Thoughts on Obama’s NASA speech

There were no surprises in President Obama’s speech on space policy delivered today at Kennedy Space Center.

He reiterated that NASA will build a Crew Return Vehicle for the ISS based on the Orion capsule, begin development of heavy-lift rockets, expand scientific and robotic research, and begin a series of programs intended to expand the state-of-the-art in space technology and on-orbit operations.

There was no mention of the much-rumored Shuttle extension.  Instead, President Obama announced that NASA Administrator Charles Bolden had been tasked to put together a workforce realignment program by August.

While the President’s speech did not have the Cold War urgency of Kennedy’s challenge to beat the Soviets to the Moon, it was a clear recognition that we cannot sustainably explore and develop the solar system for the benefit of humanity by doing the same things over and over again.

Interestingly, President Obama indicated that his ultimate goal is to build a virtually indefinite human presence in space with the United States at the lead.  He set milestones of heavy-lift rocket construction beginning in 2015, manned long-duration missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (perhaps to an asteroid) by 2025, and manned missions to Mars orbit in the 2030s.

I disagree with his “been there, done that” attitude about the Moon, as it was recognized as a viable exploration destination by the Augustine Commission and recent discoveries by orbiting probes indicate there is much more to it than we first imagined.  However, I don’t think we should let ‘perfect’ be the enemy of the ‘good’.  The focus on building capabilities and deciding destinations based on their merit means the door is not fully closed.

As was indicated in the center assignments released by NASA Headquarters, Johnson Space Center will be home to the ISS extension, a deputy program office for the Commercial Crew Development program, and the Flagship Technology Demonstrators Program.  Mission Control, the Astronaut Office, and training functions will also stay at JSC.

The International Space Station is an asset now and a valuable platform for testing exploration technologies on-orbit and sustained microgravity science research.  JSC’s participation in the Commercial Crew Development program will ensure that the highest safety and mission assurance standards are kept.

I am particularly interested in the Flagship Demonstrators, though.  This program will put JSC on the forefront of developing and testing, both on the ground and on-orbit, new operational technologies for space transportation.  There will be four projects in this new program.

The first three are already identified – automated docking & rendezvous, inflatable and/or lightweight structures, and in-orbit propellant storage & transfer.  The fourth project is likely to be closed-loop life support demonstration or advanced Entry/Descent/Landing systems.

All of these are enablers for building an in-space transportation system that cycles between destinations and will allow us to only launch what we need for a given mission.  The fact that JSC has been given the lead for this program is a testament to the institutional knowledge and engineering capabilities of the center.

Space policy consultant Angela Peura describes this as “Gemini on steroids,” in direct contrast to former NASA administrator Michael Griffin’s description of the Constellation Program as “Apollo on steroids.”

The simple reality here is that decisions were made six years ago that put us on this path.  Congress stood by and did nothing while the march to Shuttle retirement began.  Congress did not object when President Bush did not put in his own budget proposal the funding he had promised for the Constellation Program.

Once again, we found ourselves in a situation – just as in Shuttle – where attempts to short-change development costs in the near-term were leading to increased operational costs further down stream.  Ares I was going to cost 50% more than the Shuttle to operate to put half the crew and a fraction of the cargo in orbit.  Not only that, it wasn’t even likely to enter service before ISS decommissioning.

The Augustine Committee found that the Constellation Program would have, first, had a crew launcher with no destination, and, then, a heavy-lift launcher with no lunar lander to deploy.  Rather than punt this problem to another President to deal with, President Obama decided to expend the political capital and risk the popular backlash to face this problem now.

I don’t agree with all the decisions in the proposal – particularly, retaining Orion as a crew lifeboat for the ISS – and I think the rollout was awful, but I do think this strategy puts us on the right path forward.  NASA staff are working even now on developing this strategy into actionable plans and programs.  With the exception of the Orion lifeboat, the President was right to leave the technical decisions to those with the best knowledge to make them.

Most Houston-area politicians are, predictably, steadfast in their opposition to the President’s plan and continue to fight for the status quo.  While Rep. Olson and his allies may be hardening their stance, some Congresspersons representing other NASA centers have expressed their provisional support for the new plan and several leading aerospace contractors have dropped lobbying efforts for the Constellation Program.

Despite the accusations from some pundits that Texas is being retaliated against for being predominantly Republican, I think JSC has still gotten a fair deal in the new plan.

The President has set his policy, now it’s time for those of us in the trenches to figure out how to implement it.  There is opportunity in the midst of uncertainty and we shouldn’t squander this chance to transform the way we explore space.

Cross-posted at A World With No Boundaries

Related Posts

Comments are closed.