Thoughts on NASA and the near future of space exploration

I posted the following reply in the NASA discussion group on LinkedIn. The original post was soliciting thoughts on the changes in priorities for NASA in response to the president's budget request.

The Constellation program was canceled because this administration was unwilling to continue investing many billions of dollars a year to develop a whole new launch capability that would not be ready for 7 to 10 years. For this investment, we would get two new rockets that would never have a very high flight rate, and thus would be extremely expensive to operate. That high cost of development was literally starving many innovative science and engineering efforts currently underway, or planned for the near future. The high cost of operations would mean that this situation would continue into the indefinite future. This was a bargain that this administration was no longer willing to make... not when there appeared to be a viable alternative.

This alternative has just as much of a chance of success as the Constellation program, but also requires much less investment and has the potential to offer much greater capacity and redundancy to the US spaceflight capability. NASA is getting a net increase in budget, and the freedom to spend it on actual innovative research and development projects. Some of this research will vastly improve our ability to carry out long duration spaceflight missions, while other research would dramatically improve our understanding of the Earth, and our environment.

As for science on the ISS: The president's budget actually extends the life of the station until at least 2020 - further improving the chances of doing useful science on the station. The SpaceX Dragon capsule is being designed to provide a significant amount of down mass capability for the ISS. Although the Cygnus transport will not initially be able to support this capability, Orbital has made some encouraging remarks regarding their plans to upgrade the Cygnus craft to have reentry capabilities. The ESA has also made similar comments about their ATV modules.

I agree that our backs are up against the wall with regards to the ability of the US to independently access space. But perhaps this sense of urgency will prompt more commercial providers to finally step up to the plate and start investing their own resources in developing this domestic capability - with an appropriate amount of assistance and investment from NASA. However, at the same time, NASA has to back off a little bit and let them develop these systems to the best of their abilities.

No one is suggesting that we immediately start putting astronauts on these new vehicles. (Not like they did for Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle, and what they were planning on doing for Orion.) From what I've heard, each new entrant and each new system will have to be proven out over a number of unmanned test flights and/or cargo flights before NASA will consider using them for human transport. This seems both fair and prudent.

Will it be dangerous? Yes. Will their be risk? Yes, of course. There always has been and their always will be. However, if it's an endeavor worth pursuing, then you do you best to mitigate the risk and to plan for all of the contingencies that you can imagine. In the end, though, you have to accept the whatever risks remain and just fly the vehicles that you have.

There will be failures, but we will learn from them. There will be deaths, but not by anyone who wasn't fully aware of the risks. They will choose to go, and when they fall, there will still be others lined up waiting to go. For them, it will be the chance to pursue a dream, and the opportunity to push back the boundaries of science and exploration. If you build it, they will most certainly come.

A more gentle transition

There has been much gnashing of teeth concerning the imminent, and all but inevitable, gap in American manned spaceflight capability after the Shuttles are mothballed in 2010. I've been thinking about this problem, off and on, for some time now. Given the current state of NASA and the commercial space transportation industry, there are really only a couple of realistic options for dealing with "the Gap".

The first option is for NASA to continue flying the shuttle a couple of times a year beyond 2010 until a suitable replacement is available. I have never really had a problem with flying the Shuttle past 2010. It will be just as dangerous to fly it then as it is now (and yes, I would jump at the chance to fly in it if it were offered to me). Many have dismissed the possibility of extending the Shuttle service on the grounds that: a) it's too expensive and would consume resources that NASA would rather be devoting to Ares I/Orion, and b) it wouldn't solve the underlying problem of how to get our own astronauts to and from the space station without having to rely on the Soyuz capsules as lifeboats.

In my own opinion, I think that using the Shuttle strictly for crew-rotation and logistics deliveries is a terrible waste of the Shuttle's unique capabilities. Instead, I'd like to see NASA take advantage of these extra flight opportunities to continue expanding the ISS beyond the minimal 'US core complete' configuration. Many additional modules have been, or are nearly, completed. The Shuttle was conceived, designed and built to support the construction of a Space Station. So long as the Shuttle is still active, it should be doing what it does best.

Another possibility for reducing 'the Gap' is for NASA to provide additional resources to companies like SpaceX to assist with the rapid development of launch vehicles suitable for manned spaceflight. For a very small fraction of the resources currently being poured into the Ares/Orion development, SpaceX could potentially have the Falcon 9 rocket and the Dragon capsule ready two to three years before the first Orion capsules would be available.

There may other options which have some chance of mitigating the consequences of retiring the Shuttle before its successor comes online, but for now, I'd like to explore a third option that lies somewhere in between the two options mentioned above.

Let's assume that SpaceX will be able to demonstrate reliable cargo delivery to the station and safe return to the Earth with the Dragon capsule by the end of 2010 or early 2011. At that point, the main thing preventing crew rotation using the Dragon is the development and demonstration of safe and reliable crew launch on the Falcon 9. Elon Musk has stated that SpaceX could have crewed Dragon ready within three years if they were to be funded under the COTS-D program (perhaps a couple more years if no COTS-D funding were provided). That's most likely an optimistic estimate, but even still, that means no crew launch capability until at least the 2012-2013 time frame.

Let's imagine then that NASA is persuaded by Congress to continue flying the space shuttle to the station twice a year until a suitable replacement vehicle is ready. By that time the Dragon will likely have demonstrated the ability to stay on orbit at the station for months at a time and then execute a safe and controlled reentry. With probably very few modifications, it should be possible to convert the Dragon capsule into a crew life boat once it has delivered its cargo to the station. That's a lifeboat that can seat seven (i.e. the entire ISS crew complement with room to spare).

So long as no problems arise, the crews can be rotated in and out on the shuttle. The Dragon could continue to be used to de-orbit important cargo, but in the event of a emergency situation, it could also be used to return all or just part of the crew. Assuming the Russians still have at least one Soyuz docked to the station, the redundant life-boat capability would mean that the station would not necessarily have to be abandoned if only one or two of the crew needed to be immediately returned to Earth.

So, rather than saying either Dragon or the Shuttle, why not say both. We can make the most out of the Shuttles' extension to really finish building out the ISS. At the same time, the Dragon can be fulfilling a useful role as a lifeboat for the expanded crew without having to rely on the availability of additional Soyuz capsules. When the Falcon 9 / Dragon capsule has been qualified for manned launches, then crew rotations can be transitioned from the Shuttle to the Dragon, and the Shuttles can finally be retired for good.