Title: The Vision for Space Exploration: A Renewed Spirit of Discovery
1The Vision for Space ExplorationA Renewed
Spirit of Discovery
- An Independent Assessment
2Overview of the Presentation
- Policy Overview
- How Does the Vision Relate to CAIB and ISS?
- Implementing the Vision
- How Realistic is the Vision?
- Conclusions
3Section 1
- Policy Overview
- How Does the Vision Relate to CAIB and ISS?
- Implementing the Vision
- How Realistic is the Vision?
- Conclusions
4The Vision for Space Exploration
- Mankind is drawn to the heavens for the same
reason we were once drawn into unknown lands and
across the open sea. We chose to explore space
because doing so improves our lives, and lifts
our national spirit. - President George W. Bush, January 14, 2004
5Why Explore Space?
- Rationales offered by the Bush Administration
- To advance U.S. economic interests through the
development of new technologies - To further scientific understanding of planetary
evolution and solar system history - To fulfill basic human desire/need to explore
- To inspire future generations
- To encourage young people to study math and
engineering - To promote international cooperation
- To encourage commercial interest/ventures in
space - To search for life or evidence of life
- To enhance U.S. national pride
- Are there other reasons to support the Vision?
- To maintain U.S. leadership in space
- To enhance U.S. national prestige
6Will America Support the Vision?
- Political Factors
- Highly Partisan Environment
- Election Year
- Presidential election
- House in cycle
- 1/3 Senate in cycle
- Federal deficit
- America faces competing wartime demands
- War on terrorism
- Iraq
- Homeland security
American public is evenly split on scope and
objectives of the Vision
NYTimes/CBS News Poll, Released Jan. 18, 2004
Key Question Is the Vision Politically Viable?
7Cost Perceptions and Public Opinion
- Key Facts
- Public opposition to the space program is
directly linked to perceived high costs - A large majority of Americans (73) overestimate
NASAs budget as a percentage of annual federal
expenditures - Perceived opportunity costs are high as a result
of this misunderstanding - Publics assessment of NASAs cost-worthiness has
improved over last ten years
8Public Support for Space Objectives
- Studies Suggest
- Highly educated individuals and those interested
in space exhibit a bias towards supporting space
exploration - Among space supporters, there is wide
disagreement on space priorities and objectives - Strong consensus on destination
Planetary Society for NRC, Jan. 31, 2002
9Is the Vision Clearly Stated and Understood?
- The Vision is specific on content, but vague on
execution - Policy ramifications include
- Variations in interpretation of the Vision
- Is it a Moon-Mars plan?
- Is it a broad space exploration program to
explore the solar system? - Wariness of increasing costs associated with the
Vision - Near-term plan is funded through internal
reallocations (FY09) - Long-term costs are uncertain
- Fear of the cancellation of parochial programs or
interests - Fear of astrophysics and earth science being
pushed aside - Specific programs at risk (i.e., Hubble)
- Fear of a NASA version of BRAC to support the
Vision
Aerospace America, April 2004
10Section 2
- Policy Overview
- How Does the Vision Relate to CAIB ISS?
- Implementing the Vision
- How Realistic is the Vision?
- Conclusion
11Potential Safety Concerns Created by the Vision
- CAIB Recommendations
- Recertification of Shuttle by 2010 (R9.2-1)
- Evaluate schedule of Shuttle flights (R6.2-1)
- Presidents Vision
- Retire Shuttle after completion of ISS assembly
planned for end of decade - Shuttle retirement deadline could put
additional pressure on construction schedule - Potential for creating a line in the sand
12ISS Construction Schedule
- 26 planned ISS construction flights
- NASA historically adds more flights to meet
changing logistics and maintenance demands - RTF scheduled for March 2005
- Approximately 5 flights per year by 2010
- Operate three Shuttles instead of four
- Shuttle backup requirement
- Shuttle Service Lifetime Extension Program (SLEP)
- Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Mission
13Safety Concerns
- Are there concerns over slipping ISS assembly
flights beyond 2010? - What are the budget implications?
- Will Shuttle recertification be necessary if ISS
construction slips well beyond 2010? - What is the latest acceptable date that Shuttle
can fly without recertification? - Does Congress want to set a date?
14US Obligations to ISS
- NASA is obliged to provide (MOU 3.2)
- Crew rescue vehicle with capabilities to support
the rescue and return of a minimum crew of four - Logistics carriers which provide the delivery of
water, atmospheric gases and crew supplies and
delivery/return of dry cargo, including crew
supplies, logistics and scientific equipment - NASA is obliged to provide (MOU 6.1.b)
- 6. Provide logistics flights for the
NASA-provided elements, for the Space Station as
a whole, and for the elements provided by other
partners - 16. Deliver or arrange for delivery of on-orbit
propellant for reboost and propulsive attitude
control as agreed - 17. Provide or arrange for provision of reboost,
propulsive and non-propulsive attitude control as
agreed - MOU 8.3.d.1
- Each partner will have the right to obtain
launch and return transportation services,
commensurate with its allocation of utilization
resources - How will the U.S. meet these obligations?
15Considerations for ISS operations
- Crew transfer requirements (6 person crew)
- 365 days on orbit 6 crew members launched
- 2 Shuttle or 2 Soyuz launches/per year
- 180 days on orbit 12 crew members launched
- 4 Shuttle or 4 Soyuz launches/per year
- 90 days on orbit 24 crew members launched
- 8 Shuttle or 8 Soyuz launches/per year
- Backup crew transportation capabilities
- Crew Return Vehicle (CRV)
- Soyuz
- Safehaven Soyuz
- CEV?
- Shenzhou
16ISS operations without Shuttle
- Cargo upmass and downmass
- Progress - total payload 2,230 kg
- ATV - total payload 7667 kg
- HTV - total payload 6000-7000 kg?
- CEV - total payload TBD
- Develop new commercial or international vehicle
- Reboost
- ATV
- Progress
17Potential Compelling Reasons to Operate Shuttle
Beyond ISS Assembly Complete
- ISS Operation
- Crew transfer, rescue, resupply requirements for
ISS - ISS cargo downmass transfer capability
- ISS reboost requirements
- ISS Access
- Can CEV replace some Shuttle capabilities before
it is fully operational in 2014? - Are there concerns with utilizing only foreign
capabilities for access to ISS after Shuttle is
retired?
18Section 3
- Policy Overview
- How Does the Vision Relate to CAIB and ISS?
- Implementing the Vision
- How Realistic is the Vision?
- Summary
19Required Launch Technology
- What path should NASA follow for future missions?
- Launch mission in several parts using current
medium lift technology and construct crew
transport vehicle for the Moon (and eventually
Mars) in LEO - Develop new heavy-lift rocket with current
technology - Focus on developing Nuclear Thermal Propulsion
for use in crewed missions to Mars - Focus on low-thrust propulsion technologies such
as solar-electric for cargo missions - Is a Shuttle-derived heavy lift vehicle a
preferred option? If not, are there significant
costs in giving up the unique capabilities of
each Shuttle component? - How much research should be done on other RLVs?
- If vigorous interplanetary activity is to emerge
in the long term, will alternatives to chemical
rockets be necessary to reduce launch costs? If
so, what level of research funding is appropriate?
20CEV Requirements
- Unclear requirements
- Is crew transportation to the ISS necessary?
What role will international partners play? - Are there any other LEO requirements for the CEV?
- Should the Shuttles manipulator and rendezvous
capabilities be replaced? If so, how? - Only clear requirement is separation of crew and
cargo - Spiral development
- Should plans for the Moon and Mars affect
development of the CEV for the ISS? - ISS and the Moon have similar requirements
- What are the requirements for Mars? Will use of
the CEV or a derivative be the best approach for
Mars missions? - Research needed for long duration flights
- Easy crew maintenance and repair
- Radiation protection, artificial gravity,
psychological effects
21Medical Hazards of Interplanetary Missions
- Solar particle and galactic cosmic radiation
- Could it be a showstopper for interplanetary
exploration? - Is shielding just a matter of heavy lift
capability? - 400-1500 uncertainty in risk ? possibly 10-30
billion in excess shielding - Is the current level of research sufficient?
-
- Microgravity
- More research needed, but not likely to be a
showstopper Exercise, pharmaceuticals, and
artificial gravity may help to counteract the - effects of microgravity.
- Isolation
- Psychological impact
- Implications for crew composition
- Millions of miles away from fully-equipped
medical care - Given proper planning, not likely to be a
showstopper
22Is the ISS Required For
- Galactic cosmic and solar particle radiation
research? - No. ISS is in LEO, not in a deep space radiation
environment - More time and resources are needed to utilize
High Atomic Number / High Energy (HZE) particle
accelerators on Earth. - Microgravity research?
- Yes. Physiological and in vivo cellular
experiments on whole animals will be needed, and
this can only be done in space. - Partial gravity research can be conducted on
small animals with centrifuge. - Psychological research?
- Not likely. Even if flight durations are
extended, the surroundings are different.
Proximity to Earth means this research would not
be applicable to expeditions to Mars or even the
Moon.
23Lunar Activities in Preparation for Mars
- Technology testbed
- Living and working on another planetary surface
- Resource utilization
- Physiological and psychological effects of
isolation, reduced gravity,
deep space radiation - Sociological phenomena
- Sustainability the Moon as a measurable
milestone - Questions to consider
- At what point and to what degree might a lunar
infrastructure reduce launch costs to Mars and
beyond? - Is the Moon going to be used only to prepare for
the first Mars expedition, or will it be the
beginning of a broader solar system
infrastructure? - Will other justifications for returning to the
Moon be required to
make the proposition viable?
24Other Lunar Opportunities
- Astronomy from the Moon
- How does the relative value of observatories at
Lagrange points affect the prospects for lunar
astronomy? - Earth Analog Science / Lunar Geology
- From Earths offspring, we can gain a better
understanding of impacts, Earths evolution,
history of the Sun, cosmic radiation. - Commercial Applications
- How can lunar resources be used for commercial
purposes? - Given the existence of He-3 on the Moon, should
initial research on He-3 fusion capabilities be
given priority? What agency should be
responsible for this research? - Does it make economic sense to use lunar-obtained
solar power as an energy source on Earth? - Lunar Bases
- Only 3 days away, 1.3 second communication delay,
launch window always open, resupply and
evacuation relatively easy - Can autonomous bases be constructed from lunar
resources?
25Alternative Stepping Stones to Mars
- Antarctica, submarines, other terrestrial
locations - ISS (or elsewhere in LEO)
- Sun-Earth and/or Earth-Moon Lagrange Points
- Near-Earth Objects (NEOs)
- Martian moons (Phobos and Deimos)
- Hybrid stepping stones
- How much room is there to take advantage of
synergies between two or more of these locations,
including the Moon? - Or should we just go to Mars directly?
26 Science Policy and Space Exploration
- Should science be the priority or a
secondary benefit on the
Moon? - Astronomy/physics and planetary
science communities have
historically
competed for emphasis and funding - Current Vision emphasizes planetary science
- Does the Vision meet existing science priorities?
What implications does this have for the
Visions rationale? - Does science justify human missions beyond LEO?
- Astrobiology and the search for life
- All destinations play a role
vs.
27Considerations for Future Space Exploration
- Foresight will be required. It is not possible
to know where exploration will lead, so it is
essential to be prepared for any possibility. - There will need to be a balance between making
specific plans and retaining
flexibility in options. - How would future activities be affected by
- Liquid water on Mars?
- Life in the oceans of Europa?
- Earth-like planets around other stars?
- A commercial niche on the Moon?
- A decision to demonstrate altering the orbit of a
NEO? - Successful He-3 fusion?
- Eventual settlement of the Moon and/or Mars?
- Other less expected developments and discoveries?
28Section 4
- Policy Overview
- How Does the Vision Relate to CAIB and ISS?
- Implementing the Vision
- How Realistic is the Vision?
- Conclusion
29Making the Vision Affordable and Sustainable
- In A Renewed Spirit of Discovery one of the 4
primary goals is to, Promote international and
commercial participation in exploration to
further U.S. scientific, security, and economic
interests
- International Contributions
- Private Sector Cost Reductions
- Affordability Through In-Situ Resource
Utilization - New Funding Approaches
- Other Sustainability Issues
In A Renewed Spirit of Discovery The
Administrator of NASA will conduct the
following activities.including use of lunar and
other space resources to support sustained human
space exploration to Mars and other destinations
30Can the International Community Help?
- Does the U.S. need international participation
to accomplish the vision? -
- Does international participation reduce or
increase the cost of undertaking a unilateral
mission? - Does the U.S. alone have the scientific and
technical resources (including workforce) to
achieve the vision? - Are there foreign policy goals that provide
compelling arguments for why the U.S. should
involve international partners in civil space? - Would international participation help sustain
U.S. public and government support for the
Vision? -
31Is International Participation Realistic
- ... given other countries uncertainty about
U.S. intentions for ISS? -
- Uncertainty about U.S. willingness to sustain
international commitments - Political embarrassment for Japan and Europe if
their lab modules never get flown (after
expenditure of several billion dollars each) -
32 The Private Sector
- Is NASA really committed to fostering the private
sectors presence in space? - Has NASA fully implemented congressional mandates
in the Commerical Space Act of 1998? - What progress or changes have occured (either
internally at NASA or externally in the private
sector) that will demonstrate NASAs commitment
to private sector opportunities? - Should the new vision go further than using
launch vehicles for cargo transport in
establishing infrastructures for commercial space
exploration?
33Possible Modes of Private Sector Involvement
- Could EELVs launch ISS components for Shuttle
retrieval and integration (to reduce Shuttle
manifest)? - Should U.S. buy commodities on orbit? (Let the
market determine the best approach and take the
risk) - How will NASA decide to use the Centennial
Challenges? (High innovation and wide
participation for a low fixed cost) - Should NASA consider paying companies to either
conduct specific research, carry a NASA-designed
instrument, or return a sample? - Will NASA procure private sector communications
support for lunar activities? - Will NASA, like ESA in 2002, open ISS for
commercial opportunities in research (CRADA,
lease, etc.) or other commercial ventures? - How can (or should) the U.S. extract economic
benefits from assets it phases out and
transitions to the private sector?
34Lunar Resources to Enable Mars Exploration
Low Grade Ores 3He and H2 in regolith Un-exportabl
e Vacuum - Radio silence Proximity -Remoteness
Heat Sink -Gravity -Large Stable Ground High
Grade but Requiring Large Investment to
Extract Metals -Glass -Lunar Oxygen High Grade
Readily Useful Lunar Polar Ice (LPI) derived
-Bulk Shielding
Assumption Mars Exploration in the near term
35The Lunar Polar Ice (LPI) Decision
- Redefine Roadmap to include branch points (e.g.
results of 2008 Orbiter and 2009 Lander) - Request trade studies that take into account
- Cost of LPI extraction
- Other uses of LPI support facilities (e.g.
excavation, power, launch, habitat) - Other uses for LPI Products, H2O, H2, O2, other
volatiles, at lunar surface, Earth orbit, beyond
(e.g. ISS boost water, lunar facilities
exploration, LEO to GSO, robotic solar system
probes) - Cost/benefit analysis of system involving LPI,
heavy lift boosters, and NTP vs. chemical
propulsion for Mars missions - Should LPI utilization best be left to private
sector? (M. Duke et al. Dec, 2002) - Are NEOs a better resource? (Higher
concentrations, lower Delta V, lower gravity, but
much greater distance, no shared infrastructures) - Does it make sense to move a small NEA to a
Sun-Earth Lagrangian point? (This would also
demonstrate threat mitigation techniques)
36Alternate Approaches to Appropriations
Is it possible to match an ?-year vision with a
2-4 year political cycle, a and limited carryover authority? (see Can
Democracies Fly in Space? -W.D. Kay)
- Formalize procedures for the concept of go as
you pay - Establish specific a-priori conditions for
program cancellation - Enact a multiyear budget authorization requiring
a supermajority to change - Define a branched roadmap that proceeds in phases
- Advance those phases based on Program Readiness
Level and outcome of previous phases - Low PRL -Trade studies define policy
requirements, - Mid PRL - Precursor probes or research with
milestones, - High PRL - Current programs, multiyear funding,
milestones
37Additional Issues of Sustainability
- Worthy goals enhance sustainability in the face
of loss of life - Workforce issues must continue to be addressed
- Spiral development and go as you pay will
decrease the need for major cost spikes - A bipartisan roadmap with decision points will
- Help maintain momentum in face of less than
expected return - Aid contingency planning
- Divide appropriations into smaller programs
- Provide stability across changes in
administrations
38Section V
- Policy Overview
- How Does the Vision Relate to CAIB and ISS?
- Implementing the Vision
- How Realistic is the Vision?
- Conclusion
39Conclusions
- Weaknesses of the Vision
- Vision is vulnerable to single failure or setback
- The Vision as a roadmap does not address
transition plans for each phase with possible
contingencies - Does not specifically address NEOs
- Shuttle RTF ISS completion delays will absorb
some of the projected resources for exploration - Closed planning process not coordinated with
Congress, international partners, and industry - Does not characterize infrastructure development
beyond-LEO utilizing lunar resources
40Conclusions
- Strengths of the Vision
- Efficiency and safety through separation of
- Crew from cargo
- Operations following spiral technology
development - Explicitly evoking the human-robotic partnership
by combining strengths of the human space flight
and robotic communities - The use of nuclear technology has been proposed
and has not been met with protest - Exploration outside LEO is back on the table
- Focuses the effort on providing answers to grand
questions - Reserves human risk for endeavors worthy of it
41Conclusions
- Questions to consider before proceeding
- Is solar system exploration the appropriate broad
goal for NASA? If not, what is? - When is the best time to phase in a new vision,
and what steps should be taken this year? - Can the principles embodied in the Vision be
debated separately from the programmatic details? - Is the Vision sustainable?
- If the Vision is not accepted, what will be the
fate of human spaceflight? - And, most importantly, is the Vision in the
national interest?
42Why Explore?
H. Shipman, Humans in Space Plenum Press 1989