Augustine Summary Report is Out

[radarredux]

The "SUMMARY REPORT of the Review if U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee" is out and can be found here:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/related ... eport.html

The first paragraph begins:

The U.S. human spaceflight program appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory. It is perpetuating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources. Space operations are among the most complex and unforgiving pursuits ever undertaken by humans. It really is rocket science. Space operations become all the more difficult when means do not match aspirations. Such is the case today.

The summary report is 12 pages.

 

[tanstaafl76]

Interesting. They seem to lean toward taking the "Flexible" path of exploration with NASA developing a single new Ares Lite vehicle and handing LEO crew ferry duties over to the private sector while extending the life of the ISS and possibly that of the shuttle, which will all require about a $3 Billion dollar bump to the budget.

They say the only real way to shorten "the gap" is to extend the shuttle life, but it does not look like they did much analysis of the budgeting of that except the current expected spillover into FY 2011.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I don't know if it had to do with their charter, but I noted there were no comments at all about unmanned (i.e. robotic) science missions.

 

[docm]

About as expected.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Indeed, no surprises. Still sobering to read it in black and white....

 

[tanstaafl76]

I don't know if it had to do with their charter, but I noted there were no comments at all about unmanned (i.e. robotic) science missions.

They did mention at one point hanging out around one of the moons of Mars whilst controlling a robotic explorer of some sort on the Martian surface (why they would orbit a Martian moon instead of Mars itself I didn't quite get). I assume, due to the typically lower cost of various robotic missions they were excluded from the inquiry purposefully because they are expected to occur in some frequency no matter what.

Indeed, no surprises. Still sobering to read it in black and white....

The sooner they start dealing in budgetary reality the better, assuming they actually get the funding of course...

 

[MeteorWayne]

Indeed. The whole point of the commission was to provide a reality check, and it's starkly done that. Not too useful for a 57 year old guy, since little will happen in my lifetime, but at least the brutal facts are laid out for TPTB to consider.

 

[tanstaafl76]

Don't get too down Wayne, even if they take the Flexible Path there could be some very cool discoveries that we don't even know enough about to expect them.

If nothing else, this report and the coming budgetary decision will likely have two immediate results:

1) Ares I is likely dead, so we can all stop talking about it.

2) Mars Direct is essentially completely rejected, and as concerted an effort as the Direct folks made, I think once NASA lays the new groundwork based upon this report they will finally give up pushing the Direct route, and we can stop talking about that too.

 

[thermionic]

They also advocated orbital refueling, with comercial fuel suppliers. So non-NASA operations would be lofting the folks and the fuel for $$. It seems to be the beginning of a growth-path for commercial space activity other than satelites. /jd

 

[docm]

Yeah, those parts sound good for SpaceX in particular (ahead of the pack, if they can keep the lead) and potentially for Bigelow (Orion lite and habs) and LockMart (indirectly through Bigelow and EELV's).

 

[tanstaafl76]

Yeah I saw that they mentioned the orbital refueling several times. I also think that's what they were getting at when they said the below:

"In the design of the new launcher, in-space stages and in-space refueling, the Committee cautions against the tradition
of designing for ultimate performance, at the cost of reliability, operational efficiency and life-cycle cost.'

This is an interesting sentence which it would have been nice to read a broader explanation of. Is this a swipe at the tight weight tolerances of Ares I? Or just a general NASA design philosophy, suggesting that capability is always considered before cost? In other words, don't worry about creating the perfect launch rocket that does everything, instead design the most reliable & cost-effective orbital rocket and we can refuel it in orbit if we need to?

 

[docm]

I took it as an endorsement of launching empty departure stages to be assembled and fueled in orbit, given their outright endorsement of fuel depots. Probably the only way you can do large lunar or Mars missions with just the 75mT heavy lifter (Atlas V phase 3?) they're describing.

 

[tanstaafl76]

Maybe it was a nod for the Mars Direct folks in their criticism of NASAs perfection-is-the-enemy-of-progress approach. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it, maybe they are saying don't rent a 18-wheel Semitruck to move your 1500 square foot apartment just so you can do it in one load, rent a 10 foot truck and take 3 loads instead.

 

[radarredux]

They say the only real way to shorten "the gap" is to extend the shuttle life, but it does not look like they did much analysis of the budgeting of that except the current expected spillover into FY 2011.

Well, this is just the "Summary Report", so I suspect there will be more details later.

If I had to hazard a guess, I think the approach to close the gap is to fly the shuttle longer and provide some support to the commercial vendors. This approach might work because the amount of NASA money going to help the commercial vendors is much smaller than the amount of NASA money needed to develop the Ares I. The savings from canceling Ares I would then go to keeping the Shuttle flying.

--- Shuttle -->| B_i_g___ ___g_a_p |---> Ares I --->

-------- Shuttle ------>| gap |---> commercial --->

I bet now that the committee has officially floated this idea, Congress people with Shuttle-related jobs in their district are going to jump on this pointing to this report as justification to "close the gap".

 

[tanstaafl76]

I was of the understanding that the wind-down of the Shuttle program was already too far along to extend it any substantial amount of time? In the summary report they only concretely discuss extending shuttle into 2011 by virtue of a likely spillover from the current schedule, they only seem to refer to extending the Shuttle program longer than that in a hypothetical sense as it being the only way to close the gap, but then stop short of saying how the program could actually be extended, and seem to pass the buck in calling for a full review of the Shuttle program (in their first footnote I think it was).

 

[Booban]

How quick we forget that the shuttle has killed many astronauts. Griffin was so sure the shuttle had to be put down he didn't even want to fix Hubble.

Has something changed?

 

[tanstaafl76]

I think that's why they stopped short of fully recommending they extend the Shuttle program. Instead they say, IF you are going to consider extending the Shuttle program (past the 2011 FY spillover they include in their budget scenarios) then you need to conduct a full review, but that they did not do one and therefore did not recommend it one way or the other.

 

[docm]

How quick we forget that the shuttle has killed many astronauts. Griffin was so sure the shuttle had to be put down he didn't even want to fix Hubble.

Has something changed?

Selective amnesia.

 

[tanstaafl76]

Reading between the lines, it seems like the Commission would like to see it extended but didn't want to say so, probably because it would require them to wade into some morbid realities of continuing to operate a side mounted orbiter covered in delicate glass tiles that routinely get hit and damaged on every single lift-off, and with it only being a matter of time before the damage is substantial that at best they lose the Shuttle and the crew has to use the ISS, and at worst we have another Columbia.

 

[centsworth_II]

(why they would orbit a Martian moon instead of Mars itself I didn't quite get)

From the report:
"Most interestingly, humans could rendezvous with a moon of Mars, then coordinate with or control
robots on the Martian surface."

I think by "rendezvous" they mean land. They probably don't say land because the gravity of Phobos is so small (1/1000 that of Earth) that landing would be more like docking. One big advantage of being on Phobos instead of in Mars orbit is of course that you can study Phobos. There may also be long term radiation shielding advantages, I don't know.

 

[neutrino78x]

I think this report does not fix the fundamental problem, as identified by Dr. Zubrin's testimony: this still leaves NASA in "Space Shuttle Mode" as opposed to "Apollo Mode".

NASA needs concrete goals. You can't say "we'll eventually land on the Moon a few times, then maybe go to an asteroid, then go to Mars, and this program could take 5 years or 100 years, whichever justifies NASA's existence for longer".

Apollo worked because there was a clear goal: go to the Moon in 10 years. So we need another concrete goal. If the goal is establish a base on the Moon, it has to be "establish a base on the Moon in 5 years", not "establish a base in such a time frame as you deem acceptable".

I think the goal should be Mars, but if it has to be the Moon, fine. But put a concrete, near term time limit on it. Not "future exploration beyond earth orbit", but "within 5 years".

Also, whatever is stopping SpaceX's rockets from being "human certified" needs to be fixed. But that's up to SpaceX, not NASA.

--Brian

 

[Booban]

I don't think Apollo mode is a good example because while successful in its goal it was short lived. We don't want to go there again. I dare say that Space Shuttle Mode is not a worse mode, as it has accomplished a great many things (Hubble, space repair, capture and return of space satellites and not the least of which is international co operation in space (If you include the ISS).

Some kind of time frame is of course a good hallmark of a concrete goal, but there's more to it.

 

[darkmatter4brains]

I would imagine its difficult to set solid goals w/o good backing. Especially, if they are ambitious goals. NASA relies much on the administration/congress and indirectly, the will of the American people, to get the budgets that allow them to do work. If there isn't a strong backing from there, what does it matter what goals you set. If they're not realistic, they'll eventually get canceled. With today's atmosphere, I see it getting harder and harder to set any kind of ambitious goals. disappointing, to say the least ...

 

[jakethesnake]

Sense I don’t believe that the ISS is going anywhere until 2020, and I think that’s a given, then the Ares 1 is history for sure!

Also, it appears that “Flexible” is the new mindset for NASA, which means forget about any continuity or purpose. To me “Flexible” is a code word for lazy and noncommittal, to basically put NASA on the back burner to simmer!

One thing I think this committee has done very poorly is assessing the International Space Station and its purpose.

It’s up there, and we put it there, so what are we going to use it for, how does the ISS do anything but suck NASA completely dry?

I do think many great things can be accomplished on the ISS, but at a tremendous cost, a cost that was known, a cost that has no short term benefits, and a cost that reaps no short term revenue.

The cornerstone of all headaches for NASA is the ISS, and I would think that if it is so imperative that NASA has a clear set of goals and a clear set of directives, then why shouldn’t the same holds true for the ISS?

 

[tanstaafl76]

The dollar is being destroyed. Because of that, budgetary conditions for NASA will only get worse. The reality is that our long-term presence in space is probably going to rely on international partners in an increasing capacity, much moreso than the ISS. Because of that, IMHO it is necessary to keep the cooperation going on the ISS even if it is a budgetary albatross around their neck; the reality is that even if you de-orbit it tomorrow, NASA is still going to face tremendous difficulty putting together a successful long term exploration program without substantial reliance on international partners, and the last thing we should do is bail on the ISS when our international partners want to keep it operating. It would be a huge step back for international space cooperation, and the beginning of the end of NASA's role as the world's premier space frontier exploration agency.