mission, but rather to the likelihood of doing so successfully.
        3) You are correct…way to many regular folks do it too.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          Phobos-Grunt was supposed to be a Mars orbiter and Phobos sample return, not a Mars lander. If we want to consider orbiters, the US is not alone when it comes to successful missions. The European Space Agency, the Soviet Union and India have also gotten spacecraft to Mars orbit. In a strictly technical sense, the Soviet Union also successfully landed a spacecraft on Mars.

          But SpaceX has successfully done entry, decent and landing on a planet (Earth), along with the United States, China and the Soviet Union/Russia. SpaceX and their Falcon 9 do use all sorts of navigational aids which would be unavailable on Mars, and land at a prepared site. But I’m reasonable sure the guidance, navigation and control are all autonomous, not someone at mission control remotely piloting the vehicle.

          When I go to programatic meetings like OPAG, I hear about the progress NASA is making _re_inventing PICA (Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator), a highly favored choice for heat shields. So highly favored that most sorts of planetary atmospheric entries aren’t considered viable without it. Ames developed it, and subsequently, and unfortunately, the only suppler of some critical material discontinued it in 2016. They are working on a new version using a different material (PICA-D). On the other hand, SpaceX has developed their own, patented version of PICA (PICA-X), which they use on the Dragon capsules. I’ve always meant to ask why NASA is working on PICA-D instead of just buying PICA-X from SpaceX.

          Developing rough landing capability, and without navigational aids, certainly isn’t trivial. But that’s also true of propulsive landing, and SpaceX managed to figure that out. That may very well crash some of their first (unmanned) Mars landings. But that’s in keeping with their learn by doing approach. In contrast, I’ve seen NASA (GSFC) project managers say that approach is unthinkable for planetary missions, even unmanned ones.

          • Bill Housley says:
            0
            0

            “Strictly technical sense” is a very kind way to say “landed too hard to be useful”

            The heat shield thing is probably just a case of sticking with the devil you know.

            Supersonic retropropulsion and propulsive landings are Mars mission technologies that compete with at least one NASA development and testing program that folks might be protecting…and gets tested every time they bring back a booster, whether or not the booster explodes on impact 😉 . That’s one of the advantages with commercial space involvement with crewed spaceflight, even if just the supply-side for now. SpaceX and others don’t need anyone’s permission to test their tech. If if steps on the toes of someone else’s project then to bad…so sad.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            Of course the D2 was also built for propulsive landing on Earth, but so far SpaceX’s attempts to demo it have been stymied for unclear reasons. One can hope that will change.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        Would a phased array of smaller dishes (such as the Allen Telescope Array 6.1m primaries with offset feeds, be a less expensive alternative to the 30m high rate antenna? Maybe the SETI institute would lease some of the dishes part of the day. What about a deployable high gain antenna in GEO?

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          An array of smaller antennas would work just fine for most applications. It also provides more flexibility and fault tolerance. You can split them up to support multiple spacecraft, and if the relative demands change from day to day, you can shift antennas from one user to another. You’d need 32 of those 6.1 m dishes for the same capability as a 34 m, so you could build 35, and have rotate them in and out of use for maintenance. If one goes out unexpectedly, you’re just loosing 0.1 dB of signal until it’s fixed. That’s much better than 100%, and you could keep an extra dish in reserve to swap in on short notice.

          I don’t think the state of the art is as advanced for transmission, and you probably wouldn’t want to give all of the small antennas the full set of equipment for deep space navigation. Although, to be honest, at some point, rethinking the whole process might not be a bad idea. Everything about the DSN and how it supports missions was originally designed to support a few missions, which required very low risk of lost or noisy data and required constant contact for some mission phases (for days to weeks.) If someone wanted to support a large human presence on Mars, the requirements would be different and there’s probably a more efficient way to do things.

          This was suggested for the DSN about fifteen years ago, when it became obvious the 70 m stations weren’t going to last forever. Instead, they decided to add more 34 m stations, array them when the capability of a 70 m was needed, and start making people shift from X band to Ka. I think the current plan is it retire the 70 m’s in 2025, once each complex has five 34 m’s.

          And, yes, these things are fine for astronomy. The DSN has a sizable ground-based radio astronomy program, including things like radar imaging of near Earth asteroids.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Hopefully Elon Musk is working the issue since he did talk about providing HD coverage of the Moon flight.

            It also strikes me this might be a good opportunity for a startup. They could design and build a state of the art system, then lease the capacity needed to commercial firms. Surplus capacity could be made to the astronomy community.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Perhaps, but I think some market studies are a first step. Requirements for uplink and downlink, for example, would make a big difference. I assume the people flying around the Moon would need to talk to mission control on occasion, but they would never need to see them in HD, and for most purposes, HD to Earth might not be required. It isn’t obvious how often they would need to be in contact, if it requires contact on demand or pre-scheduled sessions, etc.

            Also, the dearMoon project would have different requirements from a lunar landing or Mars mission (by whoever.) So the company might want to make sure the system they build is flexible and suitable for multiple customers.

            Donating spare capacity to astronomers is a nice touch and good publicity, but it would be a donation. Astronomers don’t have that know of money, and government grants often have rules against renting time on non-government telescopes.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, a market study would be the first step, to determine the size of the market and its requirements. It should also explore foreign customers given how nations like Japan, India, UAE, Luxembourg, etc., are exploring/doing deep space missions. There should be a cost advantage for them to just lease time then build their own system. There would probably be ITAR issues, but they should be workable as it is just a communication system.

            In terms of Astronomy, is that mostly a requirement of federal grants? Would foreign astronomers be as restricted from using it under the funding they receive? And of course there are the private foundations which might make it it possible for U.S. astronomers to use it. But donations of time would also work and could be a useful tax deduction as well as good public relations.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I agree the ITAR issues could be solved. There is a company working a subscription-based and resource-sharing network of ground stations for CubeSats. The presentation I heard about them mentioned quite a few legal issues, but it seemed to me manageable. I don’t see why deep space communications would be legally different. Also ITAR is, as I understand it, more focused on how you make a spacecraft do something than on what the spacecraft does. HD video of astronauts on the Moon would be fine, but a technical discussion of how to solve an in-flight anomaly might be an issue (possibly solvable by sufficiently good encryption.)

            Also, making the communications system international is a good idea. Scheduling and availability really benefit from at least three complexes, so the planet the customer is interested in is always above the horizon at one complex. Or not, if the solution involves orbital relays.

            Finally, when it comes to grant funding for astronomical use of telescopes and antennas, I’m not sure of the details. I rarely propose for Earth-based observing, and I’ve only seen how NASA does things. For telescopes NASA funded, even partially, NASA gets a certain fraction of the time, and you can propose to use them for free. That’s either a proposal to NASA or a proposal to whoever operates the telescope following a process NASA agreed to. The same thing is generally true of non-NASA telescopes (e.g. if you want to observe with at Lick, you propose through someone affiliated with the University of California, you don’t write a check.)

            For NASA and non-NASA major facilities in general, the proposals generally say that if you’re using NASA facilities within the scope of the AO, it’s free; if you want to use non-NASA facilities, it comes out of your budget. The process tends to be one of NASA funding paying for the resource (or contracts for launch services) and then allocating the resources to proposers.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            A co-worker worked on the KSC three antenna project which may have transmit capabilities, https://www.nasa.gov/direct… although to be honest as a Florida resident I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would put a radiotelescope in the salt spray here except that the antennas were just down the road where they had been delivered for a cancelled military project.

            Also com between Mars orbit (or other craft in space) and Earth orbit could be optical, allowing much smaller apertures, with the Earth terminal in GEO, maybe a secondary payload on a TDRSS or commercial comsat, or maybe for initial tests on the ISS. Isn’t a laser com terminal just a small optical telescope with the laser transmitter in place of one of the sensors? There was once a well-defined proposal for a 1-meter optical telescope for the ISS, but it was not funded.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Optical communications needs a little more than a laser and a telescope, but that’s the basic idea. You have to modulate the signal, and receive and demodulate it at the other end. One disadvantage is that it’s hard to do any sort of heterodyne noise removal, since we can’t build 500 THz electrical oscillators. That rules out many of the tricks radios use to filter out noise and coherently amplify the signal.

            Another problem is pointing stability, since you do have to keep a narrow beam pointed at Earth. That could end up being what drives the spacecraft’s pointing requirements.

            Also, on the receiving end, JWST hasn’t given me warm feelings about large (i.e. deployed) optical mirrors, and that’s what you’d probably need if you have the receiver in orbit. But that would get rid of weather and limited time with the other end of the link above the horizon. Those are the big disadvantages of a station on the ground.

            In terms of the state of the art, it’s been demonstrated at lunar distances by LADEE. That got a very nice 622 Mbps down and 20 Mbps up. But I’ve heard that particular system may not work beyond 0.5 AU. The Discovery mission, Psyche, will test optical communications at ~0.5 AU distances using newer technology.

      • Christopher James Huff says:
        0
        0

        A few scaled-up laser links connecting to the Starlink constellation are another option. Eventually, throw some relays out into solar orbit to handle comms with Mars and ships in transit.

  8. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    More evidence of the fading of NASA, the New Space Race that NASA may lose…

    https://www.bloomberg.com/n

    SpaceX and NASA accidentally set the stage for a new race to the Moon

    By Eric Ralph Posted on September 28, 2018

    “Both entities – SpaceX with its next-generation BFR and NASA with its Shuttle-derived SLS – are tentatively targeting 2023 for their similar circumlunar voyages, in which NASA astronauts and private individuals could theoretically travel around the Moon within just months of each other, showcasing two utterly dissimilar approaches to space exploration.”

    Wouldn’t it be great if they launched at the same time and Elon Musk included a few space journalists to cover the NASA flight from space while writing on what the artists are doing aboard the BFR? It would be just like those reporters who charter a very large private luxury yacht to cover the ocean crossing by reenactors in a replica Viking ship 🙂

    You would have NASA with its 4 astronauts as spam in a little can (20 cubic meters of pressure volume) rounding the Moon and coming in for a ocean splash down versus BFR with its 16-20 voyagers flying in comfort (about a 1,000 cubic meters of pressure volume), maybe even with private state rooms, landing at the spaceport they left from.

    Do you think Congress would notice the difference 🙂

    It may well be NASA’s “Sputnik” moment.

    • Zed_WEASEL says:
      0
      0

      The news article be Eric Ralph was posted originally in the Teslarati website.
      https://www.teslarati.com/s

    • tutiger87 says:
      0
      0

      NASA may lose…

      You do know that all of the companies are getting lots of technical assistance from NASA right?

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        Which makes it all the more tragic as it shows what NASA could have done years ago if they had the vision and will to do it.

        • tutiger87 says:
          0
          0

          No. If our Congress had the vision. What is it about basic civics and how our government works that you don’t understand?

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            What don’t you understand about how Washington really works? And NASA? Space policy comes from NASA staffers working with Congressional staffers, not from Congress alone. All Congress is worried about is keeping the jobs at the numberous NASA Centers and contractor facilities. They don’t care what they are doing.

            The key problem is that NASA has been obsessed with sticking with Shuttle technology since the 1990’s. NASA could have created a clean sheet heavy lift vehicle using the same contractors in the same Congressional Districts, but stuck with Dr. Griffin’s Ares V, just giving it new name and rearranging the specs for it. That is the foundation of the SLS.

            And you forget that the Congress gave NASA a chance to show how it could do RLVs with DC-XA/X-33/X-34 and NASA just made a mess of it. Many of the engineers at Blue Origin worked on the DC-X and remember first hand how Dan Golden allowed the NASA RLV programs to be run into the ground while he was fixated on Mars.

            It’s not about vision as the waste paper baskets at NASA are full of “visions”, it’s about how NASA is no longer capable of implementing a vision for HSF. NASA spends far too much time in planning meetings and design committees producing flow charts and power points instead of bending metal.

            NASA would rather take a 40 year rocket engine and modify it for the SLS then starting out with a clean sheet design like Blue Origin or SpaceX has done. Congress didn’t tell them to do that, it’s NASA’s idea, just like it’s their idea.

            So no, the core problem is with the NASA management culture and the bureaucratic mindset that keeps the HSF program at NASA from moving forward.

          • space1999 says:
            0
            0

            “And you forget that the Congress gave NASA a chance to show how it could do RLVs with DC-XA/X-33/X-34 and NASA just made a mess of it. Many of the engineers at Blue Origin worked on the DC-X and remember first hand how Dan Golden allowed the NASA RLV programs to be run into the ground while he was fixated on Mars.”
            I have no first hand knowledge of the DC-X program, but according to wikipedia, NASA “grudgingly” took over the DC-X program from SDIO, and killed it after the accident in preference for the internally developed VentureStar program. Sounds like a case of not-invented-here rather than a focus on Mars probes. Also the Space Launch Initiative was spawned while Goldin was Administrator so I’m not sure you can blame him for a lack of innovation in HSF technology development…

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            “NASA could have created a clean sheet heavy lift vehicle using the same contractors in the same Congressional Districts, but…”

            While technically true, I’m not sure if that would have been palatable to Congress (or, at least, the relevant congressmen.) That clean sheet design would probably have required new skills and talents to develop. After all, they haven’t done a new design within the professional lifetime of most of those people.

            If so, that would mean replacing or retraining the current workforce. It’s not clear they would be interested in retraining rather than sticking with what they know and are comfortable with. It’s not clear if the new hires would be affiliated with the appropriate political party. And, if the new design required new facilities to develop, test and fly, that’s extra money required in NASA’s budget.

            All that might not have gone over well with Congress. Or, more to the point, NASA managers may have shied away from it because they weren’t sure of the reception.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            I agree, I just can not believe Utah or the military would ever give up on large solid rocket motors to launch nukes should the need arise.

  9. tesh says:
    0
    0

    Fortunately NASA’s legacy will not fade.

    The problem seems to be that the nostalgic/emotional feeling attached to “NASA of old” is clouding all the good things “new NASA” is doing. It is like comparing the Italy of the Roman Empire with the Italy of the Renascence. One had brute force, size and opportunity and the other guile, know-how and a thirst for knowledge.