May 28, 2010
American Heroes
Neil walks on the Moon, July 1969
Memorial Day weekend is upon us, so thoughts of heroes and remembering them are foremost in my mind. As a kid growing up in the Sixties, I saw a lot of change in our country. There was upheaval and tension here at home and around the world but the U.S. space program was a shining light that inspired many of us. America was going to the Moon. My friends and I dreamed of going and did the next best thing by launching rockets in vacant fields, excited and inspired by the idea of going into space and to the Moon. Astronauts who flew into space, braving certain death in exploding rockets to fight the Soviets for control of the heavens, were our heroes.
The decade following was disappointing in many respects, but none more so than our apparent retreat from space. In my exuberant but ignorant youth, I did not realize that Apollo wasn’t about space but rather about geopolitics right here on Earth. America had won the war of space supremacy. Unaware of the implications of what that reality meant to manned space exploration, we pressed on, eagerly preparing for a future that simply was not to be. But our feelings for those men who braved the unknowns of space remained true. They blazed the trail, setting us on our course, and they hold a special place in our hearts and memories.
The Apollo astronauts were a varied lot and all of us had our favorites — and a few we didn’t particularly care for. But we admired all of them. They did much more than simply play Russian roulette with rockets. All of them were technically trained people, keen sharp guys with thorough educations and long experience in handling, managing and using advanced technology. The Apollo astronauts were intimately involved with the design of their spacecraft; they were not “button-pushers” or “appliance jockeys,” or “spam in a can.” They knew the principles of how their systems worked and could adapt and improvise when things went wrong. They had the “Right Stuff.”
Listening to Neil Armstrong, the first man on the Moon, testifying before the House Space Subcommittee the other day brought back so many memories. Although I know many of the Apollo astronauts personally, I have only met Neil Armstrong once, very briefly at a technical meeting. I was struck by his testimony during this House committee hearing. His words rang so familiar and true. I have said many of these things myself over the years and most recently argued for them in this blog.
Neil Armstrong is not only a famous, experimental test pilot, he has decades of experience in aerospace engineering and in the management of complex technical projects. He faced critical life-and-death decisions on both of his spaceflights. In 1966, his Gemini spacecraft malfunctioned, sending him and co-pilot Dave Scott tumbling end over end, out-of-control while they were near another space vehicle in Earth orbit. His piloting skills brought the vehicle under control, ending the mission early but saving his and Dave’s lives. Three years later, as his Lunar Module continually rang out with program alarms of unknown origin, he coolly guided his vehicle over a crater full of large boulders before making a soft touchdown on the Moon for the first time in history – all with less than 20 seconds worth of fuel to spare! Because his training and experience gave him the ability to decisively, competently and quickly weigh his options, his corrective actions saved the mission.
His testimony before Congress reflects a grave concern over the “new direction” proposed for NASA. He believes it is a mistake to abandon the Moon and the Vision for Space Exploration without a thorough review of all options and alternatives. He makes the case that the Augustine committee, whose report allegedly is the basis of the new direction, was configured and given terms of reference in such a way as to assure that some options would be found untenable. Specifically, that the cost estimates provided by The Aerospace Corporation and used by the Augustine committee to support the case for commercial transportation are unjustified and unsupported by serious analysis, a critical point that others have also made.
Armstrong is particularly mystified by the President’s casual and unconsidered dismissal of lunar return on the grounds that “we’ve been there.” And oh yes, he is also very aware that “Buzz has been there” – he was there with him. Armstrong made an analogy about this change in direction, using the example of courts of Europe in the early 1500s dismissing new trips to the Americas on the ludicrous grounds that, “We’ve been there.”
The Moon is a continent-sized landmass, where we have touched only six spots near the equator on the front side. Moreover, we have found that the polar areas of the Moon are even more interesting and useful than we had ever imagined or hoped for. The water found in the polar cold traps could enable the building of an extensible space transportation system, giving us access to all of our space assets in cislunar space, as well as taking us to the planets. We need to return to the Moon for fundamentally the same reasons Europe returned to the New World – for prosperity, knowledge and the expansion of our civilization – the very reasons so many other space faring countries are currently working toward building a base on the Moon.
Neil Armstrong had a distinguished career serving his country in space on his Gemini and Apollo missions. He seldom speaks out on public policy, so his emergence in this debate on our national space program is thus significant. By coming forward to warn us how this proposed new direction will eliminate our nation’s space faring capabilities and leadership in space, he is once again striving to hold a steady course for the good of our country. This warning comes from someone with considerable experience in space engineering, as well as a former employee of an agency that he knows well, for both its strengths and its weaknesses. We should reflect on and consider his counsel carefully. He is a tried and true American hero.
46 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The web editors have closed comments for this blog.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Robert, Holly Lamb. Holly Lamb said: American Heroes–a beautiful piece by Air&Space mag #space http://bit.ly/adp8Y5 (via @spacefuture) [...]
Pingback by Tweets that mention American Heroes | The Once and Future Moon -- Topsy.com — May 28, 2010 @ 4:12 pm
Why do so many people equate ending the development of two particular rockets with abandonment of the Vision for Space Exploration? If anything, the Constellation program was progressing in the exact opposite direction of the VSE and the Aldridge commission and even the Space Act of 1958 (amended).
In fact, the Space Action section 203a, Functions of the Administration, parts (4)[seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space] and (5) [encourage and provide for Federal Government use of commercially provided space services and hardware, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Government] prohibit development of the Ares 1 given the existence of the Atlas and Delta.
The Vision for Space Exploration was not about one particular destination. It was Moon, Mars and Beyond. It isn’t a sprint, it’s a marathon. You prepare differently for a marathon than a sprint. And, you conduct a marathon race differently too, with depots along the way for athletes to replenish their supplies of water and nourishment.
I posted a list of technological stepping stones to space that NASA and industry could do in a reasonable amount of time and for a reasonable budget. Of all the things on that list, propellant depots are probably at the highest technology readiness level right now. And I know Buzz Aldrin had a company that spent years working on a flyback liquid fueled strapon booster (his was a manned idea, I’m proposing using UAV technology) to replace solids.
We still do Moon, Mars, and Beyond. However, instead of just picking just one and sprinting, we set up the technological base and beginnings of infrastructure needed to do the Moon AND Mars AND Beyond.
In fact, just getting the propellant depots in orbit and getting flyback sidemounted stages alone would quickly facilitate the establishment of a moon base, much faster than developing Ares 1 and 5. It establishes a supply chain – real trailblazing.
And instead of developing two brand new rockets for a limited number of missions, NASA engineers can spend the same 40 or so billion on things like ISRU and substantially enclosed life support systems and a lunar lander that refuels in lunar orbit and make each future mission easier and less expensive.
You can have it good, or fast, or cheap, pick two. We’ve spent plenty of time on the good and fast – but for the long run we’ll have to pick good and cheap. Which means we have to stop sprinting, and spend the time (which is going to pass by anyway) preparing to do this properly for the long haul.
Comment by Ed Minchau — May 28, 2010 @ 5:27 pm
Why do so many people equate ending the development of two particular rockets with abandonment of the Vision for Space Exploration?
Because the Vision was abandoned by the new budget and then specifically repudiated by the President last month.
That was your rhetorical question. Here’s mine:
Given the history of the last 20 years of this agency, why do so many in the space community think the “new direction” will result in anything useful whatsoever?
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 28, 2010 @ 5:54 pm
“Insanity – doing the same thing over and over expecting different results” – Albert Einstein.
If NASA does the next 20 years the way they’ve done the last 20 years, we won’t get different results. Something has to give.
Comment by Ed Minchau — May 28, 2010 @ 5:59 pm
If NASA does the next 20 years the way they’ve done the last 20 years, we won’t get different results.
The “new path” is exactly that — a decade of paper studies and viewgraph making, accompanied by promises of trips beyond LEO “sometime in the future.”
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 28, 2010 @ 7:47 pm
Neil Armstrong was a magnificent hero, who is now lending his voice to the grand cause of America once more making great strides in space, via utilizing the Moon as the Antarctica of tomorrow. Project Constellation merely STARTS OUT resembling Apollo, but will move far beyond merely reaching Luna by manned lander craft. Sortie missions will BE THE BEGINNING. Indeed, two flights which will resemble Apollos 9 & 10, will need to be mounted, in order to test out the dual spacecrafts, in both Earth orbit & Moon orbit. The Orion-Altair astronauts will accomplish tremendous things on the Moon’s surface and in Lunar orbit! The expanded science that we could acheive, through these expeditions will be dramatic, plus the surveying of the Satellite’s natural resources will make the effort so very worthwhile! Bases will be built, utilizing the Altair L-SAM in an unmanned cargo soft-lander variation. The Orion CEV will also be capable of long, unmanned phases of low lunar orbit flight, during multi-month long surface stays of the main crew; and will be useful for aerial-type of scientific observation of the Moon, both while attended with a crewman or not. In short: PROJECT CONSTELLATION GETS THE BALL ROLLING AGAIN, after 40 years of NASA being trapped in Low Earth Orbit. I support enthusiastically this effort of Returning To The Moon!
Comment by Chris Castro — May 28, 2010 @ 10:40 pm
Well, then, we need a different approach. The Aldridge commission recommended turning all NASA centers into FFRDCs like JPL, which would be a heck of a good start. Expanding the Centennial Challenges to provide leverage on R&D dollars would be another good start.
I think we are in agreement that PowerPoint engineering is no way to run a space program.
Comment by Ed Minchau — May 29, 2010 @ 12:01 am
One thing that has astonished me is the line by ObamaSpace supporters that goes like this: “Neil Armstrong? What does he know about–well–space exploration?” Thanks for providing the answer.
Comment by Mark R. Whittington — May 29, 2010 @ 12:05 am
My respect for Neil Armstrong grew when I watched him on television, many years ago, actually host an excellent PBS television miniseries produced by the BBC ‘The Voyage of Charles Darwin’.
Mr. Armstrong is a great pioneer who apparently also appreciates the great adventurers and scientific pioneers who came before him.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 29, 2010 @ 3:20 am
@ Ed Minchau
Actually, Obama is doing to Bush’s program (Constellation) what Bush did to Clintons program (X-33) and what Nixon did to the Kennedy-Johnson program (Apollo). So canceling programs is nothing new.
No new ‘game changing’ technologies are required to return to the Moon. And there were plenty of cheaper architectures than the Ares I/V for returning to the Moon. But Obama decided that returning to the Moon wasn’t important and decided to choose none of them!
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 29, 2010 @ 3:31 am
No new ‘game changing’ technologies are required to return to the Moon if we want to do it rarely and as expensively as possible.
FIFY.
Comment by Ed Minchau — May 29, 2010 @ 4:31 pm
“Given the history of the last 20 years of this agency, why do so many in the space community think the “new direction” will result in anything useful whatsoever?” – Paul Spudis
“We see the Obama space policy as rescuing human spaceflight, allowing the private sector to take over low Earth orbit and allow NASA to go push the envelope, and do what NASA does best.” – Michael Gold, Director of Washington DC Operations for Bigelow Aerospace (emphasis mine)
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/guest/25255/
This is why, Paul. It has the potential to be a fundamental change in the way NASA operates. In fact, there is no way NASA can continue to operate the way it has over the last 20, 30, 40 years.
Marcel is right, canceling programs is nothing new. Multi-decade tens-of-billions-of-dollar programs that have to be funded through ten Congresses and sustained through at least three Presidential administrations will almost certainly follow the same fates as Space Station Freedom and NASP and X-33 and even Wernher von Braun’s post-Apollo vision – in the end, PowerPoint hell.
However, a few programs totaling a few billion a year (taking the place of the Ares-1 and Ares-5 funding) that produce a few tangible stepping-stone results and expand the industry every Congressional term – that’s a different NASA. And that’s a different next 20 years.
Comment by Ed Minchau — May 29, 2010 @ 5:28 pm
Obama is the WORST President, with regard to manned spaceflight!!! If McCain would have gotten elected, none of this rhino-dung would be happening right now!! Project Constellation would have simply gone forward. Mr. Obama is thoroughly controlled by the Anti-Moon people & the Trekkies. There is NO hope of him backing off from this suicide march order he has given to NASA. It is all in Congress’s corner now. May the wise statespersons there see it fit to rescue NASA’s future, by restoring Constellation, and getting us started with prospecting the Moon’s wealth of natural resources!
Comment by Chris Castro — May 30, 2010 @ 12:51 am
Ed,
allowing the private sector to take over low Earth orbit and allow NASA to go push the envelope, and do what NASA does best.”…. This is why, Paul. It has the potential to be a fundamental change in the way NASA operates.
I know of no particular reason to give any credence to your “why” statement. People have been trying to reform NASA for years, laying out new management strategies to make the agency “leaner,” more efficient, and more innovative. Didn’t seem to take, did it? And in contrast to what you believe, the path of “technology development” HAS been tried before — NASA in the 1990′s was focused on “technology development” in Earth to LEO transportation, with several programs designed to “revolutionize” the system and lower costs. We got nothing for it but a pile of paper studies.
I keep hearing the same thing from the advocates of the new path — it is indeed the triumph of hope over experience.
But even all this is secondary to my fundamental point. With the Vision, we had a real strategic direction, with goals, mileposts, a schedule, and a strategy to achieve them. All that has been discarded in the new path and not for a different set of goals and missions, but for nothing. You can harp on the mantra of technology development and lower costs for LEO access all day but in the final analysis, NASA will not change — they ARE a mission-oriented agency and that’s what they do, for good and ill. The new path is a prescription for random activity, Brownian motion on a cosmic scale.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 30, 2010 @ 6:31 am
In the 1960s “beating the Soviets” was the geopolitical imperative facing JFK and the US. Nonetheless, the US still signed the OST of 1967 to disclaim any intention of seeking control over lunar resources.
Today seeking American pre-eminence in controlling lunar resources is something that certainly seems to lack traction inside the Washington Beltway. Buzz Aldrin said as much last October in his Huffington Post piece.
Seeking to change such attitudes strikes me as being a more difficult task than putting a man back on the Moon. Even if Congress rejects FY2011 in toto, I cannot foresee Obama’s NASA being willing to implement Marburger’s plans for Luna.
Lunar advocates can bemoan and decry the politics of all this or face such political constraints, pivot, and design lunar architectures that embrace the geopolitical realities (and domestic politics) of the 21st century.
This is why I have been touting an EML-1 Gateway (depot and transfer station) deployed to support global lunar surface access without launch window constraints or concerns about lunar orbital inclinations. If operated by a “neutral” power (Singapore, for example) this facility could buy and sell materials and services to every current and potential spacefaring nation as well as to and from private companies.
Supplies would be sent from Earth to the Gateway by one of several “slow boat” trajectories, creating a logistics destination (depot) as desired by the NewSpace community in order to stimulate RLV development. In turn, logistics support would be provided to (sold to) anyone wanting to put boots on the Moon or establish facilities in one of the many craters that potentially contain ice.
Given the apparent distribution of ice in various discrete and easily distinguished craters various nations and various companies can be assigned primary responsibility for a particular crater allowing competition in the development of those resources even as the Gateway offers collaborative logistics support to all. The Gateway would also be available to purchase, stockpile and re-sell ISRU fuels.
Perhaps a 21st century “Great Game” could be stimulated with various nations wrangling for the prestige that would come from having the most productive lunar facility. Such commercial and scientific competition would occur under the aegis of a collaborative EML Gateway operating agreement.
And remember, Christopher Columbus wasn’t Spanish.
Comment by Bill White — May 30, 2010 @ 8:31 am
PS — Yesterday at ISDC Robert Zubrin made the same point as this (and other points as well, for good or ill):
You can harp on the mantra of technology development and lower costs for LEO access all day but in the final analysis, NASA will not change — they ARE a mission-oriented agency and that’s what they do, for good and ill. The new path is a prescription for random activity, Brownian motion on a cosmic scale.
I would add that NASA also is not a mining company and therefore expecting NASA to lead the way in developing the Moon’s resources could also be expecting too much.
Comment by Bill White — May 30, 2010 @ 8:38 am
Bill,
I would add that NASA also is not a mining company and therefore expecting NASA to lead the way in developing the Moon’s resources could also be expecting too much.
I have never “expected” that. My point is that as there are significant technical and operational issues with and questions about lunar ISRU, it is appropriate for the federal government to conduct research on the task. In other words, it is not NASA’s job to industrialize the Moon — it is to determine if the Moon can be industrialized.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 30, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
And no game changing technologies are required if you don’t want to go to the Moon at all.
“Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned. But I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before.” President Barak Obama on April 15th, 2010.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 30, 2010 @ 2:45 pm
At the height of the Apollo development era, NASA was spending more than $33 billion a year in today’s dollars. NASA is currently spending less than $18 billion a year while operating a space shuttle program, an international space station program, and while funding another return to the Moon program.
So if anything, NASA is a model of government efficiency compared to practically all other government programs whose expenses have grown– enormously– since the 1960s.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 30, 2010 @ 3:18 pm
Tangentially related… I like the Japanese approach:
http://www.universetoday.com/2010/05/27/japan-shoots-for-robotic-moon-base-by-2020/
The Japanese are quite interested in robotics. It seems that here in the U.S., however, we’re still infatuated with Human Spaceflight and where it is going or not going.
The Japanese have always led the world in little gadgets. They like technology. That seems to be their culture. I hope to see great things from them on the Moon.
Comment by Itokawa — May 30, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
Marcel,
You forgot to extend out the budget horizon and see what was happening with Constellation:
No Shuttle
No ISS
A couple of flights on the Ares I/Orion to test them out, but nowhere to go
No Moon landings until somewhere in the 2020′s
Nothing left in space after the program was done.
At least with the Shuttle we have built an orbiting space station that attracts and requires astronaut researchers, and continues to expand our knowledge of how to live and work in space. This is something the new budget builds upon and expands.
Constellation swept away all that came before it, and was only a temporary program.
p.s. Paul, I had a post from last night that was deleted – what’s up?
Comment by Coastal Ron — May 31, 2010 @ 11:59 am
Neil Armstrong is absolutely a national hero. You know who else is? Buzz Aldrin. His service to his country is no less than Armstrong’s, before, during, and after his NASA career. He also has a doctorate in astronautics from MIT, is credited with developing the Aldrin cycler trajectory for trans-Martian cyclers, and has made many other contributions to science and space policy over the decades.
Despite the respective accomplishments and service of these two great men, their views on engineering and space policy are not necessarily correct. They are just as prone to error as anyone else. While I am sure you understand this, your choice to write a tribute to the one who wants to send NASA-made rockets to the moon, while neglecting to offer any sort of honorable mention of the Apollo-11 astronaut who disagrees with you(especially given the very public disagreement between the two on this issue), strikes me as rhetoric in extremely poor taste.
If you had left off after paying homage to Armstrong’s career and character, without tying everything in to your ongoing rhetorical war on anything that doesn’t involve going to the moon, it would have been a perfectly appropriate gesture, especially at this time of year. It was unfortunate that you felt the need to play the character card to further your own arguments. If you feel, as your post clearly implies, that Neil Armstrong’s character and record make his opinions on NASA policy worthy of exceptional consideration, then Aldrin’s own writings on the same subject are worth much the same, and certainly deserve more than the cursory dismissal that they have so far received on this blog.
Comment by Jared — May 31, 2010 @ 1:08 pm
Ron,
I had a post from last night that was deleted – what’s up?
Don’t know — didn’t see it. Sometimes the spam filter of WordPress catches normal posts in addition to the spam, even from people who’ve had other posts approved.
But as long as this topic has come up now, I should mention that I approve all posts that appear here and sometimes I do not post those that are off-topic, repetitious or irrelevant. Sometimes we’ve reached the end of our discussion because the same points are being repeated to no productive end. I want discussion and debate, but I want it civil, reasonable and on-point. If this policy is objectionable, you are free to post at your own blog.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 31, 2010 @ 6:29 pm
Jared,
your choice to write a tribute to the one who wants to send NASA-made rockets to the moon, while neglecting to offer any sort of honorable mention of the Apollo-11 astronaut who disagrees with you(especially given the very public disagreement between the two on this issue), strikes me as rhetoric in extremely poor taste.
In case you missed it, the title of this blog is “The Once and Future Moon.” I post on topics that interest me from the perspective of lunar science, exploration and utilization. I am not obligated to provide your arbitrary idea of “balance” on this blog nor do I believe that all viewpoints are equally valid. On the issue of the proposed “new direction” for NASA, I believe that some are correct and some are wrong and I will not stop from discussing which is which on this blog. If you are offended by this “poor taste,” you are free to seek enlightenment elsewhere.
Neil Armstrong is absolutely a national hero. You know who else is? Buzz Aldrin.
You praise your heroes and I’ll praise mine.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 31, 2010 @ 6:35 pm
Paul,
Rules are good, and yours are quite acceptable. Maybe a stray neutrino changed the storage bit. Luckily it was not my ultimate opus, so civilization has not lost much…
Comment by Coastal Ron — May 31, 2010 @ 8:02 pm
Save you looking Paul,
Why do so many people equate ending the development of two particular rockets with abandonment of the Vision for Space Exploration?
Because the Vision was abandoned by the new budget and then specifically repudiated by the President last month.
That was your rhetorical question. Here’s mine:
Given the history of the last 20 years of this agency, why do so many in the space community think the “new direction” will result in anything useful whatsoever?
—
I’ve read the words/comments posted by a number of people on your blog over a number of articles and you’re very fortunate to have such a erudite response. I read the information that you directed me to previously and I was unable to find what I was looking for, which surprised me.
Within this next decade, professionals in the field of Lunar Resources will need to engage constructively with their prospective domestic and international customers, giving the most astute advice money can buy.
My question, in light of the lead-in post, is will you be planning on engaging with these paying clients during this forthcoming decade, or have you other plans?
I am aware of an increase in ‘non-lunar mineralogists’ taking an interest in this field based purely on the issue of chemistry. And there’s a lot of Chemists in this World Paul.
Kind regards,
Marc.
Comment by Marcus — May 31, 2010 @ 10:07 pm
@ Coastal Ron
You can’t get me to defend the Ares I/V architecture since I was strongly opposed to it. There were many cheaper alternatives to the Ares I/V. I’m also not a big fan of space capsules.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 1, 2010 @ 12:02 am
@Jared
The only problem with Buzz is that you never know what he’s for or against from week to week.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 1, 2010 @ 12:03 am
Marc,
I read the information that you directed me to previously and I was unable to find what I was looking for
I guess that depends on what you’re looking for.
My question, in light of the lead-in post, is will you be planning on engaging with these paying clients during this forthcoming decade
I already am.
And there’s a lot of Chemists in this World Paul.
Good to know.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 1, 2010 @ 8:13 am
Paul:
Another great article!
I found a certain resonance in the comment at the House hearing last week that a thousand years from now, Armstrong will be the only person in the room who will be remembered.
Nelson
Comment by Nelson Bridwell — June 1, 2010 @ 2:39 pm
Paul, I read your Washington Post article with Dr. Zubrin, and your posts regarding the cancellation of Ares, and I can’t make that square with your 2007 ISDC presentation. And I truly don’t understand your objection to this change in direction.
I don’t understand, for instance, how you figure that “(b)y adopting the new program, we will lose – probably irretrievably – this space-faring infrastructure and, most certainly, our highly trained, motivated and experienced work force.”
I mean, how is the infrastructure such as launch pads lost if SpaceX and ULA and other companies (and the USAF and DoD) are actively using the pads and associated facilities? And if, for instance, the NASA centers are all turned into FFRDCs like JPL as the Aldridge commission recommended, how will NASA lose the best of their workforce?
And if asteroids are an eventual goal, then you’re not talking about a sprint, you’re talking about being able to assemble large movable structures in orbit, you’re talking about propellant depots, staging areas at L1, ISRU on the moon for propellant production, a permanent lunar base – infrastructure necessary to extend the human reach into the solar system on an ever larger and larger scale.
I just don’t understand why removing what you viewed as the major obstacle in 2007 (Ares) and actually enabling the “incremental, cumulative program” you called for then is viewed so differently today.
Comment by Ed Minchau — June 3, 2010 @ 2:15 am
Ed,
I truly don’t understand your objection to this change in direction.
I have explained precisely why I am opposed to it in this blog, specifically the posts here:
http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2010/02/03/vision-impaired/
http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2010/02/13/confusing-the-means-and-the-ends/
http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2010/03/11/stuck-in-transit-%e2%80%93-unchaining-ourselves-from-the-rocket-equation/
http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2010/03/24/value-for-cost-the-determinate-path/
In brief, I object to the abandonment of the Vision for Space Exploration, a logical and well considered strategic path. I contend that it has been replaced with nothing; a technology development program for a decade followed by the “promise” of one-off missions to distant destinations is not a space exploration program. I do not believe the hype by certain sectors of the commercial space sector that they can deliver services cheaply (note well: I am NOT saying that they cannot do it at all). If they could, they could obtain private capital to develop their systems and wouldn’t need NASA money. Finally, I reject the conclusion of the Augustine report that implementing the VSE is impossible under existing budgets; they were presented with alternatives that would do exactly that — and dismissed or ignored them in their report.
I mean, how is the infrastructure such as launch pads lost if SpaceX and ULA and other companies (and the USAF and DoD) are actively using the pads and associated facilities?
Because right now, their sole customer is government and as I argue above, NASA isn’t going to be doing anything in space — but they will be spending huge amounts of money right here on Earth.
if, for instance, the NASA centers are all turned into FFRDCs like JPL as the Aldridge commission recommended, how will NASA lose the best of their workforce?
Because that won’t happen. It was rejected when we proposed it in 2004 and I hear nobody advocating it now.
if asteroids are an eventual goal, then you’re not talking about a sprint,
I’m not, but they are — both Augustine and Bolden talk about a “steady stream of space ‘firsts’” — flags and footprints forever. Obama’s statement (“we’ve been there”) implies that ever new, unvisited destinations are the object of NASA missions. How can you build up capability and sustainable human presence with such an approach?
In sum, I do not believe the hyped up rhetoric surrounding this “new direction.” I’ve worked with this agency for over 30 years. I see what they do well and what they do poorly. Give them a budget and no specific direction or mission, and you will get nothing in return. It abandons the VSE, a logical path for which a very hard-won political, bipartisan consensus was achieved for a worthless promise of a human Mars mission sometime beyond 25 years in the future. It is quite literally — meaningless.
This is NOT the “incremental, cumulative program” that I advocated in 2007 — and still believe in. This is a set-up to cancel human spaceflight in the not-too-distant future.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 3, 2010 @ 4:42 am
Unfortunately, the President’s plan is all smoke a mirrors with goals set so far into the future that they are almost guaranteed to be terminated by future administrations.
There’s no logical reason why we can’t return to the Moon before the end of the decade even with the current relatively meager $18 billion a year NASA budget– if we adopt one of the substantially cheaper architectures.
A permanent Moon base is a logical first step towards Mars and beyond and a perfect destination for the emerging space tourism industry which I believe will eventually dwarf NASA as far as manned spaceflight traffic in cislunar space once it gets going– largely thanks to the pioneering efforts of our Federal space program.
Those interested in the case for the Moon should check out the excellent GiaSelene Moon Colony website which features videos that include our good blog host, Paul Spudis!
http://www.gaiaselene.com/index.html
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 3, 2010 @ 6:38 pm
That should have been “all smoke and mirrors”:-)
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 3, 2010 @ 10:04 pm
Marcel,
There’s no logical reason why we can’t return to the Moon before the end of the decade even with the current relatively meager $18 billion a year NASA budget– if we adopt one of the substantially cheaper architectures.
Absolutely correct. The Augustine committee heard about these alternatives and ignored them in their final report. In their unseemly haste to terminate Constellation, they threw the VSE overboard with it (the lunar return part of the VSE might also have been a prime target for termination by the committee as well.) The administration used the Augustine report to give high cover to their new budget.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 4, 2010 @ 5:35 am
The irony is that the administration actually increases the 2011 budget by about $2 billion a year on average over the 2009 budget over the next 5 years. This would make it even easier to fund a return to the Moon ($20 billion extra dollars over the next 10 years).
This makes me suspect that the administration is setting NASA up for deep budget cuts by Congress in the future. Since there’s no goal to build anything or to go anywhere, Congress wouldn’t feel any pressure to maintain a $19 or $20 billion a year NASA budget. And Congress could then use the budget deficit as a reason to cut the NASA budget.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 4, 2010 @ 10:07 pm
How many Clementine-class satellites could have been sent to the moon for the roughly 9 billion so far spent on Ares? Which programs would have to be cut to keep Ares going – Would you cut Cassini? Would you cut Spitzer? Would you cut the ISS (which was the plan a year ago, abandonment in 2015, thus giving Orion nowhere to go until a moon mission in the 2020s)? Would you have cut everything else NASA does just to keep Ares 1 and Ares V development going? Because that’s what keeping Ares 1 and Ares V going meant in just a few years – no funding for anything but Ares.
Honestly, those who are equating the end of the development program of these two particular rockets with the end of American manned spaceflight are quite simply incorrect. Constellation would still require years and billions more dollars just to get to where SpaceX got the other day with Falcon 9. Constellation’s continued existence and drain on NASA resources would have just ended everything else NASA did eventually. I sometimes think that Griffin’s goal with Ares was for NASA to fade into obsolescence.
Those who equate the Flexible Path with the end of the Vision for Space Exploration are implying that Constellation was somehow consistent with the VSE (or the Space Act). If anything, the Flexible Path is much more closely aligned with VSE than Constellation ever was. Persisting with Ares with its yearly 1-year schedule slip and wasted billions with Atlas, Delta, and now Falcon (nearly) available simply makes no sense.
NASA was once an organization that took what was largely a military technology and changed and adapted not only technologies but organizational structure – the group that sent men to the moon for the first time could not operate as an army and a new organizational structure had to be created. It is not outside of NASA’s power to adapt itself away from an Apollo mentality and organizational structure and into a sustained space technology development role and envelope-expansion role as it does with Aeronautics.
However, I have watched NASA over the years fight any sort of change, as if NASA had perfected itself with Apollo 11, as if Apollo was the best that humanity would ever do – that we could not hope to surpass it except by re-doing it “on steroids”.
Comment by Ed Minchau — June 7, 2010 @ 12:45 am
Those who equate the Flexible Path with the end of the Vision for Space Exploration are implying that Constellation was somehow consistent with the VSE (or the Space Act).
No, I am not implying anything of the sort. You are buying into the “either this (PoR) OR that (FP)” logical fallacy. I have consistently advocated that the lunar part of the VSE is capable of being implemented under the existing budget; we simply trade cost for schedule. This is discussed extensively in a previous post:
http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2010/03/24/value-for-cost-the-determinate-path/
You continue to miss my principal point: the problem with the new direction is NOT the Ares rocket, or commercial transport to LEO or even Flexible Path (if properly implemented) — it is that we have eliminated outright a clear and logical strategic direction in space for (literally) nothing. The object of the VSE was to return to the Moon to use its resources to create new space faring capability. Thanks to the current fleet of robotic spacecraft that are mapping the Moon from orbit, we now know that the lunar poles have the resources we need to do this in abundance and accessibility. But lunar surface return and resource use has been specifically eliminated from the critical path in the “new direction.”
It is those of YOU who favor the new path that are advocating continuation the old Apollo paradigm — the launch of everything from the bottom of the deep gravity well of Earth. I’m the one who wants to fundamentally change the spaceflight paradigm, by returning to the Moon to harvest its material and energy resources, create a reusable, extensible space transportation system in cislunar space, and extend that system to the planets.
I reject the idea that the new path IS a strategic direction; it is an excuse for NASA to blither and do paper studies for a decade, then face cancellation for non-progress.
But believe what you want to.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 7, 2010 @ 4:43 am
@ Ed Minchau
NASA is what the politicians want it to be. If Nixon or Obama and Congress tell NASA that they can’t go to the Moon then NASA can’t go to the Moon. Its that simple!
Of course when NASA finally did get a chance to return to the Moon, they quickly forgot about the Moon base part and turned it into an Apollo redux program probably because some folks at NASA really wanted to go to Mars. And this caused Griffin to pick the most expensive architecture possible.
And then George Bush decided to underfund the program, focusing his priorities on his adventure in Iraq. And now President Obama wants to shut everything down and start from scratch with meager goals set so far into the future that they are practically meaningless.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 7, 2010 @ 2:42 pm
Paul, I guess what is frustrating me the most, and what keeps me coming back to this argument, is that we are actually damn near in agreement. I agree that ISRU is absolutely critical, particularly at the lunar poles, and that the Hydrogen signature is a complete game-changer.
But under Constellation we weren’t getting lunar ISRU tests started until Ares V, something that is four or five Presidential elections away and eight to ten Congressional elections away. And in the meantime, everything else productive – Hubble, ISS, Cassini, Dawn, all the robotic precursor missions, everything would have to be cut to get Ares finished at all.
You want a sustainable NASA? Give it something to do where a Congressman can vote for funding on a stepping-stone project and have results so quick that the smiling Congressman can be present at the big splashy press conference just before the end of the next Congressional election or the next one after that. Contra Marcel above, it was not George Bush who “underfunded” NASA, it is Congress that controls the money.
That means small projects – enabling technologies that allow us to use the existing LEO launch supply market to get started doing the necessary steps to go anywhere.
The VSE wasn’t just about ISRU, it was “the Moon, Mars, and Beyond” – not “the Moon then Mars then Beyond”. That means development of everything from propellant depots to substantially-enclosed life support systems to lunar lander stages to ISRU to power beaming to a thousand other things.
By themselves none is as sexy as an Apollo or Hubble, but each is a critical technology that needs risk retired, just as much of the risk has been retired for LEO launch. And cumulatively the capabilities produced add up to a much more robust space (not just launch) industry – and therefore in the long run much cheaper ways of doing everything from lunar ice ISRU to a mission to Phobos. And cumulatively each contributes to the ease of development of further technological advances.
This is getting too long. I feel a lengthy blog post coming on. I guess to summarize my position I would have to say that Constellation really was a mission to nowhere and that the Flexible Path allows us a chance at a mission to everywhere.
Comment by Ed Minchau — June 7, 2010 @ 6:45 pm
Ed,
But under Constellation we weren’t getting lunar ISRU tests started until Ares V, something that is four or five Presidential elections away and eight to ten Congressional elections away
I don’t know how many more different ways I can say this, but I am NOT arguing for the Program of Record — Ares I and V, a Winnebago Orion, the whole schtick. My point is that “Constellation” as you call it COULD be configured to work and work under the existing run -out budget. And in contrast to your formulation:
The VSE wasn’t just about ISRU, it was “the Moon, Mars, and Beyond” – not “the Moon then Mars then Beyond”.
On the contrary, the original VSE was about exactly that — the Moon, THEN Mars and beyond. NASA and Griffin ignored their executive direction in implementing the Vision and substituted a “Mars uber alles,” Apollo-on-steroids rocket-building entitlement. I have covered this at length in multiple places, first in the ISDC 2007 presentation that you referenced earlier, and second in this presentation (note the date — we’ve known about this issue for some time):
http://www.spudislunarresources.com/Papers/The%20Vision%20and%20the%20Mission.pdf
Why am I covering this yet again? Because I contend that what NASA did to their original marching orders for implementing the VSE, they will similarly do to the “new direction.” They will continue to employ large numbers of middle managers. They will spend a ton of money, upwards of $18 billion US per year, indefinitely. They will do “studies.” They will create technology road maps. They will award a thousand small grants and contracts, with a wide geographic distribution, not one of which really allows any significant technical accomplishment, but the more contracts that proliferate, the more it looks like they are accomplishing something. They will deliberate and debate and conduct working groups and management retreats at length.
And you will get nothing. Zero. Nada.
Let me close with two points. First, Constellation was just a name that the agency gave to the system they were making to go beyond LEO. It is not engraved on tablets from Sinai. It can be configured in any way we need to accomplish its mission. The problem was that the “mission” was not understood by the agency (or ignored deliberately, in some cases). Second, NASA gets a lot of money. Yes, they could always find ways to spend more. But $18 billion per year is a significant amount. I simply do not believe the Augustine propaganda that lunar return is “unaffordable.” The existing program may be unaffordable (I contend that the Augustine report didn’t even really demonstrate that), but that does NOT mean that lunar return is unaffordable. I have tried to show a path that works in this blog over the last 18 months. There is a way forward; for the reasons I have discussed here, I don’t believe the “new path” is that way.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 8, 2010 @ 4:37 am
“Because I contend that what NASA did to their original marching orders for implementing the VSE, they will similarly do to the “new direction.” They will continue to employ large numbers of middle managers. They will spend a ton of money, upwards of $18 billion US per year, indefinitely. They will do “studies.” They will create technology road maps.”
This really is the crux of the matter. You’re saying NASA will fight this (in my opinion entirely necessary and ultimately unavoidable) change of direction and dither.
I can definitely see that happening. I’ve seen NASA do it several times over my lifetime.
This time, though, it’s different. If NASA dithers for yet another ten years the agency will be split up and parts shut down. I’m 41 years old. Nobody my age remembers the first moon landings firsthand. I was a little kid when Skylab crashed. In ten years well over half the baby boomers will be retired.
If NASA has nothing to show for its efforts in ten years there won’t be a NASA at all. It will be cut to keep the pension checks flowing for a few more days.
Perhaps NASA can change itself. Perhaps the Aldridge report recommendation of turning all NASA centers into Federally-Funded Research and Development Centers like the Jet Propulsion Lab would eliminate those middle managers. Perhaps a massive changeover of personnel is required to bring the average age back down to 27 or so.
Something’s gotta give.
Comment by Ed Minchau — June 8, 2010 @ 5:40 pm
If NASA has nothing to show for its efforts in ten years there won’t be a NASA at all.
In a sane world, yes, but we don’t live there.
You are also assuming that the “new direction” is a sincere effort to reform the agency. I see no evidence of that. Instead, I see voodoo about magic propulsion systems and 39-day trips to Mars, routine and cheap commercial access to LEO and bold explorations to destinations for which no one can articulate a valid scientific or utilization rationale. In short, I see the usual.
And guess what? NASA won’t go away. It will continue to spend money and do nothing.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 8, 2010 @ 6:21 pm
The Obama policy is really just a continuation of what NASA has been doing since the end of the Apollo era– except with far fewer resources since he’s decided to outsource even NASA’s ability to access orbit.
Nixon took away NASA’s ability to fly to the Moon and now Obama is taking away NASA’s ability to fly to orbit, crippling an organization that changed America and the world for the better and served as the ultimate symbol that America can do anything!
What the President is doing to NASA is sending a powerful signal to the rest of the world that America truly is a nation in decline! And that powerful signal is going to hurt this country around the world. And even the emerging private manned spaceflight companies in the US, which I strongly support, will suffer in the long run from the crippling of this great government organization.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 8, 2010 @ 11:19 pm
Paul writes:
“The object of the VSE was to return to the Moon to use its resources to create new space faring capability. Thanks to the current fleet of robotic spacecraft that are mapping the Moon from orbit, we now know that the lunar poles have the resources we need to do this in abundance and accessibility.”
If NASA can’t or won’t pursue this goal, savvy Americans will need to find another way to get this done.
Comment by Bill White — June 9, 2010 @ 11:33 am
@Bill White
Since President Obama terminated that goal, I guess you’re right. But Russia, Japan, China, and maybe even India may beat us to dominating those resources.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 9, 2010 @ 10:26 pm