New Space Policy: Radical or Necessary?

NASA should stay in the business of building spacecraft? Stay? Which manned spacecraft has NASA *built*?

I could not agree more.

The stick died of natural causes! LOL

Nasa engeneers design spacecraft.Contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing build to their specifications.Right now Nasa engineers in Huntsville are desinging the HLV.Nasa puts out to contractors to build what they want and bid on it.

By Clara Moskowitz, space.com:
"... NASA should also stay in the business of building spacecraft."

I think this means that NASA should design the spacecraft (crew vehicle type) to their requirements, rather than just accepting what a private company designed for its own purposes, such as space tourism.

The latter may be enough for routine housekeeping visits to the ISS. However, there's a whole new world of exotic requirements for a cis-lunar workhorse crew-vehicle, like we should be designing now.

Ares1-Orion failed to measure up to realistic future requirements in its basic design, and furthermore, could not even fly. It needed to be taken out of its misery.

But now another step needs to be taken, and that is cis-lunar workhorse, by stringent NASA requirements.

> New Space Policy: Radical or Necessary?

Yes on both counts.

That said, the new policy is a big departure from the "Apollo on Steroids" Constellation, but actually falls largely in line with the goals set by the Vision for Space Exploration (certainly more so than Constellation did). I've posted them previously, but for reference:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf

Goal and Objectives
The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program. In support of this goal, the United States will:
• Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and beyond;
• Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020 [replace this first stop with EML-1 and Near-Earth asteroids], in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations;
• Develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructures both to explore and to support decisions about the destinations for human exploration; and
• Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests.

My read at this point is that congress and the administration will eventually compromise on letting NASA lead the development of an HLV (true Shuttle derived) and a redesigned Orion capsule (freed from the limitations of Ares-1).

Routine LEO space access, including ISS resupply and crew rotations, will be handed off to commercial space as proposed, with a fall-back of HLV LEO crew access of the commercial guys don't succeed.

Got to admire the administrations negotiating stance on this -- starting with complete cancellation of Constellation has certainly softened up the Ares huggers.

The stick died of natural causes! LOL

"LOL" is totally out of place here. In fact, little chirpy comments like these are counterproductive, so please stop. See my comment in another thread.

This is the same the old buy vs. build argument which IT departments everywhere go through.

If you build, you retain and grow your coveted skills, you get a bespoke solution, exactly what you want and you understand every last detail.

If you buy, you loose your skills to the vendor, you become just a consumer, you don't get exactly what you want, you don't fully understand it, and you have to make do with what was agreed.

Being a techy myself, I tend to favour build over buy, but there is a place for both. And if you buy not build, you do get to focus on your key objectives and the risk of scope creep is severely curtailed.

Recommendation: Buy

"However, there's a whole new world of exotic requirements for a cis-lunar workhorse crew-vehicle, like we should be designing now."

Absolutely. And hopefully that vehicle is custom designed for flight in space only, not trying to reproduce the earth-to-LEO and LEO-to-earth component. That radically changes the requirements and constraints on the vehicle.

Not very radical, and not necessary.

We're going from a system where NASA outlines what it wants in a spaceship and takes bids from contractors to build it... to one where it outlines its missions and takes bids from launch companies to fly it.
This will probably work until there is a mishap, then they'll start outlining all the specifics of vehicle operations again.

Frankly I think its a difference in paperwork when all is said and done.
The real change is that we lost our short term mission goals in favor of a vague promise to maybe, someday, go to mars, if a future administration cares to make that happen.

...That isn't leadership. That's kicking the ball down the road. Its as if Kennedy suggested we needn't worry about those Russians and their rockets because Reagan will possibly green light a moon program, if it suits him.

Jim Lovell, Fred Haise and Jack Swigert are probably most grateful that they were aboard a command module that was NOT designed only for flight in space. Eliminating the means for a direct return to the surface from beyond LEO is equivalent to eliminating assured crew return from ISS. This does not appear particularly conducive to crew safety.

"Jim Lovell, Fred Haise and Jack Swigert are probably most grateful that they were aboard a command module that was NOT designed only for flight in space. "

They might have been a lot happier not having to risk that potentially fatally damaged heat shield or iced parachutes if they'd have had more options that a better infrastructure and a custom designed space vehicle would have allowed.

In fairness, I should have written that though NASA does not actually fabricate manned spacecraft and human rated launch vehicles, it does carefully develop requirements, investigate its own concepts, and works closely with its contractors throughout the entire process. The paperwork (as Maxwell pointed out) and the contracting arrangement would change with this new plan (as I think I understand it), but I expect that NASA would continue to maintain a close working relationship with the prime contractors.

I think the least palatable feature of the proposed plan (judging from the opinions I've read) is the lack of a specific direction and timeline.

"Ares1-Orion failed to measure up to realistic future requirements in its basic design, and furthermore, could not even fly. It needed to be taken out of its misery."

First of all, this isn't true. Orion measures up to all the requirements defined for it and it certainly would have flown.

But, that being said, and since everyone likes to tell stories, I will tell a little story.

A long time ago, after many failed attempts to define a mission for a future spacecraft, a bold new direction was proposed. The direction called a program that would:

"Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and
beyond;
Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations;
Develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructures both to explore and to support
decisions about the destinations for human exploration; and
Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security,and economic interests."

Everyone cheered, as the people could now have a clear goal to follow and move forward. RFPs were released and it was proposed that spacecraft contractors would have a flyoff to ensure that the right spacecraft was built for the job. the vehicle was to fly on several launch vehicles to be defined and everyone was happy. One contractor had a spacecraft with wings and the other went to Apollo heritage and everyone said "this is great."

They also started setting up flyoffs for commercial cargo and commercial crew because everyone said "we are in the space exploration business now" let those guys do the ISS stuff. "Yay"

Then came "the gap" and everyone got worried. "we can't get there in time" they said. The government said, this CEV flyoff won't work we have to fly now. We will downselect now and look at an architecture study to make sure we are doing the right thing. The study showed that safety was important, winged vehicles were tough and we should use the Apollo architecture for a spacecraft. It also said we could use shuttle hardware and build a launch vehicle that used some of that heritage. Contracts were awarded and people started working. "Yay" they said, we are going to the moon.

In the mean time, a company called Kistler failed to execute on promises to find funding for commercial cargo efforts. They were booted and Orbital was awarded a new contract. "That's OK, they said" we know there is a market out there somehwere.

In the meantime, time passed designs were created and someone said "we don't have much money," but it is important that we stay on budget. We will have to slip schedules. The "gap" grew larger and the commercial cargo contractors hadn't flown anything yet. The people started to complain. "The architecture is wrong, lets banish the architect." Even though commercial cargo hadn't gotten off the ground yet others said "that crappy architecture is taking funds from the ccommercial guys." Kill the program.

Then a bold and game changing star came on the scene. He said "I am going to fix this." He said I am going to cancel this mess and come up with a new plan. My new plan will be more affordable because we won't do anything until we are able to.

They said "lets do this:"

Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and
beyond;
Extend human presence across the solar system, develop "game changing" technologies for human exploration of Mars and other destinations;
Develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructures both to explore and to support
decisions about the destinations for human exploration; and
Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security,and economic interests.

Everyone cheered. The dates were removed and the goals were so undefined that no one would be able to tell if the program failed. The end goal was moved so far out that no one could fail at it and the gap was bigger because the commercial participation hadn't flown anything yet but they had won. And everyone said "this is great" because no one wants to fund a program to be able to succeed.

The other 20,000 contractor employees went home and told their families that they wouldn't be working anymore, but they should be proud because someday, their kids could fly to orbit for $20M and then they could wonder why they weren't going anywhere.

The End... Until the next genius comes up with the same bold and game changing plan.

What a waste of money, desire, and hope!

"First of all, this isn't true. Orion measures up to all the requirements defined for it and it certainly would have flown."

Was that it carry a crew of 6, land at Edwards, use non-toxic RCS, jave a toilet, or be partially reusable?

When you keep down-scoping your requirements, again and again and again, pretty soon it's not worth the 8-10 billion you paid for it.

Some talking points:

1. Has anyone considered the possibility that current commercial companies vying for crew transport may not deliver within the next few years--and that may increase the so-called gap in US crewed launch capability and reliance on the Soyuz?

2. Also, if the commercial crew legislation is passed, several companies will compete for the flights but really only 1 would be used. Assuming one company successfully demonstrates crew transportation, how do the other companies stay in business when only X # of flights to ISS are planned per year? What happens to the Soyuz flight manifest?

3. Has anyone considered the risk and chance of failure (the crew dies) in one of the crew transport demonstration or actual flights? Wouldn't that set back the US human spaceflight program again and further increase the "gap"? Sure the private sector will eventually send people, paying customers/tourists, to LEO, but to think it can do so in only a few years is a little fantastical. A commercial program should exist, but at a slower pace so that NASA can focus on its planned lunar station. I think that is vastly more inspiring the extending the ISS until 2020.

4. What would the destination be after ISS deorbit in 2020? Why not just keep the initial "beyond LEO" destination the Moon to 2020 +- a few years, in order to keep the Ares V heavy lift vehicle program in place--especially since any beyond LEO destination will need an HLV?

"When you keep down-scoping your requirements"

Contractors do what their customer tells them to do.

When NASA levies the requirement that your product has to be "bold and game changing", how long do you think it will take for the customer to down-scope that requirement after they have spent $8-10 billion and have nothing.

Also, check your numbers, Orion has never spent $8-10 billion dollars of the government's money.

Agree 100%. NASA needs to learn to build capable spacecraft, not rockets and orbital taxis. There is only so much cash to go around and that isnt likely to change. If industry can't handle LEO, we arent going anywhere long term anyway.

"They might have been a lot happier not having to risk that potentially fatally damaged heat shield or iced parachutes if they'd have had more options that a better infrastructure and a custom designed space vehicle would have allowed."

This came off a bit like a hand waving exercise, please elaborate. What specifically are you suggesting as a substitute for assured crew return (in the form of a reentry vehicle integral to the mission architecture)?

"Contractors do what their customer tells them to do."

No, contractors do what they are incented to do, and in the case of cost-plus contracts, that is spend as much time and money as possible.

"Also, check your numbers, Orion has never spent $8-10 billion dollars of the government's money."

Not yet no, 8-10 billion is to first flight.

To anyone with at least a passing knowledge of space history knows that in its early years, NASA was all about R&D and not operations and logistics of a large manned space program. This only came with the advent of the Space Shuttle era. Obama's budget request is more in tune with the agency's origins than previous, recent budgets. Space operations have been eating the agency's stagnant budget for many years-it's about time NASA returned to its historic roots.