Obama’s space plan

The White House has just released details of the budget that it is putting forward for the American Space Agency. A budget that has been revised upwards, but that means a complete reorganisation of priorities.

 

On its website, NASA presents the main presidential changes as “a new era of innovation and discovery”. Consequently, there is no single identified objective (such as the Moon beforehand), but a group of projects including the ISS, observation of the Earth, solar system exploration probes and supported initiatives focusing on education as this Agency illustration shows. Credit: NASA

The confirmation came through yesterday evening when the Obama administration presented the budget that it intends to submit to the American Congress. Placed under the banner of public deficit reduction (it is true that the United States debt is reaching proportions deemed worrying by numerous analysts), the trade-offs made are harsh. And yet, NASA sees its budget increase to 19 billion dollars for 2011 instead of the 18.3 billion for 2010. 6 billion extra dollars are planned over 5 years.

The Constellation programme, which was to take astronauts to the Moon, is cancelled in the budget put forward by the White House. American Senators have made it known that they will vote for it to be maintained. Credit: NASA

Constellation: No, we can’t...
Elected with the slogan “Yes, we can”, Obama’s space plan clearly states “No, we can’t” as far as the return to the Moon initiated by his predecessor George W. Bush is concerned. As a result, the entire Constellation programme finds itself without funds, and sentenced to death. The Ares I (an Ares I-X prototype of which flew in October 2009) and Ares V launch vehicles disappear without a trace, together with the Orion capsule which was to take over from the space shuttles in order to send American astronauts into space. It is estimated that it will cost 2 billion dollars to shutdown Constellation. A sum which adds on to the 9 or so billion already invested not only in studies, but also in works such as the modification of one of the space shuttle launch pads and a launch tower! In this, Barack Obama and his advisors agree with the verdict of the Augustine committee (that they appointed). This panel of experts judged that NASA was lacking funds to return to the Moon and that the 2020 objective could not be achieved. Worse, this return was probably going to cost a lot more than the 100 billion dollars estimated when it was started up. The grounding of the space shuttles in 2010 is confirmed and no additional flights are therefore to be added to the current manifest. But without the Orion capsule and the Ares I launcher to take over, how will NASA send its American astronauts into space?

The Falcon 9 launch vehicle belonging to the company SpaceX is part of the private initiatives on which NASA is counting for its access into space to get to and from the International Space Station. Credit: SpaceX

Private industry, the ISS and the long-term objectives
The committee chaired by Norman Augustine (hence the unofficial name "Augustine Committee") strongly highlighted the fact that the sending of astronauts could be entrusted to the private sector. NASA will therefore buy seats aboard spaceships made and managed by private companies instead of, as now, more widely controlling manned flights by having industrial companies build the spaceships and the necessary equipment that it designs. The idea is that competition will eventually lead to a reduction in the cost of accessing space, without however, sacrificing safety. The administrator of the American Space Agency, Charles Bolden, has even assured that, as a former astronaut (4 space shuttle flights), the safety of his colleagues will remain a priority. Another hope: that the money invested to stimulate private initiatives and sign contracts will support the emergence of a genuine private sector for space access including human space flights, thus providing the United States with a new type of leadership.

Obama’s space plan makes provision for funds for space science (telescopes in orbit, exploration probes) and observation of the Earth. Designed to study CO2 and its influence on the climate, the OCO satellite which was destroyed during its launch is to be replaced. Credit: NASA

It is worthy of note that this plan does not identify any destination coupled with a date, such as the Moon before Kennedy’s end of 1960 decade or Bush’s return in 2020. Budget line allocation gives priority to the development of a heavy launch vehicle other than Ares V (without further specifications) and above all alternative technologies in order to revolutionise journeys in space and notably the field of propulsion. It is true that walking on Mars has always suffered from the prospective of a journey lasting several months and that solutions currently being studied (such as the plasma engine) would make it possible to envisage the same trip in several weeks. But the final development of this type of technology cannot be made to happen, even with billions. Nevertheless, the International Space Station is given the benefit of a clearer date as its shutdown in 2016 has been pushed back to 2020, the new budget making provision for funds so that the United States can continue to take part in this programme. NASA’s astronauts will therefore definitely have to use Russian Soyuz rockets to go up into space, but given what is planned, the American private sector should take over, initially as regards automatic cargo ships, and then as regards human space flights.

At Florida’s Kennedy Space Center, the Constellation programme for returning to the Moon was already a reality with the modification of one of the space shuttle launch pads and the assembly of this launch tower for the Ares I launch vehicle. Credit: NASA

A battle with Congress?
This in-depth reorganisation of America’s space objectives has its share of supporters. Quite logically, several private companies, including SpaceX which is shortly to test a rocket designed to take cargo to the ISS in Florida, welcomed Obama’s space plan. Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, pilot of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module, said “Applaud the President”, as he hopes that a build-up of the private initiative together with research for new technologies will make it possible to “send humans to Mars and other exciting destinations as quickly as possible”. However, enthusiasm is by no means unanimous. Leading the controversy are the elected representatives or the State Senators most dependent on NASA for their economic dynamism such as Texas and Florida. Many highlight an unacceptable renunciation of their country, a backward step which will quickly become irrecoverable. Florida’s Democrat Senator Bill Nelson (who carried out space shuttle mission STS-61C in January 1986, just before the Challenger catastrophe) stresses that this budget means that the jobs lost through the grounding of the space shuttles will not be replaced quickly enough. And that although he actively supported Obama’s candidature, he believes that this plan is “risking US leadership in space to China and Russia and relying too heavily on unproven commercial companies”. Opposition is such that the Senators have already announced that they would fight during Congress’ vote on the budget in order to, quite simply, maintain the Constellation programme and its return to the Moon. NASA’s future is also going to be decided in the political arena.

Published on 2 February 2010