That’s what some people might be experiencing even before digging into the turkey and stuffing today, after reading a front-page article (above the fold) in today’s Washington Post about the budget problems facing NASA. (Thanks to the wonders of syndication, this article also appeared in a number of other newspapers today, and will likely be in still more in the days to come.) While much of the content of the story rests on several unnamed sources, the problem at the core of the article is common knowledge to most readers: there is not enough money in the projected NASA budgets over the next several years to both fly all 19 planned shuttle missions (18 to ISS and one to Hubble) and accelerate development of the CEV so it’s ready to enter service in 2012. Earlier this month NASA administrator Michael Griffin himself admitted to Congress that there is a $3-5 billion gap, while others pin the shortfall to be as much as $6 billion.
The article does do a good job outlining the four possible scenarios to deal with this problem:
- Shut down the shuttle program now (but deal with serious foreign policy repercussions that would make it unlikely Europe, Japan, or others would cooperate with NASA on the VSE);
- Fly all the shuttle missions and push the CEV introduction date back to 2014 (realizing that whatever date you pick now for starting CEV operations, it will slip; in addition, if there is no commercial ISS access by 2012 NASA would not be able to purchase Russian flight services under the recently-amended INA);
- Cut back the shuttle program to “serial processing” and fly only about 10 shuttle missions through 2010 (although that may not save much money, and with only that many flights “what kind of a space station do you get out of that?” one source told the Post);
- Spend the additional money needed to fly all the shuttle flights and accelerate CEV development.
The article indicated that the fourth option is “the one probably favored by Congress”, but that could be a hard sell if Congress gets into a belt-tightening mood next year.
In a related story, SpaceRef published a copy of a letter from the Coalition of Space Exploration to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card asking that the administration’s request of $16.962 billion for NASA in the FY07 budget request, to be released early next year. That was the amount proposed by the administration itself for 2007 in its FY06 budget request and, according to one source, is indeed what the administration is planning to put in for NASA in the FY07 budget. However, that falls well short of the additional funding needed to do shuttle and CEV.
Update: There does appear to be a fifth option for the budget minded…
I was slightly disappointed by this article because it does not state anything new, AND it lacks some important information.
The first question I would like to see answered is where do these additional costs come from? Obviously they are real costs, but it would be nice if somebody explained what they are. The second question is how long have these costs been known? I have been told that these costs were actually known for a long time–even during the formulation of the VSE–but that at that time NASA and the White House agreed that neither one would go public with the fact that there was not enough money in the budget to pay for both shuttle and the early part of the VSE. Essentially they agreed to let this be somebody else’s problem in the future. Griffin came aboard and inherited the problem.
Finally, in regards to Dr. Foust’s list of options, shutting down the shuttle now (option #1) entails more risks than simply angering the international partners–it will also severely damage NASA’s political support base in Congress.
Put it this way: if certain members of Congress are already unhappy with the prospects of a 2-4 year gap between the end of the shuttle and the beginning of the CEV, they will be even more unhappy with the prospects of a 5-6 year gap between ending shuttle flights now and the beginning of the CEV. There is no reason to believe that CEV can be made to happen in under five years. Nine women working together cannot produce a baby in one month, and piling the cash onto a CEV program in order to make it happen faster is not wise, even if feasible.
Shut down the shuttle program now (but deal with serious foreign policy repercussions that would make it unlikely Europe, Japan, or others would cooperate with NASA on the VSE)
That’s not a bug, it’s a feature!
“what kind of a space station do you get out of that?”
An excellent question for any value of “that.”
The first question I would like to see answered is where do these additional costs come from?
Delays, I suspect. You need to keep paying salaries to maintain the standing army.
Nasa & the US Govt/Congress must face reality!
The Space Shuttle is not going to fly anymore!
Immediately cancel the shuttle and begin work
on the CEV.
The Europeans/Russians/ and the Japanese already
know this and they have begun work on “space tugs”
and “the clipper”.
The shuttle program costs 5 Billion USD per year
and what do you get for it? One launch every 2 yrs?
The first question I would like to see answered is where do these additional costs come from? Obviously they are real costs, but it would be nice if somebody explained what they are.
The article did explain that. Part of the additional cost is that the initial budget plan for VSE (the famous “sand chart”) anticipated that shuttle costs would start ramping down in 2008-09, in advance of its 2010 retirement. That was an assumption, unconnected to reality. In the real world, the shuttle budget has remained constant since 2003 even with the fleet grounded, so it was foolish to believe that those costs would ramp down in 2008-09 while the fleet is still flying.
The other part of the cost is that acceleration of CEV from 2014 to 2012 causes its development program to overlap with the last few years of the shuttle.
The second question is how long have these costs been known?
Some inside NASA were arguing the first cost (shuttle ramp-down) from the beginning. The second (CEV) became obvious the moment Griffin announced his intention to accelerate the program.
Congress simply won’t let the standing army of NASA pork that is the shuttle program end until there is the new swine that is CEV ready to take its place. The CEV is custom designed to use essentially the same contractors/workers in order to preserve its patrons in Congress.
Slowing the shuttle mission rate will save precious little, but is politically viable. Spending more money is always a possibility with Congress.
Completely ignored is the less gov’t-centric commercial market for resupply. Griffin has made noise about this lately, but I suspect that this is more about giving some $$$ to the Russians for a few soyuz escape capsules and astronaut rotations while NASA tries to solve foam insulation problems, not by hardware changes, but by studing foam really hard. Granted, commercial resupply is not in existance at this point in time, and even if it were, it would not solve the need to launch the remaining Station modules. Nevertheless it could provide a viable US space capability during the VSE development program.
–Fred
“The article did explain that. Part of the additional cost is that the initial budget plan for VSE (the famous “sand chart”) anticipated that shuttle costs would start ramping down in 2008-09, in advance of its 2010 retirement. That was an assumption, unconnected to reality.”
No, it’s not really so simple. As it was explained to me, those costs are actually costs associated with meeting some of the CAIB recommendations (disclaimer: I worked as an investigator for the CAIB). I’m curious as to what they could be, but they could include things like the costs of doing extra safety inspections or better records tracking. Those costs were apparently known several years ago and everybody pretended that they were not there.
Dr. Robert Zubrin has presented a plan which will allow NASA to accelerate the development of the CEV/CLV & the Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle, shut down immediately the space shuttle program(except for one final flight to the Hubble Telescope)complete the ISS & return to the moon by 2012 & Mars by 2016. As Dr. Zubrin has stated, “Mars Society Sends Letter to Congress Supporting NASA Moon-Mars Plan
Nov. 2, 2005
For further information about the Mars Society, visit our website at
http://www.marssociety.org.
The Mars Society has sent a letter to every member of the House and
Senate upporting NASA’s new plan to reach for the Moon and Mars. A
copy of that letter is reproduced below.
October 26, 2005
Honorable Ted Stevens
522 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-0201
Honorable Ted Stevens:
Last month, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
released its plan to replace the Space Shuttle with a safer, simpler,
and in many ways more capable new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and
unmanned Shuttle-derived heavy lift vehicle that will allow humans to
finally return to the Moon and then on to Mars. The plan, called the
Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), reflects lessons
learned during both the Apollo Program and the Space Shuttle Program,
and is a rational and affordable plan to move beyond the Space
Shuttle to an exciting new era of exploration and discovery.
While some aspects of the plan should be accelerated (such as
development of a Shuttle-derived heavy lift vehicle, which should be
started immediately) or improved, the overall plan is sound and
should be supported by Congress. With a modest increase in funding
or early retirement of the Shuttle (before 2010), an accelerated
version of this plan could allow humans to return to the Moon by 2012
and reach Mars by 2016. Significantly, early retirement of the
Shuttle does not mean that we will not be able to complete
construction of the International Space Station. The new Shuttle-
derived heavy lift vehicle which NASA plans to develop will be more
than capable of launching the remaining Station elements, at much
lower cost.
The successful mission by a Chinese crew aboard their Shenzhou-6
spacecraft earlier this month shows that other nations understand how
important human space exploration is to the future of world
technology and economy. Several reports now indicate that China may
be planning a manned flight around the Moon before the end of this
decade, with even bolder steps to follow soon after. Should we fail
to proceed, this could cause a debacle for American world
leadership. It does matter which nation is the leader in space
technology and exploration. It does matter which nation puts its
stamp upon the future as humanity expands into space.
With your support, after nearly half a century the United States
will finally continue the voyage that began with Neil Armstrong and
Buzz Aldrin’s footsteps in 1969. If, as a nation, we embrace these
goals and don’t waver, we will help begin a process that will make
all previous exploration endeavors pale by comparison. This will help
to guarantee our technological leadership and inspire our younger
generations, just as Apollo did.
Sincerely,
Robert Zubrin
President, Mars Society
For further information about the Mars Society. visit our website at
http://www.marssociety.org.
Up Thread | Message Index | View Source | Unwrap Lines Message 306 of 308
Much of the $5 billion to $7 billion shortfall is directly attributable to NASA underbudgeting what it would need to spend to keep flying the shuttle through the end of the decade. When NASA and OMB formulated the 2006 budget request, which included a five year runout, they both assumed dramatic annual savings in 2008, 2009, and 2010 that Dr. Griffin testified recently were “unsupported by analysis.” Shuttle is not getting any cheaper to operate. If anything, in a post Columbia environment, costs are edging up. Hence the $5 billion to $7 billion shortfall that threatens to swamp everything else NASA wants to do.
No, it’s not really so simple. As it was explained to me, those costs are actually costs associated with meeting some of the CAIB recommendations…
I don’t know either, but if your statement is correct, then Griffin is definitely lying, since his statement (quoted by Brian Berger above) is consistent with mine: the shortfall is not due to additional costs not accounted for, but due to anticipated savings not materializing.
Dr. Robert Zubrin has presented a plan which will allow NASA to accelerate the development of the CEV/CLV & the Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle, shut down immediately the space shuttle program(except for one final flight to the Hubble Telescope)
This is a moronic idea, due to two factors:
1) The shuttle program costs $4 billion per year whether it’s flown or not, and
2) an HST servicing mission could not be mounted in less than eighteen months.
That means that if the shuttle flies only one more mission to HST, that one flight will cost over $6 billion. An HST replacement (the Hubble Origins Probe) could be built (mostly from spare parts and SM-4 replacement instruments) and launched for under $1 billion, according to Johns Hopkins.
Zubrin needs to snap out of denial and face a basic fact: either fly the shuttle as frequently as practical between now and retirement, or don’t fly it at all. And when the shuttle dies, so does Hubble. Period.
For that matter, those who believe that ISS will be completed without the shuttle are living in fantasyland. In the real world, “ISS Assembly Complete” is going to be whatever state ISS happens to be in when the shuttle stops flying.
In an ideal world, I would really like to see Congress and the Administration finally step up to the plate and give NASA the funding it needs to adequately complete the station and begin to work on the VSE. They should actually declare the space program, along with all of the international obligations it entails, to be a national priority and fund it as such. (You know, kinda like declaring war on a mostly harmless country or rebuilding a city after a natural disaster.)
While that would be nice, there does exist another option which I have not seen anyone else mention yet. This option is actually quite close to the second one mentioned above. Postpone the CLV development for a couple of years, start flying the Shuttle again as soon as possible (just accept the risks and fly), finish the ISS, and save the Hubble.
In the meantime, put out the word that NASA would be very interested in purchasing orbital crew launch services from the private sector as soon as possible. There are at least two maybe three US companies (SpaceX, TSpace, SpaceDev) which have a credible chance of developing this capability in the next five years espcially if there is a strong market demand coming from NASA. All that would be required of NASA is a little leap of faith that the private sector is ready and able to step in and fulfill their crew launch needs, and maybe an occasional bit of technical expertise to help the new guys overcome any lingering difficulties.
If, in a couple of years, the private sector shows no signs of progress, then NASA can return to trying to do it all by themselves and start shelling out huge cost-plus contracts to get their CLV/CEV system. Hopefully by then, the shuttle will be much closer to retirement and the overlapping costs can be mitigated.
PhysBrain – “They should actually declare the space program, along with all of the international obligations it entails, to be a national priority and fund it as such.”
And why should it be a national priority? What would the US population gain by investing in this business model?
“Postpone the CLV development for a couple of years, start flying the Shuttle again as soon as possible ….”
By this statement, it appears you still advocate immediate development of the CEV while the launch vehicle it must fly on is deferred. This is an approach begging for cost and schedule overuns since CEV changes arising from CLV development failures will force both vehicles to change late in the CEV development process. These two vehicles designs are locked to one-another. Politically, it is a great idea since the model of “build part now and the rest must surely follow” has been successfully demonstrated time and time again.
As for commercial launch to ISS, what a joke. Assume NASA carries forth with their current plan (funding not-withstanding) and CEV/CLV are flying by 2012. This is about the same time frame commercial suppliers are coming on-line. Development of the LV needed for CEV to really go the the moon is slated for 2018. This means CEV is simply flying circles around the earth for six years. To justify costs, NASA will have to use it for something (anything) productive, … like flying crew/cargo to whatever is left of ISS. So much for commercial ISS supply.
The shuttle fleet should be retired before November 2008, preferably sometime in 2007. That way, the next president is not given the option of extending the operations of these antiquated dinosaurs past 2010. Present the next president with a fait accompli.
If shuttle operations cease in 2007 (or dare I dream, 2006?) then the entire shuttle budget for the years 2008-2010 is freed up to develop the heavy-lift SDLV. That vehicle would be used to complete the space station.
Oh, and screw the CEV. Let t/space and SpaceDev and Virgin Galactic and Armadillo Aerospace and Blue Origin and all the rest fight it out. Let them spend the R&D money, and buy flights off them as their systems come online and as necessary.
The shuttle fleet should be retired before November 2008, preferably sometime in 2007. That way, the next president is not given the option of extending the operations of these antiquated dinosaurs past 2010. Present the next president with a fait accompli.
They won’t stop the Shuttle program unless and until something rilly bad happens again. That’s it, full stop, period, end of discussion.
Present the next president with a fait accompli.
Umm, just out of curiosity, how would one do that? Physically destroy the three remaining Shuttles? Get Congress to pass a Consitutional amendment banning Shuttle operations?
Oh, and screw the CEV. Let t/space and SpaceDev and Virgin Galactic and Armadillo Aerospace and Blue Origin and all the rest fight it out. Let them spend the R&D money, and buy flights off them as their systems come online and as necessary.
=OR=
Design CEV to be able to remain on-orbit for years and ferry crew to/from CEV with t/Space or SpaceDev.
An HL-20 that did not need the heat shields capable of handling return from the moon velocities would be cheaper and lighter to launch.
A bigger robust CEV can do its lunar return by aerobraking / areocapture and then await a t/Space or HL-20 to ferry the crew down. Use private sector tankers to refuel a propulsion stage and send a new crew via t/Space or HL-20 and go back to the moon.
Present the next president with a fait accompli.
Lay off about 20 thousand people.
Design CEV to be able to remain on-orbit for years and ferry crew to/from CEV with t/Space or SpaceDev.
Why do we need another space station?
An HL-20 that did not need the heat shields capable of handling return from the moon velocities would be cheaper and lighter to launch.
Lighter and cheaper to launch than what?
A bigger robust CEV can do its lunar return by aerobraking / areocapture
I assume that sentence means aerobraking to acquire Earth orbit, and not to slow down enough to land?
No, Bill, that is simply factually wrong as a matter of engineering. As an emergency, back-up flight modality, any manned spacecraft re-entering Earth’s atmosphere would have to be able to survive descent to low altitude.
It is a very bad, unsafe idea to propose a manned trans-lunar craft that would aerobrake to gain Earth orbit, but would have insuffficient thermal protection to survive re-entry and descent to low Earth altitude.
Thinking about super-circular re-entry schemes? Designs calling for skip glide re-entry, with periods of aerobraking alternating with climbs back outside the atmosphere to allow the spacecraft to cool are impractical. Trying to skip glide with a capsule spacecraft would be especially impractical.
… and then await a t/Space or HL-20 to ferry the crew down. Use private sector tankers to refuel a propulsion stage and send a new crew via t/Space or HL-20 and go back to the moon.
Two spacecraft, one for Earth to LEO and back, the other to travel between LEO and lunar orbit, with only infrequent returns to Earth? That is a possibility, Hmmm, don’t we already have a specialized Earth to Low Earth Orbit manned craft, one that is big enough to carry an Apollo capsule inside its cargo bay? Yes, I think they call it … the Space Shuttle.
Last month, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
released its plan to replace the Space Shuttle with a safer, simpler,
and in many ways more capable new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and
unmanned Shuttle-derived heavy lift vehicle that will allow humans to
finally return to the Moon and then on to Mars.
…
Sincerely,
Robert Zubrin
President, Mars Society
The new capsule will not be very safe, since it seems to lack reserve parachutes, a crew ejection pod, or ejection seats for emergencies that may occur during the descent of the capsule into Earth’s atmosphere.
Furthermore, the proposed lunar launch design requires Earth orbit rendezvous of two missile launches, thereby increasing probability of mission failure compared to the Saturn/Apollo mission architecture.
That letter fails to mention the other missile entirely. That is the missile that will use a single Solid Rocket Booster as a first stage to launch the crew capsule. These Solid Rocket Boosters are unsafe, since they canot be throttled off once lit.
Dr. Zubrin, does the Mars Society accept donations from ATK Thiokal Corporation?
Another reason why I object to the Mars Society’s spacecraft scheme is this: I don’t think that that that capsule, described as having three times the volume of an Apollo capsule, will suffice for transporting astronauts to Mars and back.
Expect 4-6 people to spend 8-10 months each way between the two planets inside such a small, claustrophobic space? Not likely. Besides, where will the spacecraft carry the necessary supplies and consumables for such a long voyage?
The CEV ain’t gonna cut it for Mars travel.
Neither is travel to Mars and back along minimum energy, Hohmann paths acceptable. We’ll need a propulsion system that can make the trip between Earth and Mars in closer to ten weeks than ten months. We’ll probably need fission/thermal rockets, and beacoup H2 propellant for same — maybe more H2 than is practical to launch from Earth.
No way is the proposed CEV and conventional rocket system adequate for Mars travel.
Another reason why I object to the Mars Society’s spacecraft scheme is this: I don’t think that that that capsule, described as having three times the volume of an Apollo capsule, will suffice for transporting astronauts to Mars and back.
Why do you think it will need to do so?
Is the concept of “modular” spacecraft so difficult for you?
Cap’n Nemo, if the CEV is to used with additional modular add-ons aside from a Service Module functional equivalent and an Earth to Moon third stage, they’ve been keeping it secret.
Please tell me about these additional modules. Are any of them propulsion modules which can propel the cluster of modules along a non-Hohmann planetary intercept course?
Cap’n Nemo, if the CEV is to used with additional modular add-ons aside from a Service Module functional equivalent and an Earth to Moon third stage, they’ve been keeping it secret.
No, they’re simply not putting the cart ahead of the horse. There’s no point in even starting to design those vehicles now, since Mars missions are at least two decades away and the detailed design for the lunar missions hasn’t even started yet. In the meantime, they’re simply assuming that people are smart enough to realize that CEV would be used only as the Earth re-entry vehicle for a Earth-Mars mission, and not stupid enough to expect the entire post-2020 Mars architecture to burst full-grown from Griffin’s forehead in 2005.
Two spacecraft, one for Earth to LEO and back, the other to travel between LEO and lunar orbit, with only infrequent returns to Earth? That is a possibility
Exactly.
Even if an HL-20 or t/Space CVX is used to ferry crew to/from LEO, the LEO to/from Moon stage should be able to return to Earth in case of an emergency. CEV can do that.
Once the architecture is rolling, we would launch CEV intended for numerous round trips between LEO and the Moon without landing on Earth, except in an emergency, whihjc is why CEV must be capable of doing it all.
Propulsion? Supply LH2 or methane from Earth (loaded in LEO) and LOX from the moon (loaded in lunar orbit).
Hmmm, don’t we already have a specialized Earth to Low Earth Orbit manned craft, one that is big enough to carry an Apollo capsule inside its cargo bay? Yes, I think they call it … the Space Shuttle.
Yup. And it brings far too much dead weight up and down at too high a price. Once mass is lifted to LEO, re-use that mass as much as possible and bring as little as possible back to Earth.
A tiny re-furbishable SpaceDev HL-20 or t/Space CVX can ferry crew for a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost of flying orbiter.
= = =
Note, even with a shiny alt-space SSTO RLV, we still need something like CEV for the LEO-to-Moon and return mission. Adding the shields needed to handle Earth return from Luna or Mars would make that spaceplane pretty darn heavy.
ESAS, as proposed today, can transition to this hypothetical architecture will little difficulty.
Launch a small handful of CEVs and leave ‘em up there, accessed by t/Space and SpaceDev and whoever else can do the job.
To add to my last post, if CEV can be left unattended in low lunar orbit (maybe that’s still an “if”) it can also be left unattended in low Earth orbit.
Add private sector fuel depots (as Griffin recently called for) and it starts looking like ESAS was designed to be capable of this transition
=IF=
alt-space can deliver safe low cost Earth-to-LEO crew and cargo.
= = =
NASA builds a re-useable LEO to LLO stage and a re-useable LLO to lunar surface stage and says to alt-space, get to LEO cheaply and safely and you got yourself a contract.