Final NASA shuttle mission clouded by rancor

WaPo ^ | 07/01/2011 | Joel Achenbach

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

CAPE CANAVERAL — The last shuttle, Atlantis, sits on Pad 39A, ready for its valedictory flight.

It is the nature of a shuttle to look kind of lonely out there on the pad, kept at a safe remove from the control room, the hangars, the observation platforms. The pad is not far from the beach, one of the last stretches of Florida coastline unblemished by hotels and condos. Beach houses were torn down years ago when the federal government showed up with rockets. Old-timers talk of 11 graveyards and an old schoolhouse lurking somewhere out there, the remnants of the era before the coming of the spaceport.

Now the U.S. space program itself is middle-aged, facing a painful transition. Atlantis will blast off, if all goes as planned, at 11:26 a.m. July 8 for a 12-day mission to the international space station. And then . . . what?

Then a lot of uncertainty. The only sure bet is that thousands of people here will be out of a job.

NASA’s critics say the human spaceflight program is in a shambles. They see arm-waving and paperwork rather than a carefully defined mission going forward. NASA has lots of plans, but it has no new rocket ready to launch, no specific destination selected, and no means in the near term to get American astronauts into space other than by buying a seat on one of Russia’s aging Soyuz spacecraft.

The space agency’s leaders say everything’s on track, that the private sector will soon launch astronauts into orbit and let NASA focus on the hard work of deep-space exploration.

[Lurker]

who in the private sector has the resources for space research?

Do the names Gates or Buffet mean anything to you?

[Flag_This]

"I mean I realise that satelites for communications, and weather satelites can be sent up commercially, but what does the private sector care abour putting people in space. Where is the profit?"

I can think of $5 trillion reasons...

"Metalliferous asteroids as potential sources of precious metals"

"Successful recovery of 400,000 tons or more of precious metals contained in the smallest and least rich of these metallic NEAs could yield products worth $5.1 trillion (US) at recent market prices."

[Prospero]

Who's short-sided?

Would someone, with more than a passing understanding of the UN Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the role of the FAA in "commercial spaceflight," etc. please tell me the difference between Boeing and SpaceX? Both are private contractors. NASA didn't build their vehicles, or even launch them. They paid US companies. Why this rose-colored view of accepting this administrations embrace of private enterprise in one area when it daily demonstrates its pure ideological hatred of private enterprise? To wit:

Dr. Neil Armstrong and Captain Eugene Cernan (USN, Ret.), first and the last men to visit the Moon, testify on American manned space policy in May 2010. [Stephen Crowley/NYT].

Paul D. Spudis The Once & Future Moon Smithsonian Air & Space

Apollo 17 Commander Eugene Cernan recently voiced his doubts and concerns over the future of the human spaceflight program, while former Lockheed-Martin CEO Norman Augustine reflected on the current state of our space “vision” and/or the possible lack thereof. I found these perspectives by two giants of our national space program remarkable not in terms of what they think, but rather in how those in the space blogosphere have reacted to their positions. Some “New Space” advocates accuse people who disagree with the new direction of being too stupid and stubborn to understand its benefits or too parochial and selfish (or a combination thereof) to realize that government sponsored spaceflight is simply political pork.

Many in the New Space media have disparaged Cernan’s comments about this administration’s direction in space. Following each article, most comments attribute various nefarious or personal reasons for the position he holds. In contrast, Augustine’s remarks are praised, mostly on the grounds that he has embraced the “new direction” of using “commercial” space entities to transport people and cargo to low Earth orbit. I note in this dichotomy a recurring theme in the national debate we are having on the direction and tactical implementation of our national civil space program. That theme has many dimensions, but can be summed up as follows: if you agree with the new path, you are a wise, thrifty visionary, but if you have doubts or reservations about this path, you are a short-sighted reactionary, stuck in the past, a lover of political pork and incapable of understanding the true brilliance of the new policy.

What did Cernan actually say? He has doubts about many of the claims made regarding “New Space,” specifically claims in the press about costs, schedule and capabilities. Cernan’s point is that it’s easy to design paper rockets and make hyperbolic claims about “new approaches” but in the business of space, things don’t always work as expected. Cernan also questions what markets will support commercial space (much of the focus is on NASA contracting with New Space companies to service the ISS with cargo and crew) and even questions the designation “commercial,” both on the grounds of the aforementioned non-existing markets and the reliance of some commercial space companies on NASA funding to develop their product.

What does Augustine have to say about this? He is much more sanguine about the possibilities of commercial space, saying that they are coming along “better than I expected,” an assessment that is somewhat vague on metrics. Augustine’s principal message is that NASA is not getting enough money. He claims that another $3 billion per year would make all the difference between a good program and an “unexecutable” one. He also took the time to take a couple of shots at one of his long-standing targets, the Moon as a destination, commenting that spending billions and 25 years to “go back to the Moon doesn’t inspire anybody.” He did note that a brief stop at the Moon might be allowable, if it were really necessary on our way to Mars.

New Space companies claim that they are commercial enterprises developing new space vehicles. If they are truly commercial, what markets do they serve? NASA is a government agency and has contracted for products and services from its beginning. A commercial company takes money from investors and sells a product or provides a service for profit. Commercial companies have access to NASA technology, so why do they also require and receive government subsidies?

I don’t see anything in Gene Cernan’s remarks that I would characterize as “short-sighted.” He is asking legitimate questions and expressing concerns about significant changes (and of the use of the term “commercial”) to an effort that he both deeply understands and to which he’s dedicated his life. New Space advocates tell us that vast new markets await the advent of new commercial launch services and that they’ll be launching multiple payloads frequently, at a fraction of current launch costs. If questioned further they dismissively wave off debate by saying NASA is simply a bloated federal agency and that the ticket to lower launch costs lies in putting those federal dollars into New Space hands.

In contrast, Augustine is pleased with the progress of commercial space companies. And despite being dubbed “the mission to nowhere,” NASA and the administration appear undeterred about keeping Flexible Path as their guiding direction. It is clear from this interview and some previous remarks that Augustine’s primary objective during the work of his committee was to eliminate the return to the Moon as an agency objective. He clearly views lunar return (as many in NASA’s leadership also choose to characterize it) as a re-boot of Apollo, with the same objectives and (more or less) the same architecture, a gap-filler on the way to Mars.

For the last two years, I have discussed and documented the purpose of the Moon in the Vision for Space Exploration and how the Constellation/Augustine perspective is wrong. The objective of going to the Moon is to learn how to live and work on another world using local resources to create new capabilities. What perplexes many is that the Augustine committee report states that the ultimate rationale for human spaceflight is understanding how people might someday live and work in space and then it went on to eliminate the one goal (living and working on the Moon) relevant to that objective.

Some honestly oppose this new direction because they see it as fundamentally flawed – a shell-game attempt to divert attention away from the ongoing, systematic dismantling of our national space faring capability. The exchange of a definitive goal (the Moon) for a “flexible” series of quasi-goals (an asteroid, martian moons) is a recipe for Brownian motion and nonproductive agency chaos. “Investment” in studies of “new and revolutionary technologies” is a euphemism for widget-making, mostly of devices with limited or questionable relevance to future spaceflight. And the transfer of responsibility for space launch and transportation to the “commercial” sector is simply government contracting by another name, only without the same product assurance. Statements (marketing?) suggesting that SpaceX will send a human mission to “Mars in 10-20 years” does not engender confidence in the Chief Designer’s understanding of the realities of space travel.

Many educated, thoughtful people, with years of experience in space business, are concerned about this new direction. They are speaking out not because they are old fuddy-duddies mired in past glories, but because they have serious issues about the claims being made and the irreparable harm being done to our national space capability. They also see the removal of a clear strategic direction as a serious problem, one that will leave the agency burning significant amounts of money to little benefit.

As for my “rose colored” glasses, suffice it to say that I think Gene Cernan is right to be concerned about the future of space and that Norm Augustine is wrong about the Moon. Some of us may have our heads in the sand, but that’s better than where the heads of some others are.

[Prospero]

From Lunar Pioneer / Networks

Happy Independence Day, America. With uncharacteristic flourish, Apollo 16 commander John Young (the real first Space Shuttle pilot - Crippen flew in the right-hand seat when Columbia took its first flight, nine years after the photograph above was taken) jumps as he salutes the fifth U.S. flag deployed on the Moon, with the edge of the Descartes Formation in the southern lunar highlands looming in the background. The scene has to be viewed from the television camera video footage to be believed.

Charles Duke (the first person to talk with someone on the Moon, as capcom for Apollo 11) certainly showed he had mastered the art of lunar surface photography.

See the full resolution image, HERE. (You owe it to yourself, this July 4 weekend.)

From the Apollo 16 Surface Journal, "John Young jumps off the ground and salutes for this superb tourist picture. He is off the ground about 1.45 seconds which, in the lunar gravity field, means that he launched himself at a velocity of about 1.17 m/s and reached a maximum height of 0.42 m. Although the suit and backpack weigh as much as he does, his total weight is only about 65 pounds (30 kg) and, to get this height, he only had to bend his knees slightly and then push up with his legs"

Young & Duke's footprints remain there to this day.

If the only legacy of the Vision for Space Exploration turns out to be the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, it will turn out to have been well-worth the cost. Right now, the U.S. has two budget conscious spacecraft in orbit around the Moon, LRO and ARTEMIS P2, with GRAIL and the second of the reoriented THEMIS swarm, ARTEMIS P1 arriving soon, the only spacecraft that have ever orbited the lunar lagrange point.

There's a whole continent up there, and ours remains the only nation with a legitimate claim. It's our natural "deep water port" to deep space, and we're fooling ourselves if we think we can by-pass the Moon. The Moon is the Rosetta Stone telling us the history of our star system, conveniently situated in nearly the same space as Earth. No study of Earth can be complete without the thorough survey or our large natural satellite.

Catch up with the lunar pioneers.

Jack Schmitt for President!

Return to the Moon, Schmitt says, important for the protection of liberty and freedom

From Lunar Pioneer 6

[Las Vegas Dave]

Of possible interest to the ping list.

Final Shuttle Mission Space pings..!

[dennisw]

Meanwhile how many millions and billions does NASA blow on global warming keeping those scientists living high off the liberal hog?

[kalee]

Sad times for America.

[Venturer]

You guys have more faith in Private Indistry going into space than I do, but it’s a nice dream. We will see how it works out.

[Flag_This]

"You guys have more faith in Private Indistry going into space than I do, but it’s a nice dream."

I do have more faith in private industry than Big Guv - it's crazy, I know. You can't argue about the initial success at NASA, but the NASA of today looks and acts nothing like the NASA of 40 years ago.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Much of what NASA does benefits mankind; who in the private sector has the resources for space research?

---

Explain how $1000 spent by NASA benefits mankind more than $1000 spent by a private person who earned the money.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Hers’ one link where you can explore some of the thousands of things we enjoy today - advantages in technology, computer sciences, aviation, medicine, everyday living - as direct spinoffs from NASA...

---

Please explain how the billions did more spent by NASA than they would have if spent by those who earned the money.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Velcro is another NASA myth. Computers, too.

[Smokin' Joe]

Please explain how the billions did more spent by NASA than they would have if spent by those who earned the money.

Let me twist that just a little.

The big 'L' liberal/budding New Left howl back in the bad old days of the Apollo missions was "Why are we spending all that money in space when we have problems right here on Earth?"

Well, Space was cut back and trillions diverted to the 'Great Society', subsidizing poor people, providing housing 'projects', programs which morphed into section 8 and welfare-as-we-know-it.

We got taxed either way, but frankly, I know where I would rather have had my tax dollars go, as 'inefficient' as NASA was back then.

I'd have donated to charity more if they'd have let me keep some of the money which went toward multiple generations of the most obese 'poor' population on Earth, (not to mention bloated bureaucracies in other areas and 'fat'cat benefits for questionable bureaucrats) which take for granted much which I, personally, cannot afford.

[no-s]

I want to revisit Sea Dragon again, sticking with a VAPAK-pressure-fed stage 1 but using Flowmetrics pump for stage 2.

Sea Dragon was 1950s-era tech except for maybe the computer. 500 tons to 300NM orbit, baybeee. Plus - 2nd stage goes all the way with the payload - it would make an excellent habitat or source of building materials. No launch pad - launches from water. Launch from a lake or ocean. 1st stage is recoverable too.

[Erasmus]

“
Vunce de roketts go up
Who cares vere dey come down
Dat’s not my depardment
Sez Wernher Von Braun.
“
— Tom Lehrer

[KevinDavis]

[Young Werther]

A big conspiracy/coverup! Not in the photo that Jeanie has no belly button. The TV censors required a belly makeover.

[tanknetter]

According to folks I’ve talked with at NASM (Air and Space Museum), all the old Saturn V drawings, blueprints and other engineering artifacts do still exist.

The issue isn’t with lost engineering, but rather the advances in materials sciences over the last 45-50 years has made the original engineering irrelevant. There are all sorts of industries that would have to be recreated from scratch to build an exact copy of the old rockets.

NASA is going back and doing some “reverse engineering” of select technologies, such as pulling, testing and recreating the ablative honeycomb structure in capsule heat shielding. But that’s again because the technologies available to deeply analyze the structure and materials is so much more advanced since the 1960s and 70s

[Lancey Howard]

The space agency’s leaders say everything’s on track, that the private sector will soon launch astronauts into orbit and let NASA focus on the hard work of deep-space exploration "global warming" propaganda.

[Moonman62]

They can't. Most of the engineering drawings and tooling were destroyed. We can't build a Saturn V anymore.

The Ares V, using SRB's and the external tank from the shuttle would have been more powerful than the Saturn V. For some inexplicable reason it would have taken 15 years to develop. It's cancelled now.