NASA’s Big Plans

by George F. McClure

Less than a month after Hurricane Katrina made landfall on the Gulf coast, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin held a news conference to unveil NASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture Study. The study fleshed out the Vision for Space Exploration that President Bush announced in January 2004, calling for a return to manned space exploration — first to the moon, and then to Mars. But resources to implement the vision will be tightly stretched.

The plan overview

In broad outline, the plan called for retiring the Space Shuttle in 2010; developing and flying a new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) by 2014; returning man to the moon by 2020; mounting a 2.5 year mission for six astronauts to Mars decades later; and, in parallel, developing a sustained and affordable robotics program to augment the human exploration program.

In the period between the retiring of the Space Shuttle and the availability of the CEV, partners in the International Space Station (ISS) will continue to ferry personnel and supplies between Earth and the ISS. Consideration is given to the possible shift of the ISS later to private enterprise. The Lunar Lander, Command and Service modules will be modeled after the Apollo program, with updated electronics. Both the number of men on the moon (four, not two) and the length of time on the lunar surface (7 days) would be doubled from Apollo. Ultimately, a crew would remain on the moon for six months, similar to the ISS crew tours of duty.

At least two lunar missions per year would be undertaken — more, if affordable on a pay as you go basis — using a 125 metric ton launch vehicle for both lunar exploration and later Mars missions. The Mars payload would be assembled in low Earth orbit in a few months with a few launches. There would be an order of magnitude improvement in crew safety, to a rate of 1 failure in 2,000 launches.

Where Apollo explored only equatorial areas of the moon, the new lander would permit global coverage. It is possible that there is ice at the poles that could be exploited for further missions.

The new CEV would do anything the space shuttle was capable of, including Hubble or other space telescope repair missions. The new program would use 85 percent of the existing workforce, and rely on existing NASA facilities — Johnson Space Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, Cape Kennedy, Stennis Space Center and Michoud Assembly Facility. Edwards Air Force Base would be the preferred landing site for the CEV, but water landing is an option. Dr. Griffin estimates that the return of the first human lander to the moon will cost about $104 billion — 55 percent of what Apollo cost.

The goal for CEV reusability is five to ten flights — not a hundred as in the original shuttle specs. Robotics will be included early in the program — a lunar reconnaissance orbiter is being developed at Goddard Space Flight Center, and work will start next on a robotic lunar lander.

Dr. Griffin emphasizes that NASA expects its top line budget to remain constant at a bit over $16 billion per year (adjusted for inflation) for the next four or five years. He does not anticipate a reduction in science budgets to fund space budgets. He offers absolute assurance that the new program architecture fits within the Bush Administration funding guidelines.

For 2006, NASA R&D spending will increase 7.3 percent, largely for the spacecraft to carry humans to the moon and beyond.

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina wreaked havoc on both Stennis and Michoud, in southern Mississippi and New Orleans, respectively. But Dr. Griffin accepts hurricanes as a fact of life and dismisses the idea that NASA programs should be disbanded because of them.

Not everyone agrees

Basic research is a key source of innovation, but years of sustained investment are required for the transformation from concepts to tangible products.

Critics of NASA’s plan point out that it emphasizes spending on development, not basic research. And federal research budgets are tight. Even the National Institutes of Health, the premier center for biomedical research, which saw its budget double in the five years ending in 2003, was hit with a 0.1 percent drop for 2006 — its first budget cutback since 1970. The Association of American Universities notes that colleges and universities that depend on federal support to run their electrical engineering, computer science and other departments are hit hard by falling or stagnating research spending. Its 60 research universities account for 60 percent of federally supported, university-based research.

Private spaceflight endeavors are progressing much faster than government programs. About a dozen entrepreneurial companies have legitimate space projects in the works. Asked about this, Dr Griffin noted that the government can’t depend on private investors coming in at the right time, but he is optimistic that the ISS may one day be turned over to private enterprise.

At least 18 more flights are needed to finish the ISS, but those flights could consume the shuttle replacement vehicle budget plus that of a moon mission. Some Congressional support exisits for extending the 2010 deadline for space shuttle operations — especially if the successor CEV schedule slips. This support is strongest among senators from California, Florida and Texas — states that will benefit most from the new programs because they are home to NASA's facilities.

A private, volunteer group, the Space Access Society, exists for the sole purpose of promoting routine, reliable, radically cheaper access to space, as soon as possible. It advocates putting NASA’s entire ground-to-orbit leg of the new deep space missions out to bid.

References

Executive Summary (Introduction): NASA Exploration Systems Architecture Study Final Report, www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19066

NASA News Conference with Mike Griffin: Exploration Systems Architecture Study (Transcript), www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18122

George McClure is chair of IEEE-USA's Communications Committee, a member of the IEEE-USA Career & Workforce Policy Committee, and technology policy editor for IEEE-USA Today’s Engineer. Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org. Opinions expressed are the author's.