Sen. Nelson Shoots NASA in Foot, Then Ties Millstone to It
NASA's Orion spacecraft
Details are emerging on Florida Sen. Bill Nelson’s efforts to create a compromise space plan for NASA. Some of what Florida Today is reporting is in line with the Obama Administration’s proposal. Other parts are not:
Faster development of a heavy-lift launch vehicle to begin in 2011 instead of 2015. While saying it was not the committee’s place to design rockets, Nelson said the giant launcher — capable of lifting at least 75 metric tons — should be largely derived from shuttle systems and likely would use solid rocket boosters, like the Constellation program’s Ares I and Ares V rockets.
Eee-gads!
The key goals seem to be to maximize the investment made in the Ares program while keeping as many people employed as possible. The downside is that it keeps America chained to a shuttle-derived infrastructure that takes a standing army to build, maintain and launch. That keeps employment high (and elected officials in office), but it keeps costs very high and limits what we can do in space. It’s the same cycle we’ve been in for nearly 30 years, and one that the Obama Administration wants to break.
The Administration’s plan would be to conduct research on new heavy-lift technologies and in-orbit refueling systems over the next four years. Then NASA could build a smaller rocket that would be both cheaper to operate and scaled to serve whatever role is required. In the meantime, NASA could send large payloads aloft on Atlas V and Delta IV rockets, which already launch heavy military satellites.
Other parts of Nelson’s compromise are more favorable toward the Obama Administration’s proposal. Elements include:
- A commercial spaceflight program funded at $6 billion as the Administration requested but spread out over six years instead of five;
- A “flexible path” architecture for deep space exploration as the Administration wishes;
- A fully capable Orion spacecraft instead of the scaled-down crew escape ship favored by Administration;
- A $2 billion infrastructure improvement program for Cape Canaveral as requested by the Administration;
- Extension of International space station to 2020, as the Administration requested;
- an additional space shuttle flight flown next summer, a proposal that NASA is already considering;
The fate of the Administration’s proposed 5-year, $7.8 billion technology development program remains uncertain. Nelson told Florida Today that it would be “robust” but offered no details. Barring a large increase in NASA’s budget, it seems likely that this part of the budget will take a hit to fund the HLV and Orion projects.
4 responses to “Sen. Nelson Shoots NASA in Foot, Then Ties Millstone to It”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
HI Doug: I have a question.
The Statement: ” NASA could send large payloads aloft on Atlas V and Delta IV rockets, which already launch heavy military satellites”
while correct isn’t really the whole picture — these rockets will need a minimum of 3 years to be able to launch people as I understand it and even then this will provide us with LEO access ONLY.
Neither rocket system even in it’s ‘Heaviest” version can give us Global access to the moon — including the North and South Poles – where we now know there is the most ice/water resources that we need for a permanent base.
I love SpaceX and the commercial sector and am hugely optimistic about what they can do – but the fact is neither Atlas nor Delta can really give us the moon or mars. FWIW
Really like your site – it rocks and best source of Bigeliw info anywhere
With due respect, Brian, the major missing technological tile between us and ubiquitous lunar access (or anywhere else in the Inner System, for that matter) is on-orbit refueling, not heavy lift. Since we already are pretty good at rendezvous and docking, all that remains to be proved is that we can just as efficiently transfer boost quantities of propellants. At that point, a couple of Atlas or Delta (or Falcon 9 heavy) launches far exceeds Ares V, never-built Nova, or any other Big Dumb Booster concept for throw-weight and flexibility. Sure, I’d like a Phat Rocket; who wouldn’t? But we have simply got to get over this childish fixation on heavy lift as THE ONLY WAY TO DO IT.
Atlas V and Delta IV will require some time to human rate. And my guess is that neither one really gets us to the moon by itself.
They would be useful in launching propellant depots into space. NASA is also thinking about building on-orbit vehicles (which would never return to Earth) using left-over module hardware and some new components like engines and nav systems. You launch components into orbit, assemble and fuel them, and then send a crew off on a circum-lunar mission. That’s one example.
My sense is that the administrations wants to get us away from shuttle-derived HLV into small heavy lift vehicles that take less money to operate.
Since we don’t really have anything in the short term to put on the moon (landers, habitats, etc.), then a four- or five-year gap in building a new HLV seems reasonable from that perspective. Commercialize Earth orbit, develop technologies for refueling, and build a smaller HLV that is cheaper to operate and more scaled to what we need it for. By the second half of this decade, you also have a maturing commercial sector with experience in actually operating in space that can become with the government in going beyond LEO.
Thanks Dave and Doug for your insights…
I find propellant depots very sexy and that gives me pause.. and should give you pause also…..
I have read Boeing’s ideas and white papers on this idea and have no doubt that it will one day be needed and extremely helpful to the development of the solar system and no doubt building such an infrastructure would benefit Boeing and it’s shareholders…..
BUT…
Here is where I disagree BOIL OFF!!! Guys – unless you are proposing Hypergolic fuels (very very dangerous) — then the LOX (Liquid Oxygen) Boil Off will be significant — the lost rate is greater than 20% I believe and therefore very impractical at present.
The other problem with a propellant depot is that it is politically unwise – in that it takes enourmous time to reach a political bi-partisan consensus on space matters and then when it comes around the public, the media and then the president has to all go along….
Setting up an infrastructure for in orbit re fueling isn’t viable and would set back efforts to get to Mars by 80 years at least.
A propellant depot might increase our dependence on the Russians, Chinese and the future players like Brazil or India. WHile this might seem a good idea, I think it would be better to be first amoung equals instead of tied at the hip to other powers in space.
I am with Bob Zubrin when says we need to focus on getting to MARS DIRECTLY — sending refueling systems ahead of time, produce all the return propellant and have it waiting fully fueled before even launching the first Mars crew from Earth!!!
In orbit rendezvoud and fueling for a long trip is fraught with technical and political challenges that overcomplicate making this future happen.
I hope my remarks reach you and are welcome.
All the best!
PS HERE IS A QUOTE FROM ZUBRIN ON THIS MATTER;
“As for the orbital propellant depot, this was a favorite hobbyhorse of one of the members of the Augustine committee responsible for recommending the new policy. Its potential utility, however, as a way to enable human Moon, near-Earth asteroid, or Mars missions has never been established. To the contrary, none of NASA’s recent designs for Moon or Mars missions has involved refueling spacecraft from orbital propellant stations. To insist that mission architects adopt such a strategy because “this is the technology we are working on†is to force the program to accept a suboptimal system design based on an arbitrary decision to favor one technology.”
Brian Koester