Nasa Manned Spaceflight Funding, Can NASA afford manned spaceflight? Options

[ilbasso]

The Washington Post reports in this article that the current US budget shortfalls may force NASA to cut half of the planned manned spaceflights in the coming years. Excerpts from the Post article:

"A large deficit in NASA's troubled shuttle program threatens to seriously delay and possibly cripple President Bush's space exploration initiative unless the number of planned flights is cut virtually in half or the White House agrees to add billions of dollars to the human spaceflight budget."
...
Under the budgets projected for the next five years, experts outside and within the Bush administration agree, it will be impossible -- by several billion dollars -- to complete the planned shuttle missions and finish the new spacecraft [CEV] by 2012, or maybe even by 2014...Griffin acknowledged as much at a Nov. 3 House Science Committee hearing, saying the plan to finish the space station and retire the shuttle in 2010 faces a "$3 billion to $5 billion" funding shortfall.

A committee document placed the deficit at "nearly $6 billion," and some sources said even that figure could be low. NASA's budget difficulties have also been complicated by having to pay for about $400 million in special projects inserted, mostly by senators, into the agency's 2006 funding.

The sources said the White House is juggling several proposals to close the deficit, but one industry source said, "None of the choices are good -- NASA's in a box."
...
Several sources confirmed that the budget office in the early negotiations proposed stopping shuttle flights altogether. "It sucks money out of the budget, and it's a dead-end program," one source said.

But "that argument's over," another source said. "The political side of the White House said, 'We're keeping it.' If you kill the shuttle right now, it will be heavy lifting for your foreign policy because of the international obligations" around the space station.

A proposal under consideration would keep the full complement of shuttle flights -- 18 to finish the space station and one to service the Hubble Space Telescope -- and let completion of the crew exploration vehicle slip to 2014, if necessary, or even beyond.

"The president said originally there would be a four-year gap, and that's realistic," one source said. "My personal view, though, is whatever date you set . . . it will slip."

[edstrick]

djellison: "Problem is, Bush went "Lets go back to the moon and stuff" and NASA went "OK". ....."

I'm getting awfully tired of comments like this from space-literate people as opposed to expecting it from morons in the mass media and the general public.

http://www.thespacereview.com has a big chunk of the real backstory, together with stuff in Sitzen and Cowing's "New Moon Rising" book, excerpts of which are probably still on Cowing's NASA Watch website.

"Forging a vision: NASA’s Decadal Planning Team and the origins of the Vision for Space Exploration"
Long before President Bush announced the Vision for Space Exploration nearly two years ago, NASA has been quietly working on its own ideas for future human exploration of the solar system. Dwayne Day and Jeff Foust outline the history of those efforts and the influence they may have had on the creation of the VSE.
Monday, December 19, 2005

The real fact is that a "rebellion in the ranks" had been fermenting for a long time within NASA, with increasingly less-grudging support from first Goldin and then O'Keefe. The Columbia Catastrophe forced the issue to the front burner by demonstrating that the shuttle wasn't and could never be made what it should have been: Economical, Frequent and Safe access to and from space. The fact staring them in the face was that Shuttle had to be retired sooner than later and we'd either have to abandon manned spaceflight, or build new spacecraft for a new mission instead of forever going in circles. My impression without re-reviewing and reading the history of the initiative was that Bush was presented a series of options with recommendations as why some were bad options and others were better, all of the latter being variations on what was finally picked, with more or less push toward Moon and/or Mars in the different options.

Also note that the horrendous current and next-few-years cost overruns would be ocurring whether we do the whole initiative or just build a minimal station-access-vehicle.

[djellison]

Long before President Bush announced the Vision for Space Exploration nearly two years ago, NASA has been quietly working on its own ideas for future human exploration of the solar system.

It's been doing so since it was formed. That's its job.

But it takes all the studies to find out exactly how to do these things instead of speculating about them. They cant spend money doing anything more than the formative speculation until they get a nod to go ahead and do it. Those studies take time, and it's not till you've done them that you can go "right - this is the cost"

There's no way in hell it's going to get the goahead now. A 4x increase in NASA budget isnt going to happen. The public will not support it. If they DO - I will be utterly utterly astonished.

Clearly NASA were not given the chance to find out exactly how much this program is going to cost before GWB signed them up for it, because if they had, if they'd have said "Sure, but it'll cots 4x what you give us now" then GWB would never had signed them up for it .....would he?

Problem is - what CAN Nasa do on it's current budget? It can retire off the shuttle, just about, but it has to be replaced with something, and it cant do that without spending a lot of money, money it doesnt have whilst the shuttle still exists.

On reflection, it's sort of obvious. It takes all it's current money to run the Shuttle, so how in hells name were they ever going to develop something to replace it, whilst still flying STS? This isnt the huge-budget-Apollo days when Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecraft were all developed within a decade. Nasa does not have the money, and looking at how much they honestly think it's going to cost them, they're not GOING to have the money to co-develop new vehicles, whilst retiring STS at the same time. STS has to go first, and thus we'll get a big gap.

So this poses the question.... what now?

The entire situation is more up in the air now that it's ever been.

Doug

[dvandorn]

Clearly NASA were not given the chance to find out exactly how much this program is going to cost before GWB signed them up for it, because if they had, if they'd have said "Sure, but it'll cots 4x what you give us now" then GWB would never had signed them up for it .....would he?

The NASA budget, corrected for inflation, has changed very, very little in the past 20 years. Some minor ups and downs, sure, but a relatively flat funding rate.

Whoever advised GWB on his decision to propose a return to the Moon and a manned Mars mission *had* to have known that this would require a budget increase of at *least* 4x what NASA gets per year now. That's what Presidential advisors are for -- to have at least a decent clue as to how much a given new initiative in *any* federal spending program is going to cost.

Bush *had* to have known, at least approximately, what NASA was going to ask for in re funding to make his Vision a reality. Perhaps he simply felt that he had so much political capital built up that he could get whatever he asked for from Congress, for whatever reason. I think perhaps that was an overly optimistic assessment of his own position...

-the other Doug

[djellison]

Bush *had* to have known, at least approximately, what NASA was going to ask for in re funding to make his Vision a reality.  Perhaps he simply felt that he had so much political capital built up that he could get whatever he asked for from Congress, for whatever reason.  I think perhaps that was an overly optimistic assessment of his own position...

-the other Doug

BUT - were we not told that it was going to cost about as much, growing a bit for inflation, as their current budget? I think we'd all have gone "huh" if GW had stood up there and gone "Scrap Shuttle, Back to Moon, $20B a year"

Manned Spaceflight is important long term, I share SS's desire to see Bootprints in this wheeltracks. I'm just not sure how we need to progress right now. ISS has to be finished to maintain any relationship between NASA and JAXA & ESA. You cant expect them to be involved in any future manned spaceflight programs if they get screwed over with the ISS. So that means we need STS to finish ISS which could easily be another 8 years. And with current funding, you cant expect to develop anything new while STS still flies. So we'll end up with a finished ISS and no way of getting to it except Soyuz whilst the SRB launchers + CEV is developed and that's going to be no less, imho, than 5 years. So we're talking > 2019 for CEV first flight. Then another 5 years for the lunar vehicle so perhaps 2024 for the lunar return.

Let's face it - this isnt the '60's any more. Developing a new spacecraft requires 25,000 middle managers, 14.5 miles of paperwork and wastes SOOoo much time.

ARhghg - I dont know what the hell they're going to do once the governmental bigwigs stop laughing at that budget graph. Why say 4x if it's not their best guess? Surely they know it'll just get thrown back in their faces. So what are they trying to do? Are they lying and infact it'll only cost, say, 1.5x, or are they genuine about that figure?

Doug

[dvandorn]

...that means we need STS to finish ISS which could easily be another 8 years.   And with current funding, you cant expect to develop anything new while STS still flies.  So we'll end up with a finished ISS and no way of getting to it except Soyuz whilst the SRB launchers + CEV is developed and that's going to be no less, imho, than 5 years. So we're talking > 2019 for CEV first flight. Then another 5 years for the lunar vehicle so perhaps 2024 for the lunar return.

The problem with that scenario, Doug, is that NASA is under a brick-wall deadline to retire the Shuttle fleet. Under their own rules, which had been stated *before* the loss of Columbia, if we're going to continue flying the Shuttle past 2010, the entire system (orbiters, ETs and SRBs, launch pads, ground support equipment, etc.) must be re-certified.

The re-certification process could involve the major rebuilding of various systems, and would definitely involve grounding the fleet for at least two to three years, while every orbiter and every piece of equipment is taken apart, evaluated, fixed up and put back together.

The alternative to this process, according to the NASA experts who fly the Shuttle, is either retiring the system entirely or expecting a *much* higher loss rate if the system is kept operational without such a re-certification.

NASA is *not* pushing for a Shuttle re-certification project. And Congress is very unlikely to vote for one if NASA is telling them it's the least attractive option. So, odds are *very* high it won't happen.

So -- the basis of the issue is that either the CEV gets flying by the end of the decade, or American manned space flight ends in 2010 and does not resume until the CEV *is* flying. The option of just flying Shuttles until 2014 and *then* beginning CEV development literally does not exist.

Now, just because CEV has *one* end goal of being a (relatively minor) component of a manned Mars mission does *not* mean that the loss at a later date of funding for such a Mars mission makes CEV development "money down the drain." CEV lets America continue ISS operations, and CEV-related development (such as heavier Shuttle-derived boosters, automated unmannned rendezvous and docking systems, and hibernation-mode operation of the CEV itself) will, by between 2012 and 2014, give the U.S. a set of capabilities quite similar to what the Shuttle fleet offers -- and at a (hopefully) lower operating cost.

I *do* believe that NASA is going to have to demonstrate an ability to operate CEV-based ISS missions at *significantly* lower cost than comparable Shuttle missions before Congress will fund actual hardware development for the LSAM, super-heavy boosters, and other elements of a renewed manned lunar program. And, following that, NASA will have to demonstrate an ability to fly manned lunar missions within a set cost cap before Congress will give them money to develop manned Mars hadrware.

And... as for *anyone* being surprised that NASA would need additional funds for mounting a manned Mars mission, all one has to do is look at the funding levels required for the various Mars mission plans out there today. The absolute cheapest is Zubrin's Mars Direct, and *that* one would cost a minimum of $100 billion in 1990 dollars. NASA's own Mars Reference Mission, as updated just a few years ago, calls for a minimum funding level over the course of the project of more than $400 billion! So, just because GWB told NASA to go to Mars on a *fraction* of $12 billion a year doesn't mean anyone, including GWB, had any reason to expect it could actually be done...

-the other Doug

[djellison]

The problem with that scenario, Doug, is that NASA is under a brick-wall deadline to retire the Shuttle fleet.  Under their own rules, which had been stated *before* the loss of Columbia, if we're going to continue flying the Shuttle past 2010, the entire system (orbiters, ETs and SRBs, launch pads, ground support equipment, etc.) must be re-certified.

Does anyone realistically expect the ISS to be finished in 4 years? I cant believe that for a minute to be honest. I'd be happy to be suprised and see it happen, but I doubt it.

So, just because GWB told NASA to go to Mars on a *fraction* of $12 billion a year doesn't mean anyone, including GWB, had any reason to expect it could actually be done...

-the other Doug

So what on earth was the point in the announcement then? Was it intentionally just a big fat lie? Who was he trying to kid? Himself? Congress? The US Public? To what end? Of course, he'll be out of Office just about the time when the bomb bursts. I guess his Dad did it, Regan did it - it must be written on the back of the Oval Office Toilet "dont forget to propose a new direction for space exploration without being prepared to pay for it"

Doug