The Swirl

First, I invite you to read Jeff Foust's latest piece on the Augustine Human Space Flight panel. Go ahead, I'll wait...

Now I'll throw my own shrimp on the barbie--gingerly, of course. I've got a stake in this business in the form of a day job. There's been enough attention paid to this matter that one can't help admire the tempest in a teapot. The contenders for leading America's next generation of space exploration include:

• The Constellation Program as currently built: the Ares I crew launch vehicle for sending human beings in the Orion crew exploration vehicle into orbit, and the Ares V cargo launch vehicle, which can place the Altair lunar lander into orbit, along with an Earth departure stage (EDS). Missions to the International Space Station would require only Ares I and Orion. In a lunar exploration scenario, Ares V would launch Altair and the EDS into orbit. Next, Ares I launches Orion into orbit; Orion docks with Altair, and then the EDS fires its engine to send Orion and Altair toward the Moon.
• United Launch Alliance, a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, has suggested replacing Ares I with the "heavy" version of the Delta IV evolved expendable launch vehicle, which is already in existence, but doesn't have all the extra bells and whistles to make it "human rated."
• A group of NASA and non-NASA people have proposed a Space Shuttle-based archiecture called DIRECT, which would maximize existing equipment by putting four Space Shuttle Main Engines on the bottom of an external tank, and then putting the Orion on top. A new upper stage would give the Orion enough oomph to get it into orbit for lunar missions. For lunar missions, two DIRECT vehicles would be used, with one launching Altair, one launching Orion and the Earth departure stage (I believe).
• Others have suggested using wholly commercial launchers and spacecraft to support the International Space Station via the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. The most likely candidate, if proven successful, would be SpaceX's Falcon 9 launcher and six-person Dragon spacecraft.

And no doubt there are others. An impressive array of choices--more than America had ten years ago, at any rate--but how does one decide? I myself am a proud, self-proclaimed "English major" (M.A. University of Central Florida '02, lest you think my low-key pose is real). I'm not an engineer, I'm a policy guy.

It seems to me that the bigger picture is being lost in the swirl over the choice of rockets. Everyone's so concerned about the "horse race" between the various vehicles that they're overlooking where the horses might or should be going, which is really the most important part of this discussion. I love our space science programs--the rovers, the orbiters, the telescopes--but I would dearly love to see human beings (yes, Americans) plant Old Glory into an asteroid or Mars or the Moon again. We did it when I was born, f'r gosh sakes, certainly we can improve on that performance after 40 years!

But the bigger questions aren't just about flags and footprints. We had that, won a race, and then closed down the production lines for the Moon rockets because we thought the job was done. As a space advocate, beg to differ. We've learned more about the Moon in the past 40 years. We know that the place is rich in energy, actual (solar) and potential (helium-3, which can be used for fusion). It might have water ice, which would make long-term bases and settlements possible up there. That's what the LCROSS mission will hopefully find out in October.

But what are we going to do when we're up there? That's where the conversation has always fallen flat (one can see the results in the International Space Station). Here's a step-by-step progression of what's possible with current technology--whichever rockets we choose to build:

1. Science performed by robotic vehicles, including Earth observation, planetary science, and astronomy.
2. Robotic "virtual" entertainment (e.g. tele-operated rovers moving around the Moon under the control of private citizens back on Earth).
3. Human exploration of other worlds, including the Moon, asteroids, and Mars.
4. Space resource development, including investigating space solar power, helium-3, platinum-group metals, and anything we haven't seen yet for use in solving problems here on Earth.
5. Basic science taking advantage of the near-vacuum and low gravity of the Moon or other bodies in the solar system.
6. Manufacturing of new products taking advantage of the space environment.
7. Handling or storage of materials too dangerous or precious to leave on Earth, such as nuclear waste, biotechnology, nanotechnology, cultural artifacts, or genetic "libraries" of all life on Earth.
8. Space commerce, including space hotels, tourism, off-world banks, and space salvage--none of which require a permanent human presence in space to maintain.
9. Space settlement, meaning permanent human habitations in orbit or on the Moon, Mars, or asteroids for scientific, commercial, or cultural reasons.

If I were President, I'd want to learn from the panel where the country should go and what we should do in space. From there, the hardware selections become more or less academic. If I had my choice, I'd keep shooting for the Moon, Mars, and beyond--let NASA keep doing what it's doing. I don't have a problem with a "mixed fleet" to low Earth orbit and the Space Station until the commercial sector gets established. Redundant capability to LEO might not be efficient, but it gives the country several options. But we need to keep NASA focused on the frontiers of science and engineering. Otherwise, what's the darned point?

Space Potpourri

Some interesting things being said in the space industry, mostly because there haven't been a lot of interesting things being done.

Jeff Foust has a good editorial about the challenges facing the Constellation Program. There's also an interesting essay on the aimlessness in the Obama administration's space policy (which I agree with) and the need for yet another "independent" assessment of the DIRECT architecture (which I do not agree with). In fact, if you haven't subscribed to The Space Review yet, you should do so. It is probably the best outlet I've seen for editorials dealing specifically with space advocacy.

Astronaut Mike Massimino is Twittering to give folks a behind-the-scenes look at NASA's astronaut biz. I'll be interested to see how much "truth" they allow him to write. The agency as a whole is very protective of its "brand" (image). They're rather like Disney in that way.

USA Today has a very cool Flash feature depicting the assembly of the International Space Station.

The Space Frontier Foundation in this editorial is offering the following policy suggestions to the Obama administration:

• Kill the overbudget, behind schedule Ares rocket project;
• Launch NASA’s new Orion capsule on human-rated expendable launch vehicles;
• Provide more money to NASA’s COTS programs to support the development of private human space systems;
• Fund the cheapest medium-lift vehicle launcher possible to facilitate Moon missons.

This isn't space-specific, but a coworker referred me to a site providing multiple links to women and technology called WomenTechWorld.

Someone is offering suggestions for theme music for the Constellation Program.

Former astronaut Lisa Nowak's defense team is trying to make the case that she was autistic. Oh, come on, really?? You don't get to be one of America's best and brightest by being autistic. They wouldn't let her on the Space Shuttle if she had that. I happened to see Ms. Nowak at MSFC during a crew visit the November before her little "incident." She was focused, composed, and engaged, none of which--as far as I'm aware--are habits of typical autistics.

The U.S. space industry is not yet seeing a slowdown, despite the iffy economy. Huzzah! Some good news for a change!

The Orlando Sentinel has fired another broadside at the Constellation Program.

*

And on the lighter side of things--and not related to space whatsoever--hat tip to my dad for finding this "tutorial" on how to speak car mechanic gibberish. Engineers should watch this so they have some idea of what it's like for an English major during some meetings about rocket science.

The War in Georgia and the Space Program

While the news media is transfixed by the invasion of the oil-producing former Soviet republic of Georgia by its former masters, not too many of them have given much thought to the effect of Russia's actions on the space program.

This has been a big issue for me since Space Adventures started sending tourists to the International Space Station. I questioned my fellow space advocates' embrace of this activity, especially since Russia was not all that reliable. But at the time I was grousing, it was 2000-2001, and my Cold Warrior opinions were not welcome. Well, here's a "See, I Told You So" 7 years later. Now we have Russia invading one of its former client states/satellites.

This invasion makes sense if one has read a bit of European/Russian history as well as The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington. In short, we're now facing a world situation where large regional powers are trying to reassert and maintain their power over smaller states in their neighborhood. Russia had a "cordon sanitaire" or set of buffer states between itself and the West between 1919 and 1991. Making former satellites like Ukraine, Poland, or Georgia members of NATO was a direct threat to Russina security, as they saw it. That might not be logical, but it is prudent. Russia wants its buffer back.

So why does this affect the space program? Because Russia has been a major partner in building and staffing the International Space Station and, once the Space Shuttle retires in two years, they will be our only transportation provider to ISS. Will Russia refuse the U.S. access to ISS once Shuttle retires? Will they jack up the price of Soyuz flights to ISS the way they held Europe hostage for higher oil prices? Will ISS become the site of the first "space war?" Those are the types of questions and possibilities Bush and the next president must consider if Russia is going to continue to be an aggressor.

On the U.S. side, we have some other questions to consider. For instance:

• Do we keep the Space Shuttle flying longer?
• Do we increase funding to the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program?
• Do we increase funding for the Constellation Program to speed up development of Ares and Orion?
• Do we do all of the above?
• Do we scrap everything and build a different rocket?

Funding all of the above would probably cost $2-3 billion per year at best. More likely, we'd be looking at $4-5 billion in new funding on top of the current $17 billion NASA budget, assuming the current budget gets past the threat of a continuing resolution in Congress. This, of course, overlooks the operational consequences of extending the Shuttle, which Mike Griffin has addressed again and again:

• As long as we continue to fly Shuttle, the vehicle processing and launch infrastructure at Kennedy Space Center must remain as is. The longer we keep Shuttle in place, the longer it will take for our launch systems (the Vehicle Assembly Building, the launch pads, etc.) to be ready to launch Ares I and Ares V. That might not delay the development time for Ares I, but it will delay our ability to fly it.
• We can increase funding for COTS--and I'm for that anyway--but there will be some resistance, given that the only serious competitor in the field (SpaceX) has failed three times to get something into orbit.
• We can increase funding for Ares and Orion. However, Griffin, Jeff Hanley, and others have pointed out that even if you threw a couple billion dollars at Constellation, money isn't the issue. Roger Bilstein's Stages to Saturn provides an excellent narrative that explains why building new rocket systems is a long, arduous, linear process. That means, even if you threw ten or a hundred billion dollars at a new engine system (say, J-2X), it would still take seven years to build it. You have to build things, test them, have them blow up, try something new, and then retest.
• We could stay on plan: retire the Shuttle, build Ares, accept the five-year gap, suck it up, and pay the Russians whatever they want to charge to get access to the ISS.
• We could shift gears, change direction, try some other rocket design--start from scratch with DIRECT or make EELV human-rated and put an Orion capsule on top of it--and hope that either of these choices shrinks the anticipated five-year gap in America's ability to launch human beings into space. Keep in mind that the last time America had a gap in human spaceflight capabilities were the years 1975 to 1981. Those weren't particularly great years (think: Carter), but civilization did not collapse.
• We could quit. Let the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Europeans, and Indians inherit the spaceways.

The best question someone could ask the two major candidates would be: "America's space program is a waste of time and resources. Why should be bother spending money on space at all? Why don't we just close it down?" Okay, it's not the best question someone could ask, but it would bring the space issue into focus. Do we really want it shut down completely? Does greatness (okay, pride and power--the things McCain talked about in his space statement--but also future technologies and resources) no longer matter to America? Are we going to give up being the single richest, most powerful nation in history just because it's too much work or too expensive? Ye flippin' gods.

Regardless of what happens in Georgia, the media needs to give more thought to the space aspects of a new Cold War with Russia, because it is nearly here, and our space program looked a lot different the last time we had a Cold War. The last time we had one, we went to the Moon.