RSS Feed MenuThe Review of Human Spaceflight Plans Committee (also known as the Augustine Committee, after its chairman, aerospace exec Norman Augustine) was set up by the Obama White House to assess future options for NASA. It has just released its final report, “Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great Nation.”
The report makes some good points but should have been bolder. At bottom, it is a cautious document, the kind of thing that Washington committees produce. The report asserts, plausibly, that NASA’s projected budget won’t allow any meaningful manned exploration beyond Earth orbit anytime soon and suggests the budget either be expanded (by a not-trivial but not-absurd $3 billion per year) or its ambitions scaled back.
It further argues, also reasonably, that a “moon-first” goal or a “flexible path” agenda that involves landing on asteroids and operating in free space are more feasible options for the next couple of decades than any crash program aimed directly at Mars, though the Red Planet is widely agreed to be a logical longer-term focus for human space exploration.
The committee pushes, rightly, for making Earth orbit travel into a commercial service (though fueled by government contracts) rather than the government operation it has long been. That prospect has raised some hackles, notably from Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, a staunch defender of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center that’s located in his state.
The committee also argues, less convincingly, for extending the life of the International Space Station, on the grounds that doing otherwise would weaken the U.S. ability to gain international cooperation on future government space projects. (Even if true, this raises the question of how much real benefit the U.S. has gotten from such cooperation so far.)
How could the committee have been bolder? For one thing, by contemplating a serious private-sector role even in activities beyond Earth orbit. Government’s emphasis on the moon and even Mars could focus on offering cash prizes to companies that meet specified objectives of space exploration and development.
The committee also could have explored how space technology can address critical future issues of energy and climate. Space solar power (beaming energy from orbital or lunar solar arrays to Earth) is one such path. Another is mining helium-3 on the moon and using it as fuel for nuclear-fusion reactors. Humans, as well as robots, would be involved in constructing and operating such systems. Such ideas have been discussed by space enthusiasts for years, but have gained little notice in Washington.
These are futuristic possibilities, but the space program should be about the future. Revamping the human spaceflight agenda makes sense and should be done with real ambition — to solve terrestrial problems and build an extraterrestrial economy.
SFTor1 // Oct 23, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Mr. Zilber, you are a living idiot. Really. Truly.
Cash prizes, eh?
Best Wishes,
SFTor
sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 12:46 pm
There is one important reason that humans need to get into space: The possibility of a meteorite or comet strike big enough to cause widespread damage needs to be averted.
It is widely accepted that in 1908, a meteorite or comet air-burst above Tunguska in Siberia, exploding with a force of about 10-15 megatons. Fortunately, that part of Siberia was sparsely populated. If the object had exploded above Moscow or Vladivostok, there would have been nothing left of that city.
It’s disturbing how often such events have occurred in just the last 100 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event#Similar_events
NASA scientists have identified a thousand “Potentially Hazardous Objects”–asteroids and comets that are both on orbits that could someday bring them into collision course with Earth, and which are big enough to cause widespread damage if such a collision occurs.
In sci-fi movies, they usually show the U.S. launching a nuclear missile to blow up the asteroid. But in reality, that wouldn’t work. The explosion would simply split the asteroid into a few separate pieces, which would then all move toward the Earth at similar trajectories, spreading destruction over a much wider area. (That’s why MIRVed ICBM’s are more cost-effective than single-warhead ICBM’s.)
With a robust space program, a probe could be sent up to rendezvous and dock with the asteroid, and then fire its rocket engines to send the asteroid on a somewhat different trajectory, causing it to miss the Earth.
sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Government’s emphasis on the moon and even Mars could focus on offering cash prizes to companies that meet specified objectives of space exploration and development.
The United States made a major mistake by signing the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which signed away our rights to own parts of space:
“outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means”
The Treaty considers space to be a trust held by all mankind. You can forget about mining companies mining the asteroids for profit, or farmers starting farms on Mars–since they won’t be allowed to own them.
If in the 16th century, the European nations had signed treaties saying that the Americas are a trust to be held by all mankind, would the European settlers have ever come here? Would Henry Hudson have ever come here? Would the Spanish conquistadores have ever come here? Most likely the Americas would have remained permanently under control of the Indians and the Mayas and the Aztecs.
Star Trek fans had a good idea: Replace the Outer Space Treaty with a Space Homesteading Act: Give anyone who wants it a parcel of 500 acres of Mars land for free–so long as they agree to work it and develop it themselves. Pretty soon you would have all kinds of folks demanding to have their own estate on Mars, or their own mine, or their own farm. And before long, Mars would end up looking just as settled as North America is now.
Wanna colonize Mars? Do it the old-fashioned way–imperialism!
Reason60 // Oct 23, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Yeah, I laughed aloud at the “cash prizes” part. Get government out of the way, by getting the government to give away money to private interests? This screams of rent-seeking and special interest boondoggle. If the private sector wants to explore space on their own dime and at their own risk, be my guest.
Asking the government to underwrite it or finance it is simply creating a NASA without oversight.
As for allowing nations or individuals to “own” the moon…hmm…has it occured to anyone that China would be much more likely to end up owning the moon than we would?
I am open to the notion of private ownership of extra-terrestrial land, but we need to make sure the public interest is maintained; as with land here on earth, the public does have a legitimate interest in making sure private interest doesn’t end up having negative effects on the rest of us.
Churl // Oct 23, 2009 at 2:38 pm
“The committee also could have explored how space technology can address critical future issues of energy and climate. Space solar power (beaming energy from orbital or lunar solar arrays to Earth) is one such path. Another is mining helium-3 on the moon and using it as fuel for nuclear-fusion reactors.”
You left out the pink unicorns from Uranus.
ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 4:31 pm
……Is it April 1st?
kensilber // Oct 23, 2009 at 4:41 pm
To sinz54: I agree that property rights are a crucial issue in space development. I wrote an article on that a decade ago that I think is still relevant, at http://reason.com/archives/1998/11/01/a-little-piece-of-heaven.
To the rest of you (so far): Too bad you weren’t around to tell Columbus not to go in the ocean.
balconesfault // Oct 23, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Sinz “The explosion would simply split the asteroid into a few separate pieces, which would then all move toward the Earth at similar trajectories, spreading destruction over a much wider area.”
I’m trying to wrap my head around this, but intuitively I think you’re wrong.
Why? Because the smaller the pieces are, the more surface area to mass as they enter the Earth’s atmosphere, and thus the greater opportunity for pieces to burn out at higher altitudes, reducing the potential for any one piece to carry enough mass to cause the size of explosion we worry about.
Plus, because of composition of the earth’s surface, there is always a higher percentage chance that any one piece will hit water. One huge meteor hitting water stands to create a much bigger wave than a lot of smaller meteors … and the larger the wave, the further it will travel in a form large enough to destroy a coastal city.
No, I think I’ll take my chances with the smaller fragments, thank you.
ryanbuck // Oct 23, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Christopher Columbus was using wind-powered ships, not rockets burning liquid oxygen and hydrogen that put out millions of pounds of thrust. The journeys of Columbus and a would-be space Columbus are miles apart, even given the time periods. Columbus didn’t have to design the Nina, Pinta, or Santa Maria. Columbus also didn’t have to escape Earth’s gravity. Columbus might have had balls to sail in a direction know one else did, but it isn’t really the same thing as wrestling with the engineering challenges of vacuum of space. I get what you are pointing to, but the comparison is not apt.
Christopher Columbus was also funded by a government.
sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:15 pm
balconesfault:
The meteorite fragments will still be large enough that the chance they will burn out is small. They’re composed of nickel and iron, which doesn’t ablate quickly.
We’ve had meteorites enter our atmosphere. Many didn’t burn out. Meteor Crater in Arizona was formed by the impact of a meteorite only 150 feet in diameter.
Finally, the pieces of the meteorite would drift apart from the center of mass–but they would still be on mostly the same trajectory. They wouldn’t smash into the Earth all over the Earth. They would still hit in mostly the same area–but over a wider area.
As for a meteorite strike in the ocean, it would kick up enormous tidal waves that would come crashing onto the nearest coast and obliterate what’s there.
raygun // Oct 24, 2009 at 11:34 am
I can hardly wait “This sunset is brought to by Viagra”
balconesfault // Oct 24, 2009 at 1:30 pm
ryanbuck: Columbus didn’t have to design the Nina, Pinta, or Santa Maria. Columbus also didn’t have to escape Earth’s gravity.
Another good point … if the people who designed/built Columbus’ ships had done a really bad job, that would have meant the demise of he and his crew – but would have been unlikely to have killed anyone else. When you’re launching things into the air, there are extra layers of liability to deal with because they can come down catastrophically.
sinz54 // Oct 25, 2009 at 9:27 am
ryanbuck & balconesfault:
You make it sound as if space travel today is much riskier than Columbus mission. But the risks of Columbus’ mission, as perceived at the time, were very high–as high as space travel is today:
Remember that in Columbus’ time, it was popularly believed that the Earth was flat–and if you sailed too far, you would fall off the edge into Hades. The families of the men who sailed on Columbus’ ships were sure that their husbands and fathers were going on a suicide mission.
Scholars knew the Earth was round, but they also knew (ever since Eratosthenes) that the circumference of the Earth was around 25,000 miles. Columbus fudged his calculations. He basically lied about the distance he would have to travel, making it sound much shorter than that.
Scientists at the University of Salamanca pointed out to Columbus that his theory that he could reach India by sailing westward all around the world meant that he would be sailing for years (as Magellan did later), and that his ships and supplies were inadequate for the undertaking. They were right and Columbus was wrong. Had Columbus not stumbled into the Americas which no one in Europe yet knew existed, he would have failed.
The main difference between Columbus (his original intent to reach India or his accidentally discovering America) and today’s space travelers, is that there isn’t yet livable land at the end of the destination!
When Columbus landed in the Caribbean, he and his men disembarked, breathed fresh air, drank rain water, ate the local fruits, and met up with local inhabitants.
When astronauts will land on the Moon or Mars, they will find NOTHING except a few drops of water as ice (unless they land at the poles). No flora. No fauna. No fresh air. And certainly no inhabitants.
Any settlers who land on Mars are going to have to create a livable environment for themselves–air, plant and animal life will have to be brought with them. No settlers on this planet had to do that.
Having said that, our technology is more than equal to that task. We know how to get to Mars. The question remains: When will we have the will to commit to doing so?
balconesfault // Oct 27, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Sinz – I agree that launching stuff into outer space, and even to Mars, is achievable by the private sector.
Now, given how nervous you are about all things defense related, I’d expect this to make you nervous as well. But perhaps you have more faith in the free market to always do things in America’s best interests than I do.
My concern, as I noted, was that while Columbus taking his ships over the horizon didn’t threaten the safety of Europeans outside those on his boats … human beings launching larger and larger payloads into the air most certainly threatens everyone on earth … particularly those people who live proximal to launch sites. There certainly is some reason to call for regulation and oversight.
Carney // Nov 24, 2009 at 3:28 pm
“It further argues, also reasonably, that a “moon-first” goal or a “flexible path” agenda that involves landing on asteroids and operating in free space are more feasible options for the next couple of decades than any crash program aimed directly at Mars, though the Red Planet is widely agreed to be a logical longer-term focus for human space exploration.”
This is completely wrong. Mars is much easier for us to get to now than the Moon was in 1961 when Kennedy issued his challenge, and we went to the Moon in only 8 years. In fact we are still coasting on the infrastructure developed by the Apollo program. The worst part is that in inflation adjusted terms NASA’s budget has not been cut since the Apollo era.
Clearly having a tight deadline and a clear specific destination is what produces results. Whereas the past 30 years of aimless floundering and pursuing random technical projects has accomplished nothing.
As for “free space” – that is perverse. Space is not a destination, it is mere emptiness between worlds, which themselves should be the destination. Columbus did not sail 300 miles out from Spain, drop anchor and take notes for years on the effects of long sea voyages on sailors, in the hopes that someday a leadership with vision would charter and fund an expedition to actually GO somewhere.
A trip to Mars would take 6 months with conventional Apollo-Shuttle era technology, no more than a trip from England to Australia in the 1780s, or a standard cruise for a modern US nuclear sub crew.
The Moon is a bleak and barren world, devoid of much interest. Despite the recent hype over water, that proportion of water is lower than in the driest deserts on Earth; by contrast Mars has areas of over 60% water by weight.
Mars has an atmosphere, enabling aerobraking to slow down and be captured by the planet’s gravity, and enabling parachute descent. This is a huge savings on fuel which saves weight, which in turn saves fuel, etc. Mars’ atmosphere also provides some radiation shielding. Furthermore it eases temperature extremes – the Moon has both rock-baking heat and deep-space cold, whereas Mars’ worst temperatures are little colder than the worst in the Antarctic, while its hottest are like a mild Earth spring. Finally, Mars’ atmosphere enables us to make water, oxygen, rover fuel, and rocket fuel for the return journey right there on-site, using simple low-energy 19th century chemical reactions. This also drastically reduces the resources that need to be brought along.
Unlike the Moon, Mars has a complex geological history, giving it ores of useful and precious metals. Unlike the Moon, which lacks carbon, nitrogen, and other vital resources, Mars has, in abundance, all the elements needed for industry and agriculture.
Unlike the Moon with its 2 week cycle, Mars has, in a fantastic coincidence, a 24 hour day night cycle like ours, enabling greenhouse agriculture.
The Moon is like Greenland, and Mars is like North America. Western explorers got to the first one first, but only the second was resource rich enough to allow a self sustaining large scale settlement and the founding of a new branch of our civilization.
All the wars, intrigues, bankruptcies, and dynastic politics of 15th century Spain seemed of tremendous importance to its political class then, but the only leaders remembered today are Ferdinand and Isabella, who had the vision to open up a new world. Will our leaders today be as farsighted?
Read Dr. Robert Zubrin’s book “The Case for Mars” or visit the Mars Society website at MarsSociety.org for more info.
Hat Rick // Feb 13, 2010 at 5:00 pm
The Augustine Commission, whose work is cited by the Obama Administration in attempting to justify the cancellation of Project Constellation, noted in its final report, in relevant part:
“A human landing and extended human presence on Mars stand prominently above all other opportunities for exploration. [...] Mars is unquestionably the most scientifically interesting destination in the inner solar system. It possesses resources which can be used for life support and propellants. If humans are ever to live for long periods with intention of extended settlement on another planetary surface, it is likely to be on Mars. But Mars is not an easy place to visit with existing technology and without a substantial investment in resources.”
The Commission then extensively examined options for human spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit, settling on the Flexible Path option, which at a minimum preserved the Orion aspect of Project Constellation.
Under President Obama’s proposal, Orion, along with the rest of Project Constellation, would be cancelled.
It is worth noting that the cancellation would change NASA’s direction yet again despite substantial developmental costs already expended toward implementation of Project Constellation. Although it said that sunk costs can only be one factor to be considered, the Commission warned against constant changes in NASA’s objectives:
“Significant space achievements require continuity of support over many years. One way to assure that no successes are achieved is to continually introduce change. Changes to ongoing programs should be made only for compelling reasons. NASA and its human spaceflight program are in need of stability, having been redirected several times in the last decade.”
The Commission warned that changes to Project Constellation carried significant risks, and, among other consequences, entail the loss of existing workforce resources and human expertise. Significantly, despite its concerns about the escalating costs of Ares I, it flatly noted that terminating Ares I would cause programmatic disruption.
Alternatives to Project Constellation?
The Commission’s report emphasized that a super-heavy lifter with a rating similar to Ares V would be required. By contrast, the President’s proposal omits any programmatic funding for any such lifter.
The Commission’s recommendations on commercial spaceflight made no mention of private provision of such launchers, and for good reason: Most of those knowledgeable in the field admit that commercial spaceflight cannot operate beyond low-Earth orbit and, moreover, have no generally recognized investment interest to in doing so. Development of an Ares V-class launcher would have no basis in private industry. Even the claims of a private industry lobbying group draw the line at going beyond a few hundred miles beyond the Earth:
“We have a tremendous opportunity here to jump-start private activity in low-Earth orbit that will further lower the cost of access to space and unleash the economic potential of space long promised.”
Use of commercial options for low-Earth orbital operations, the Commission noted, should be pursued only if there is accelerated development toward a heavy-lift vehicle such as the Ares V.
Contrary to the Commission’s findings, the Administration’s proposal for NASA, however, contains no such acceleration and in fact would terminate the Ares V without providing for any substitute.
The Commission also noted that a commonly cited alternative to Project Constellation, reliance on the Defense Department’s Delta IV and Atlas V vehicles (also known as Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles, or EELV’s), incurred significant costs:
“Because of these realignment costs, the EELV-heritage super heavy does not become available significantly sooner than the Ares V or Shuttle-derived families of launchers. The transition to this way of doing business would come at the cost of cutting deeply into a the internal NASA capability to develop and operate launchers, both in terms of skills and facilities.”
Nor does the Administration’s proposal contain any funding for even this alternative.
Not Worthy
In short, President Obama’s budgetary proposal would cancel NASA’s means to achieve the goals cited by the Augustine Commission. It would seek private means of achieving low-Earth orbital operations but essentially delay programmatic commitment toward any human spaceflight beyond that threshold.
If the Administration had its way, NASA would no longer have in mind the objectives the Commission saw were worthy of a great nation.
Sources consulted:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf
http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/?cat=27
See: http://hatricksblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-nasa-would-not-be-worthy-of-great.html