A Short History Of 21st Century American Space Policy
Keith’s note: Let’s start with the loss of Columbia in 2003. O’Keefe talks Bush into completing ISS, then retiring Space Shuttle, then going back to the Moon by 2018 and then on to Mars 10 years Later. Then Iraq happens and Griffin changes course with the “Apollo on Steroids” thing and pivots toward Mars and away from the Moon. Then Obama tells Bolden “Moon – been there, done that, lets do Mars in 25 years, and hey let’s go capture a mini-asteroid because why not?”. Then Trump says “make space great again” using all of the Obama/Bolden leftovers. Then Pence gets impatient with Bridenstine and says “do the Moon by the end of our second term – oops, I mean in 5 years – instead of whenever”. Now we are left with White House guidance to go back to the Moon sooner – or later. The “sooner” crowd is lead by Bridenstine. The “later” crowd – using Obama leftovers – is led by Gerstenmaier and the status quo. Meanwhile China plans to have lots of people on the Moon before we do – but probably not before Bezos and Musk do so with their own rocket ships and their own money.
Did I miss anything?
“Did I miss anything?”
No, I think that was an excellent summary that covers everything. Any new president must plan on reaching all goals in 4 to 8 years and using Space X or be part of an insignificant footnote in history probably written by Keith Cowing.
What is interesting, is that NASA has delivered exactly what it was designed to deliver – not to cancel on-going programs. By distributing their centers around the USA, and suppliers even wider, they have ensured continuing congressional support. Sure, Presidents have cancelled aspirational goals, and refocused NASA on other goals. But they have never been able to really re-direct the massive NASA spending juggernaut by very much. The SLS is a prime current example, but of course there are a bunch of others. The problem now is that, with nimble private entrepreneurs getting into the space game, this model, which has served NASA so well in the past, has passed its usefulness. Now they are in danger of being left behind, or being viewed as irrelevant.
Frankly I do not see that there is any hope. No hope for NASA. They have been making such poor progress. They have such poor management. Their management processes are nonexistent. It is funny. 20 years ago they were all about Work Instructions, knowledge management, and ensuring they had expertise to take over specific disciplines. No one ever read anything they documented and now they have lost everything they used to have. What a cluster….
Really?
I don’t understand why Iraq is mentioned? I thought the Constellation program was a Griffin thing and not related to Iraq, but maybe I missed something along the way.
Also, my recollection is that Griffin didn’t pivot away from the Moon – the Constellation programme had that destination at it’s core in response to the Vision for Space Exploration. My perception is that he had that pivot forced on him due to lack of progress with Constellation.
No, it was the other way around. Dr. Griffin forced the plan he created for the Planetary Society on NASA. Here is the plan for you to read.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lu…
Written nearly a year before he became Administrator this plan has all the elements of Constellation and the current SLS/Orion in it, including operations near the Moon without returning to the surface and visiting NEOs. All the detours and dead ends that have derailed NASA for the last 15 years seem to have their roots in this plan.
I’ve had a skim, but it’s pretty clear, thank you. It seems consistent with the Planetary Society’s strategy to push human landings out into the indefinite future.
I think the reference to Iraq is the US became involved in a long term war with the spending of many dollars that could have gone towards space development.
I don’t think the cost of that war was an issue for NASA. It was so expensive that doubling or zeroing out NASA’s entire budget would have made little difference to the bottom line. But in terms of attention, both from the public and from politicians, and in terms of political capital, NASA is lucky if it’s on the top ten list (or, more often, unlucky, since if I gets that much attention, it usually means something went very wrong…) The war in Iraq made NASA drop off the bottom of most people’s priority lists.
Didn’t the Constellation program include the Altair lunar lander?
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/28…
That course was set regardless of Griffin until Obama appointed Bolden took over and changed course to an asteroid capture plan, which looked to me (after watching the video of Bolden on Youtube) as nothing more than a poke in the eye to Bush administration.
I think NASA bureaucrats are perfectly aware of the politics involved and actually use the elections to forward their main concern – keeping the space-industrial-government complex flush with cash. Thus you see expensive changes in space policy from one administration to the next with little to show for it.
Virtually no funding. Griffin never took it seriously.
“Didn’t the Constellation program include the Altair lunar lander?”
Yes, it did, but it was planned for later phases of the VSE, which were never reached because of program cancellations.
Iraq is part of the discussion because the big news of the time was not loss of Columbia or VSE but Iraq Gulf War II. Think of Kennedy announcing Apollo program in 1965 with the huge buildup of US in Vietnam (they probably never would have awarded a LM contract like they never awarded a Altair contract from Constellation).
“Then Iraq happens and Griffin changes course with the “Apollo on Steroids” thing and pivots toward Mars and away from the Moon.”
As I recall the Griffin pivot was away from Mars, because “Apollo on steroids” was very lunar centric. The original Lockheed-Martin lifting body CEV was designed for Mars return velocities, but Griffin stuffed CEV into an Apollo capsule shape instead.
Not only was the Griffin CEV a questionable choice of shape for Mars duties, he enlarged the damned thing too. At first the Griffin Orion capsule was 5.5 meters diameter, making Orion so heavy that no existing rocket other than his own pet Ares 1 Rocket might lift Orion into orbit. Even after NASA scaled the capsule downward to 5 meters, Ares 1 was having trouble lifting it.
What amazes me is that the Orion that Congress resurrected, persisted as the same sized Orion that Obama had cancelled. Why did NASA do that? After Ares 1 was dead, why keep Orion so big?
The Mars Mission Architectures that tried to incorporate that heavy Orion with Nuclear Thermal Propulsion were overly massive kludges. Which is probably why NASA finally had to resort to eliminating Orion from Mars consideration, except for use as a taxi to a lunar orbiting “Deep Space Transport”.
“…CEV was designed for Mars return velocities…”
Actually, CEV was never meant for Mars duties. It was strictly a vehicle for ISS and lunar activities and NASA spec’d it that way. Mars hardware would have come later had Constellation been continued.
Congress won’t fund anything except “the big rocket”. (But not that big rocket.)
No landers, no bases, no tugs/refuellers, no EVA suits, no precursor science landers, no major instruments that could be deployed by humans on the moon, etc etc.
Because of this “the big rocket” becomes the latest boat anchor holding NASA back. It sets the pacing for everything. Still hasn’t flown yet. Will have a pathetic flight rate of maybe once a year or so, once “development” is done.
Why should Congress spend a nickel on it?
Heck, free enterprise will do it! And in any case, if free enterprise doesn’t do it, that would mean there’s no money to be made, so why even bother?
DING!
Actually it wont. No matter how much they sell or rationalize it. There is no payoff that wont be 15+ years away. This is exactly why no one has not done it in the past 50 years. The technology has been there, the basic knowledge has been there, and nothing has changed fundamentally. All business has start-up costs that will be recouped over a reasonable amount of time. There is nothing like that regarding human spaceflight.
Then I wonder how Leidos’ Antarctic Support Contract group makes good money. The National Science Foundation pays them to provide logistical and other support for the US Antarctic Program’s scientific research. I’m sure there are companies who would be happy to provide similar services for NASA, on the Moon. And NASA wouldn’t need to build, buy or operate the vehicles.
The problem is that the pork wouldn’t go to the proper NASA districts. Just look at what happen when the Administrator suggested they speed up the SLS by skipping the expensive SLS engine test at Stennis. How dare he try to cut Mississippi out of the pork flow…
The USAP isn’t exactly in the same league as NASA’s human spaceflight work, or even just SLS. I think something like half a billion per year would be below a Senator’s horizon. And we could task Stennis and Marshall with developing a warp drive. That development effort could go on forever, without any valid complaints about why it was taking so long. I think that would please some members of congress.
The basic problem is that NASA has given the impression it’s very expensive to reach the Moon thereby creating a image barrier for private firms arguing it could be done at a price that will close a business model. It’s only in recent years firms have started to show how wrong that image is.
I don’t even live in the USA and I know why they spend the money its to keep folks in Huntsville and Houston working. Its a pity they waste the money, Falcon Heavy could do all the cargo and crew launches with ease !
What did you miss? One word: Pork.
“Meanwhile China plans to have lots of people on the Moon before we do” – I’ll believe it when I see it. Next up for China’s crewed space program is a modular space station in LEO. That’s a far cry from the lunar surface.
Maybe so, but at the rate NASA is going the Chinese will have caught up and surpassed us, “tortoise and hare” fashion. Of course, by the time NASA gets its act together, SpaceX, Blue Origin, Bigelow, et al, will have base(s) established on the Moon and maybe Mars.
That could depend on what they do with a low Earth orbit station. As a construction shack, propellent depot and transshipping point, that could get them much closer to the Moon. Without needing to develop a super heavy lift launch vehicle.
A novel idea!
“We already have rockets capable of lifting X tons, let’s design an exploration mission around that.”
I think you might be severely underrating the resolve and ability of the Chinese people. Also China has something America does not have , the ability to quite simply throw man power at it. You forget they already built a orbital space station and are 90 percent of the way through a second model. I don’t know if they will beat musk but I am almost certain they will beat NASA and Bezo’s is a also ran !! They also are developing a lunar class Long March and that is well documented, China will be mining asteroids while NASA is still working out how to build the Luna Gateway !
Is it NASA or the Congress for the inconsistency, politicians have never changed. So many smart people, can’t figure out politicians
That looks about right, Keith.
Here’s the thing that will make it all work. We’ve already proven that Space Act Agreement contracts get things done faster and for less money. If I understand correctly, all of this LOP-G development stuff and its side shows, essentially every part of all of this that is not specifically SLS or Orion, are under Next Step, which uses Space Act Agreement development and procurement contracting.
This means that the hardware that will be developed for the Propulsion Module, the Habitat Module, the Lander…all of this will be developed faster and cheaper than expected and will be owned by the contractors that build them…to be sold to and used by other customers besides just NASA.
It also means that any money that Congress contributes to this will be without as much in the way of strings attached. So fickle politics can’t kill it.
In fact, at any time after certification and first-launch these manufacturers can go off and make their own deals with one and other and do their own deep-space stuff without NASA or Congress if they see a business opportunity to do so. Bypassing SLS for launches in order to get boots in the regolith by 2024 only accelerates that. It also puts SLS-Orion back in mission-bleed mode.
It also means that the LOP-G development path is no longer wired in series, but in parallel, and that actually moves Mars closer for NASA, not further away as some seem to think that Moon missions would do.
And then there’s Starship…which enters the whole mess in and around 2024-2025 and says, “Whatever, I can fly the whole shootin’ match, whatever’s left, in a year for whatever pocket change is left.”
The summation I believe is accurate, but the real point is that every 4-8 years, a new administration comes in and decides to do things their way.
Look at the original lunar program. It went from JFK, LBJ through to Nixon. I contend that had JFK not been assassinated, Congress would have reduced funding in JFK’s second term, and we would never have made the end of the decade deadline. JFK’s loss made the lunar landing a national commitment that future administrations could not ignore.
However, once the goal was achieved, it didn’t take long for the last two landings to be cut and the future “Apollo Applications” program was gutted.
From what I have read JFK himself seemed to become somewhat less committed to the program towards the end, or perhaps a better way to say it is that as time went on he seemed to be starting to doubt whether it would be successful. However his visit to Cape Canaveral the week before he was assassinated and seeing a Saturn I rocket on the launch pad seemed to buoy his optimism somewhat. So it’s hard to say what would have happened during a (presumed) second term, but I think he would have continued to believe that it was critical to get to the Moon before the Soviets. Funding peaked around 1966 anyway I think so by the time Congress would have gotten around to trying to reduce the program the administration would have said the biggest spending is already or almost over and would be able to keep the budget intact and probably still made the deadline.
He apparently proposed to Khrushchev that they do a joint mission, and the latter refused. It’s a pity that the latter wasn’t willing – a joint US-Soviet effort at a Moon Base probably would have been much more politically sustainable as a long term effort than the Moonshot that we got.
It would have been better for the Soviets that’s for sure, although I’m not so sure it would have been better for the U.S. And it’s almost impossible to imagine the U.S. working with the Soviets on a huge long term project like that right in the middle of the Cold War. Apollo-Soyuz worked out okay but that was a brief walk in the park by comparison. ISS was later possible only because at that time relations with Russia were very good. Although not as good today, relations are still much better than the Cold War era, and yet you can see the strain that it imposes, the Atlas engines being an example. ISS in part works out because essentially we have our side of the station and they have their side of the station, almost like the relation people often have with a next door neighbor that isn’t someone they consider a friend but somehow you manage to co-exist and work together on the things that you have to.
That being said at the working level it seems the people who work on the Russian and U.S. space programs get along quite well and true friendships have formed. In fact Tom Stafford and Alexei Leonov talk on the phone almost weekly from what I understand. But at the higher levels, during the Cold War? I’m not really sure what JFK was thinking. It would be interesting to know more of his thoughts about that, if he really thought it would work or if he was just desperate for some type of political solution, maybe he knew the project would never actually be completed but it would still be a way to end the space race with both sides saving face.
L.O.L
And people wonder why we’ve been flying circles for 50 years…..
S.A.D
One thing is for sure, if the “sooner” people aren’t in the right positions the “later” people will win. This tells me that someone will have to go.
You forgot Richard Branson’s ‘Virgin Galactic’ carnival rides… ( I’m trying to)
The loss of Columbia made political leadership of the day stupid. Demanding the retirement of the shuttle before a follow on program was flying was, to quote Mike Griffin “crazy”. But the decision was made and by 2008 most of the welders and other critical staff for building the ET had or were in the process of leaving the program and not coming back. That ended the Shuttle program regardless of any other follow on decision.
Ares I could lift Orion if it flew with tanks less than ½ full. This limited Orion to earth orbit (i.e. ISS support). ISS support was to be its mission until commercial vendors got ready to fly. Then only the moon/deep space. Ares IV (the Ares I upper stage and Ares V core stage) is what would have been used to meet the lunar missions for crew. Ares IV is basically SLS. The size of Orion was dictated by the need to carry a crew to the moon for a mission lasting up to 18 or more days.
Almost all of the problems on CxP and SLS involve corruption and very poor management. For years people (outside the agency) have been trying to get NASA back to its former glory. Until now civil service people have been able to hold the line and keep the status que. The current administration (for a variety of reasons, but one for sure) is going to get NASA back in the game or remove them as a player.
In my mind it’s too late. MSFC will spend the rest of its days doing propulsion research supporting industry (like the old NACA) , but no other great programs will (or should) come its way. NASA has neglected it primary mission, become corrupt in some (not at all most, but enough) of its leadership assure a significant part of a great investment made by the American people (over the last 60 years) is lost.
NASA should be pushed out of the launch vehicle development business. Based on how MSFC handled CxP and now SLS that’s what they want.
The Gov should buy rides and systems from commercial vendors.
Congress could help and make sure that commercial space vendors come to cities and states that have an existing NASA presence to make sure space work remains, but not done or lead by civil servants. Oh wait, that’s happening right now in Alabama, Florida and Texas.
Change is coming to NASA and it’s about time.
Regarding Apollo, in this presentation by Bill Barry on “60 years of NASA,” he remembered his thoughts of in early 1960s where Kennedy kept talking about a joint mission to the Moon with the Soviets. This confused him at the time because “aren’t we in a race?” Barry then explained at the time with many new nations from former British, French, and other empires were considering what major power should they align with. At the time Soviet Communism looked pretty good considering experience they had from European empires. This was reason why Apollo was given priority so US can show our form of government is better:
https://www.c-span.org/vide…
Fast forward to these days, are we in a similar argument? Maybe not between nation states but centers of power (mega corp. vs other countries)?
Speaking of Bill Barry from the other thread, in this same presentation Barry says when Keith Glennen was offered first NASA Administrator position, Glennen would not accept unless Hugh Dryden was his deputy (Dryden was not interested in being the NASA Administrator). Later when Jim Webb was offered NASA Administrator position, Webb would not accept unless Hugh Dryden was his deputy
“use commercial solutions (which kick-started the CEV process)”
That’s a hell of an achievement, isn’t it? Lots of misses (Sierra Nevada, for instance) but also many home runs.
“VSE specifically instructed NASA not to build a new rocket, but rather use commercial solutions”
I believe that was primarily for ISS support. Here:
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55…
on page 15 it says:
“NASA does not plan to develop new launch vehicle capabilities except where critical NASA needs—such as heavy lift—are not met by commercial or military systems. Depending on future human mission designs, NASA could decide to develop or acquire a heavy lift vehicle later this decade. Such a vehicle could be derived from elements of the Space Shuttle, existing commercial launch vehicles, or new designs.”
I would go back farther than 2003. We “couldn’t” develop a Earth-to-Moon infrastructure based on Shuttle-C and a Space Tug because it would be “too expensive” to do that while running the Space Shuttle and building SS Freedom/Fred/Alpha/ISS. Then along comes little Mikey Griffin and they end up finding and blowing more than enough money on Orion/Constellation/SLS that a true Shuttle-derived heavy launcher plus Space Tug would have cost.