This Way to Mars

1. Marc, thanks for providing this nice compendium of links to documents and audio of from “Here to Mars”. NASA has had its share of watershed moments, crossroads but Charlie B stated what this is – “a pivotal moment”. At bottom I recommend a quick response we can make as space advocates. Recall that Senator Mikulski, this week, called out for space advocates to organize and help support NASA and her efforts.

   Two Capitol Hill meetings and a forum happened this week that we should consider a part of this pivotal moment. One was a meeting of the SST subcommittee of the House. They acted bipartisan to move forward the NASA authorization bill H.R. 4412. While some might consider it ominous, they are asking for an “exploration roadmap”. With their other statements, this will be a roadmap to Mars to be delivered to Congress this year. This is an opportunity for NASA! The second meeting is the one you summarize – “From Here to Mars”, a Senate hearing with the four speakers and Senators Nelson and Rubio. And the forum was at Caltech, recorded at http://www.ustream.tv/caltech, “The Future of Human Spaceflight” and involved three former astronauts, one being a designer of the DragonRider capsule at SpaceX. These speakers begin by talking about from where we came and where we are. Astronaut Reisman calls it a delicate critical moment that is challenging the status quo. The speakers are blunt, to the point and optimistic.

   Allow me to refine a previous statement. Collectively, the four speakers of “Here to Mars” expressed the total framework that if implemented by NASA, would culminate in human spaceflight to Mars, affordably and in due time but with one glaring exception. It did not address the impact of cost to develop and maintain SLS and Orion on these long term goals to go to Mars. Apollo astronaut Rusty Schweickart (17 min) and Reisman (48 min) at Caltech discuss the the political conflicts related to the sea change between NASA and commercial that puts SLS and Orion on the chopping block. So the reason for the omissions at the Senate hearing are primarily political. Jeff Manber of Nanoracks is attempting to develop a commercial effort and injecting his opinion into the SLS and Orion issue would be counter-productive to his private interests. Likewise, Dr. Chiao has commercial concerns to protect and his longstanding relation with NASA as an astronaut. Ms. Eisenhower did not address SLS and Orion sustainability and impact on NASA budgets because it is out of her area of expertise. And lastly Gerstenmaier and the rest of NASA administrators obviously are not in a position to act in conflict to marching orders they have from Washington. Lastly, Nelson and Rubio did not raise the question of viability of SLS and Orion during the hearing.

   First, the framework that was effectively outlined involves more international and commercial cooperation. We cannot go to Mars alone, not like we did to the Moon with Apollo. Secondly, it involves an incremental development effort. This is the approach espoused by the Obama Administration. The House amendment to H.R. 4412 will mandate a long term roadmap from NASA to land humans on Mars; clearly this is a vehicle needed to define a framework. Gerstenmaier’s statement that the Cislunar environment is the needed testing ground is correct one; in contrast to House member interests to send SLS/Orion on a flyby to Mars. Buzz Aldrin and others support this approach. ISS has provided the total time in space to prove and refine the Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) and other subsystems, hardware and practices for sustaining humans on long duration missions. We do not need the Cislunar for further long duration testing but we do need it for proving other systems and techniques for sending an interplanetary spacecraft to Mars with humans. As Gerstenmaier and Bolden have both stated, cislunar provides the space environment and trajectories to test systems and methods without the risks of sending astronauts on a flyby of Mars or rendezvous with a more distant near-Earth object.

   Now I think the odd man out on this whole budget discussion is essentially the Asteroid Retrieval Mission. It is a great idea but will likely need to be proposed through the programs used by SMD to select missions. You cannot finance a useful mission to a retrieved asteroid in Cislunar using SLS and Orion and make it a useful stepping stone to Mars, not with the cost of SLS and Orion and the limited budget. It gives you a too little of everything – some technology for Mars, some addressing of the asteroid concerns, with a take on Muhammad and the mountain addresses the White House goal. With the funding needed for ARM, NASA R&D can more closely focus on technology development that gets us closer to the ultimate goal, Mars. ARM is proposed by NASA to serve two masters – the White House and Capitol Hill; go to an asteroid by 2025 and utilize SLS and Orion all within the present funding levels. Nevertheless, robotic missions to asteroids beyond the present ones do need to be undertaken and B612’s Sentinel does need to be implemented. The latter should be raised to the top of the Asteroid Initiative.

   Nelson clearly stated support for NASA’s funding request for Commercial Crew (CCP) in 2015. Stated almost non-chalantly (@1:04:20), this should not be underestimated. Nelson’s support will be critical to getting full funding. NASA needs the funding to assure that flights commerce no later than 2017 and as Nelson stated, might fly as early as 2016, given sufficient funding. Despite all the rancor Holdren and Bolden faced in the House subcommittees, I think Commercial will be fully funded this year. The situation with Russia under Putin is a factor but also it is simply the ridiculous state of sending American tax dollars to Russia rather than to Amercian enterprise.

   The Ukraine-Russian conflict has involved NASA. However, after hearing the arguments laid out by Ms. Eisenhower and Dr. Chiao, I must agree that the restrictions placed on NASA need to be pulled back. The White House can save face by taking strong measures elsewhere against Russia but at the same moment, hand back to NASA it’s ties with the Russian programs and companies; a fig leaf of sorts. NASA will again stand as a valuable tool of détente. This is aside from the fact that CCP needs full funding.

   Nanoracks’ Director, Mr. Manber stated how he expressed optimism based on the stable space policy coming from Washington. I would mostly differ with that statement but I think he was mostly referring to the extension of ISS to 2024 which provides Nanoracks that chance to compete with China for space station based commercial payloads.

   Lastly, it is clear that NASA’s budget will remain fixed at about $18 Billion through the remaining decade. NASA, the White House and most commercial entities are unwilling to voice their objections or issues with SLS and Orion programs. SLS and Orion are defended by House republicans with self-interests irrespective of the damage done to the NASA budget now and for the next ten years. At some point in the next ten years, the issue will be addressed. SLS and Orion are not cost effective and with the fixed budget, will deny NASA the chance to execute the Mars roadmap economically and in a timely order.

   What can we do? For one, lets take advantage of Planetary Society’s web page to write our Washington legislators. I’m cynical but remain optimistic that with modern communications, citizens can still unite and make a difference. Go to: http://www.planetary.org/ge… then click on “Take Action”. You do not need to be a Planetary member, though hey, Carl Sagan is a founder. You do not need to use their template statement, though its a good starting point. Delete it and start over or just refine it. They recently trimmed down the statement. Keep it short and to the point and civil. Tell your reps to take your letter or a choice paragraph of your letter and have them forward it to Mikulski, Palazzo, Nelson, Shelby, Smith, one or all or someone you consider critical to the decisions to be made. Legislators today do not respond to those outside their district or state (unless you are sending them money). Tell them discussion at NASAwatch, NASAspaceflight or Planetary Society incited you to act.

   What is it we need to call for? Its your call. How about an accelerated move to commercial launch of astronauts and of payloads to support astronauts. We know this points to SpaceX but it involves competition (CCP) and selection. Leave it at that. SLS and Orion are a road block to implementing the roadmap to Mars. Support Commercial Crew full funding. The sooner CCP is delivering “ugly bags of water” (STNG ref.) to ISS, the sooner NASA will transition to full commercial for HEOMD. Support the use of Cislunar space as a stepping stone to Mars but without the necessity of ARM. Help also focus Mikulski’s plan to support NASA’s funding by calling for healthy sustainable funding levels for the Science Mission Directorate. There are things we can do and this is one. I have some other wilder ideas to make ourselves heard but I challenge others to offer their own.

   1. This is one of the most important posts I have seen in a while!!

      1. Thanks DTARS. Important, I think so. Effective? Maybe a little. Nasawatch is an excellent source for unmitigated NASA news but maybe there is a better place for calling for activism. I accidentally sent the reply to you earlier using my ‘old’ disqus – Rocky J. – thought it time to be more open.

2. Leadership is when you don’t ask permission to do things. We should dump SLS/Orion now & fastrak SpaceX MCT sending ten US Astros to Mars in 2018 to stay!

   1. I admire your direct approach, but where do “we” get the money?

      1. You are joking right? 30 billion for SLS block I, 16.5 billion for Orion, 20 billion for SLS block II .. 66.5 billion … SpaceX said 2.5 billion, Boeing wanted 6.5 billion for the Delta IV phase II, Lockheed wanted 6 billion for the Atlas V phase II and ULA wanted 8 billion for their combo…
         Money isn’t the issue.. cost plus, fixed fee, no bid FAR contracts to the usual suspects and a bloated workforce are keeping us grounded..toss in enough escalator clauses to reach the moon without a rocket and we learn it is not the amount of funding available. It is how badly available funding is mismanaged.

Comments are closed.