Farewell to a wise and thoughtful commentator on space

My good friend Bill Mellberg passed away this week.  I remember him in a post at Air & Space magazine.  Comment here if desired.

Posted in Lunar exploration, space industry, space policy, space technology, Space transportation | 4 Comments

A National Space Council: To Be or Not To Be?

President Trump signs the new 2017 NASA Authorization bill. Is a new version of the National Space Council in the works?

News reports indicate that some version of a national space council (with Vice-President Mike Pence as chair) might be established. For some, the idea of a White House-level committee designed to monitor the nation’s space program may seem like a new idea, but in fact, it originated at the dawn of our civil space program. The purpose of a space council is to provide executive oversight of major space programs, both to ease possible obstructions that might arise during execution of a program and to assist in coordinating contributions from different entities participating in a national effort.

Different space councils have taken a variety of forms over the past 60 years, ranging from being intimately involved in the creation and implementation of policy to virtual non-existence. The most famous incarnation of the concept was the National Space Council under President George H.W. Bush, who conceived an ambitious plan of human exploration of the Moon and Mars. Reports detailing the announcement of that major initiative and its subsequent fate make for doleful reading, but in order to understand both the strengths and weaknesses of a space council, this story and the events leading up to it need to be retold.

The late 1980s was a depressing time for America’s space program. Following the loss of the Challenger Space Shuttle in 1986, there was an extended pause in human spaceflight – a shadow had been cast on the idea that access to space had become “routine.” More significantly, the then-next NASA program (Space Station Freedom) was caught in an endless loop of design and revision; not a single piece of station hardware had been launched by the end of that decade. Following more than a year of work, including public hearings and getting input from a wide variety of experts, an ambitious report on future space activities from a Presidential Commission (The National Commission on Space, which included luminaries such as Neil Armstrong) was released to near-universal indifference. Yet within NASA, teams of engineers and scientists had devised detailed plans for a human return to the Moon, as well as first-order studies of possible architectures for a follow-on mission to Mars.

In January of 1989, as the last phases of the Cold War were being playing out and Soviet influence and power were rapidly declining, President George H.W. Bush began his administration. The defense build-up of the Reagan years had created an American technological juggernaut of unsurpassed power and excellence. An unanswered question at the time was, “What is to become of this capability?” The United States was the most powerful country in the world, yet absent the imminent threat of a Soviet Union, such capability would likely dissipate. How then could this technological base – a national industrial and human capital infrastructure of immense power and capability and a major contributor to national wealth and innovation – be maintained, if not at its current level, then at least at levels high enough to be resurrected in times of some future national need or emergency?

One answer was to channel these capabilities toward other productive endeavors, ones that required high technology, large industrial capacity, and human capital working in an intellectually challenging environment. Although never so articulated by the Bush administration, it is my belief that it was decided that those requirements could be met by using some of these Cold War capabilities for the civil space program. This transfer of effort would accomplish several goals: we would maintain our technical innovative edge (a capability necessary for future conflicts and one that also contributed to our national wealth) and re-invigorate the moribund space program by adopting a challenging – yet reachable – set of goals. On July 20, 1989, President G.H.W. Bush stood on the steps of the National Air and Space Museum and announced the “Space Exploration Initiative” (SEI). It called for a human return to the Moon (“this time, to stay”) and a human mission to Mars. No timelines or detailed plans were produced for these journeys; instead, the SEI was laid out as a national strategic direction for the manned civil space program following the completion of the then-planned Space Station Freedom.

The subsequent fate of the SEI does not concern us here, but I note the role of the Space Council in the conception and execution of this major Presidential initiative. The Council conceived the SEI on the well-intentioned grounds of setting a challenging goal for the space program, one that would deliver significant benefits in technology development and also have enormous inspirational power. Once adopted and announced by the President, they carefully monitored NASA’s reactions and implementations of the SEI, noting where it fell short and taking appropriate actions, including eventually recommending the replacement of the Administrator. This was an entirely appropriate and justified set of actions and the subsequent Aldridge Commission carefully considered this example in the formulation of their report.

After a decade and a half of agency confusion, a second Shuttle disaster – the loss of the Shuttle Columbia in February 2003 – initiated a yearlong White House review of the direction of the U.S. space program. Once again, a return to the Moon followed by a human Mars mission was the direction selected, but this time, circumstances were different. The construction of a revised version of Space Station (the International Space Station, ISS) had been initiated and was progressing well. Many still fantasized about a human Mars mission, but the cognizant recognized that such a goal was beyond the fiscal and technical capabilities of the agency. On the other hand, as a result of two robotic missions flown in the 1990s (Clementine and Lunar Prospector), and in contrast to earlier SEI days, by 2004 we knew that the Moon’s poles contained both the material (e.g., water ice) and energy (e.g., near-permanent sunlight) resources needed to establish a sustained human presence there. Finally, unlike the previous SEI (and significant for its early fate), the new initiative had been briefed and found support from Congress, both houses of which were controlled by the President’s own party.

The goals of the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) announced by President George W. Bush in January 2004 were the Moon (with an emphasis on developing and using its resources) and eventually, Mars. The President also announced that a commission would be convened to make recommendations on how the VSE would be implemented. This group was charged to consider the “Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy” and was chaired by former Secretary of the Air Force Pete Aldridge. In its report issued in mid-2004, one of its notable recommendations was to resurrect the Space Council.

This recommendation drew some criticism, in part because of the track record of previous space councils. But as a member of the Aldridge Commission, I can attest to my own motivations for supporting the idea. I was concerned (rightly, as it turned out) that without it, the agency would follow its own direction and inclinations, rather than the stated policy outlined by President Bush in his VSE speech. A sizeable contingent within NASA opposed a return to the Moon, favoring instead an Apollo-style Mars mission, and they set about to “slow roll” the lunar part of the Vision. To give but one example of this, a workshop was held in the spring of 2006 to consider exactly why we were going to the Moon, despite the fact that the mission of lunar return had been clearly stated in the 2004 announcement of the VSE (“…we will undertake extended human missions to the moon as early as 2015, with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods.”). The Mars lobby within NASA continually attempted to demote and minimize lunar activities in the years that the VSE was in force (they were more concerned with an “exit strategy” for the Moon than they were in getting there). They succeeded in their quest when President Obama deleted the Moon from the NASA exploration plan in 2010 and replaced it with (essentially) nothing.

So what would a space council do? Ideally, this White House-level body would provide executive oversight of NASA by monitoring how it implements policy objectives and be ready to make needed course corrections early, when they are least painful and most efficacious. Had the Aldridge Commission recommendation on establishing the space council been adopted, that body could have reminded NASA exactly why the Moon was on the critical path, how and where its chosen implementation of the VSE was wanting and where it could be adjusted, and have wielded the political force necessary to assure compliance with those directives. With a multitude of important pressing issues, no President can be expected to constantly monitor NASA to assure that his directives are understood and carried out. A space council, supported by a professional staff with technical backgrounds, fiscal knowledge and executive experience, could monitor the progress of a Presidential initiative to assure that course corrections are applied in a timely, efficient manner.

Currently, there is no mechanism to provide this kind of oversight. NASA is overseen by Congressional committees that don’t always have the expertise necessary to judge agency technical decisions or compliance with directives. They also get direction from the Office of Management and Budget, likewise limited in time and personnel (NASA is a relatively small agency in a very large federal government). A suggestion that the National Research Council (NRC) could provide such oversight is misguided – their process for generating reports is somewhat arbitrary and parochial. NRC reports make excellent doorstops but do not carry any executive weight (their last report on human spaceflight has been totally ignored by NASA). In contrast to some opinions, the goal of having a space council is not to “micromanage” the tactical implementation of an architecture, or to “second guess” routine management decisions. A White House space council operates on a higher level, assuring that strategic intentions are being adequately addressed and managed. The agency’s past performance on major initiatives has repeatedly shown that such supervision is necessary.

The creation of a space council is no guarantee of good management and programmatic excellence. But the tendency toward mission creep and institutional stasis is a natural feature of bureaucracies. The Pentagon learned this lesson long ago and its Defense Science Board carefully monitors both requirements and products for major programs. While not a perfect system (waste, fraud and abuse still occur, even with the most carefully monitored programs), having outside technical oversight works to assure course correction in an environment prone to groupthink and mission drift. NASA needs competent external oversight in order to fight both.

Posted in Lunar exploration, space industry, space policy | 16 Comments

The Space “Field of Dreams”

Over at Air & Space, some musings on the space program (real and faux) as inspiration.  Comment here, if so inclined.

Posted in Lunar exploration, planetary exploration, space policy, Space transportation | 34 Comments

A Commercial Human Flight to the Moon?

A Dragon 2 launches on a Falcon Heavy (SpaceX).

Early this week, SpaceX held a conference call to announce that two private individuals have paid their firm a “significant deposit” to be flown around the Moon next year. Although details are sketchy to nonexistent, it would appear that the mission profile is to circumnavigate the Moon before coming back to Earth in a free-return trajectory. The as-yet-unknown crew would fly in the as-yet-unflown Dragon 2 spacecraft – launched to the Moon by the as-yet-unflown Falcon Heavy launch vehicle. One thing portrayed as certain was the date – “late next year,” meaning presumably November or December of 2018 – by sheer coincidence no doubt, the 50th anniversary of the flight of Apollo 8, the first human mission to circumnavigate the Moon.

Although accustomed to hearing periodic, grand pronouncements by various New Space companies, skepticism continues to grow over their follow-through, as actual accomplishment is sporadic and less certain. What we do know for certain is that SpaceX’s one operational launch vehicle (Falcon 9) has had a few issues, the most troubling being an explosion of the vehicle on the pad last September. Although the Falcon 9 successfully sent a Dragon cargo shipment to the ISS this past week, questions about the basic design of the vehicle (e.g., the immersion of a carbon composite-wrapped helium tank in the vehicle’s LOX tank) and preparation procedures (e.g., filling the LOX tank with “slush” oxygen during late stages of the countdown with crew aboard) remain unanswered.

Though promoted continuously over the last five years, we’ve yet to see even a structural test article of the Falcon Heavy launch vehicle. Still, many speak of this rocket as if it has already been in service for a decade or more. Falcon Heavy – a rocket design requiring the simultaneous and balanced operation of 27 engines during its boost phase, surely constitutes a challenging operational objective. The N-1 Soviet rocket had 30 engines in its first stage; it launched four times and exploded each time. Such a record does not automatically portend a similar outcome for the Falcon Heavy, but it does constitute food for thought. Additionally, SpaceX’s booster landing and recovery system is built into each segment of the FH first stage, complicating operations and reducing its total payload capacity.

A LEO-configured Dragon 2 would tip the scales at about 7-8 metric tones; one destined for the Moon will be at least this massive, possibly a bit more given the need for maneuvering fuel to assure putting the spacecraft on the correct return trajectory, and necessary extra consumables for the week-long journey. The Saturn V was able to put 48 metric tons in translunar injection (TLI), about 2/5 of its 120 metric ton LEO capacity. The Falcon Heavy, using lower specific impulse kerosene-LOX, should be able to send about 7-10 metric tones TLI, probably adequate for a “heavy” Dragon 2 manned circumlunar flyby.

Still, a few misleading claims have been made for the Falcon Heavy. The SpaceX web site claims that Falcon Heavy is the largest launch vehicle since Saturn V, but the Soviet Energia of the 1980s could place 100 metric tones into LEO, almost twice the capacity of Falcon Heavy. The press release announcing the lunar flyby makes the point that “At 5 million pounds of liftoff thrust, Falcon Heavy is two-thirds the thrust of Saturn V,” but this is an irrelevant metric. The measure of launch vehicle performance is the amount of mass that can be delivered to orbit. For Falcon Heavy, this figure is 54 tones, a bit less than one-half the quantity of the Saturn V (120 tones).

PR exaggeration and lingering questions about the reality of Falcon Heavy aside, there are several other serious issues about the feasibility of this mission. The Dragon 2 has never flown in space, let alone transported people there. The milestone of the first human flight on Dragon 2 has been pushed back multiple times; it is currently scheduled for sometime in 2018, close to the circumlunar tourist mission. Of course, paying passengers are assumed to have given informed consent, but would the FAA approve such a flight, given the short time and small experience base between initial LEO flights and a lunar one? A flight to the Moon occurs outside of the Earth’s Van Allen radiation belts, so solar activity must be carefully monitored to avoid flight during periods of active Sun – a large coronal mass ejection during translunar flight would mean instant death for the crew.

SpaceX has no experience in tracking, flying and operating vehicles at lunar distances. Global tracking facilities probably can be leased to monitor and control the flight, but it is unclear that the SpaceX flight teams have the knowledge and experience to conduct such a flight. A Dragon 2 on its way to the Moon has no hope of rescue, so its life support and flight control systems must function perfectly.

Perhaps the greatest challenge comes at the end of the mission. A spacecraft returning from the Moon approaches the Earth at near escape velocity, about 11 km/second, half again as fast as a LEO entry. Fifty years ago, the returning Soviet Zond spacecraft used a “skip” technique, whereby the vehicle enters Earth’s atmosphere to dissipate some energy (slow down), flies back out into space to lose excess heat (cool off), and then re-enters the atmosphere again before landing. In September 1968, the Zond 5 spacecraft lost its navigation and guidance system just before Earth return. The spacecraft landed safely, but experienced 15-20 times the force of gravity during the ballistic re-entry. The onboard crew of two turtles survived this torture, but it is not clear that a human would have.

Given all these questions and unknowns, how real is this circumlunar flight? I suggest that as with many other New Space public relations extravaganzas, this “mission” should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Like its big brother NASA and their imaginary “Journey to Mars,” New Space effectively uses the media to shape perceptions. In today’s society, press releases are covered as real accomplishments. You don’t actually have to do anything in space – you simply have to announce that you are going to do it. Increasingly, space has become the realm of the pseudo-event – a space theater reminiscent of P.T. Barnum.

Meanwhile, China continues its systematic and continuous progress toward the Moon and dominance of cislunar space.

Posted in China space program, Lunar exploration, space industry, space policy, space technology, Space transportation | 31 Comments

Cislunar Space — Looking into the Future

I recently attended a one-day workshop held at United Launch Alliance on the topic of cislunar space development.  I’ve written up some impressions of the meeting at Air & Space.  Comment here, if desired.

Posted in Lunar development, space industry, space policy, space technology, Space transportation | 19 Comments

The Endless Moon vs. Mars debate

After reading an apparently endless number of “Mars is the next step” op-eds in two weeks, I had to vent.  New post at Air & Space is up on why the Moon should be the next destination for the American civil space program.  Comment here, if so inclined.

Posted in Lunar development, Lunar exploration, space policy, Space transportation | 19 Comments

Momentum for the Moon

The LRO spacecraft over the south pole of the Moon. We know a lot more about the Moon and its resources than we did 13 years ago when the VSE was announced.

Engineer and stalwart lunar advocate Dennis Wingo has written a new piece on his blog titled “Getting ‘Going Back to the Moon’ Right this Time.”   Dennis and I, and many others, have traveled and struggled down this road together – and apart, for years, never putting down the mantel of working to secure a sustainable space economy and future.  Dennis recounts some history of previous lunar efforts in his post, a journey I also have taken .  We have slightly differing perspectives on this history, but we are in complete agreement that the idea of using the Moon to develop cislunar space is the path that needs to be followed.

I greatly respect Dennis’ efforts and I thank him for the trust he gives me in his post.  It reminded me of a piece we wrote together, along with Gordon Woodcock, in 2009 that was published at SpaceRef titled Going Beyond the Status Quo in Space, in which we tried to extend the amazingly far-sighted vision of former Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger, whose 2006 speech was sadly neglected by NASA in implementing the Vision for Space Exploration.

I began this blog to give my own insights on this history – my attempt to prevent us from repeating those things that hurt the program, as well as to advocate for those things that many of us believe will move us forward.  Toward that end, Tony Lavoie and I designed a lunar return architecture in 2011 (which we updated last year), focused specifically on the development and use of the resources of the Moon.

Is there new momentum for lunar return?  And if so, will we succeed?  That remains to be seen.  But we know much more about the Moon and its resources than we did prior to those two previous initiatives – information that makes lunar return much more attractive than ever. In fact, I recently wrote a book on this very topic.

An important note: Please check out a recent blog post on “Why the Moon Matters” by Congressman Jim Bridenstine, another candle lit in the space policy darkness.

Posted in Lunar development, Lunar exploration, space policy, space technology, Space transportation | 25 Comments

Thoughts on National Geographic’s Mars mini-series

Mars life awaits! (National Geographic/Robert Viglasky)

Well, this thing has set back the cause of space advocacy another 50 years.

We have now been subjected to six, 45-minute episodes of this dreary exercise in clueless propaganda. I expressed my initial reactions to the first episode previously and indicated my concern about the format, emphasis, dramatic pacing and factual content of the series. After watching all six episodes of Mars, my initial concerns about the quality and value of the entire series have been validated to a large degree.

Episode 6, Crossroads, covers the final existential crisis of the new Mars colony, in which all the previous accidents and difficulties borne by the colonists in the New World have rendered the entire project subject to termination (from which I take it that they are still dependent on Earth support and supply). Dolefully noting that “this isn’t the first time that we’ve had this problem,” the episode then proceeds to regurgitate a pastiche of spaceflight history recounted by advocates who describe how the Apollo project was the beginning of a human exodus into the cosmos, with a human mission to Mars as the first step, and how America betrayed their space dreams by not pursuing same.

All very enlightening – except that it was almost completely wrong from top to bottom, or at best subject to alternative – and a more logical – explanation. As I (and others) have written before, Apollo was not about conquering space, but was rather a Cold War battle for technical superiority, waged in space. The challenge issued by President Kennedy to the Soviet Union in 1961 was one of bloodless competition – which system was superior in terms of technological capability and managerial competence? At the time, the Soviets were ahead in space achievements, possessing heavy lift rockets and had already sent a man into orbit. In contrast, America had only flown Alan Shepard on a 15-minute suborbital hop. But because a race to the Moon required new technical developments that the Soviets did not yet have, it was thought to be a competition that America had a chance to win.

Apollo was successful because we marshaled the resources required to bludgeon all of the technical difficulties and programmatic obstacles into submission. And we were able to do this because at that time, we still possessed the technological-industrial infrastructure inherited from World War II and needed for the ongoing Cold War. With the primary objective of the Apollo program accomplished by Apollo 11 on July 20, 1969, the imperative to send people beyond LEO receded in urgency. However, the idea that manned spaceflight was somehow important to national interests remained, but at levels of expenditure much lower than it had been for the previous decadal program. It was for this reason that the development of the Space Shuttle was undertaken as the follow-on for Apollo, as it was thought that a more inexpensive, reusable means of getting people and cargo into space was important for enhanced future levels of space activity.

The oft-repeated trope that “Nixon cancelled Apollo – and our chance for Mars” was presented as received wisdom by the talking heads of the Mars mini-series. But there are several problems with this interpretation. The Saturn V production line was shut down by Presidential order in 1968; the President at that time was Lyndon Baines Johnson. The Agnew report of 1969, that famously advocated a human Mars mission to follow Apollo, was never going to be embraced by the Bureau of the Budget (Office of Management and Budget after 1970). The budgeteers at the time looked forward to the end of human spaceflight, believing that it served no scientific or technical purpose and that these critical resources were needed in other areas of the budget. That this course was not taken can be attributed to the head of OMB, Caspar Weinberger, who thought that human spaceflight uplifted and inspired the nation. Weinberger wrote up these thoughts in a memo to Nixon, who penciled his agreement with them in the margins. Thus was settled the question of human spaceflight in America’s future.

But continued flights to the Moon were not in the cards. Two close calls, one on the Apollo 12 mission (where the vehicle was struck by lightning during launch) and then again during the Apollo 13 mission (in which an oxygen tank exploded on the way to the Moon), made the managers of the Apollo program (especially Bob Gilruth, the Director of the Manned Spaceflight Center in Houston) eager to conclude the series of lunar missions. In contrast to the statements made on the last Mars episode, Nixon did not terminate the Apollo program because he got “spooked” by the Apollo 13 accident. The last Apollo 20 mission was cancelled because its Saturn V was needed to launch the Skylab orbital space station fully outfitted and “dry” while the subsequent cancellation of Apollo 18 and 19 reflected the sense that the program had fully accomplished its goals of beating the Soviets to the Moon. Apollo hardware was considered too expensive to produce and was over-designed for routine flights to low Earth orbit. Hence, the Space Shuttle. And the Shuttle was originally supposed to be only the first element in an eventual “Space Transportation System” that included the Shuttle, a low Earth orbit space station, a Moon tug and an interplanetary spaceship.

But what’s a little mangling of history compared to the technical shortcomings of the series? A key plot development involves the death of a scientist who opens a lab door into the near-vacuum of the Mars surface, causing an explosion and the collateral deaths of several crew members. What kind of engineer designs a door in a habitat module that opens into space without an airlock? What possible purpose could this feature have? This is not to mention the greenhouse scenes, growing plants in martian soil, material that is loaded with perchlorates and peroxides (this issue was also ignored in last year’s film, The Martian). When the life-threatening problem of losing power develops during a global dust storm lasting for months, two crew members volunteer to brave the blinding storm and in an attempt to restore power to the complex. The base nuclear reactor had not yet been activated so they fix the connectors at a junction box to the solar arrays. How do solar arrays function during this seemingly endless global dust storm? The answer: not very well. Yet with this “fix,” full power is restored and all becomes normal back in the habitat.

But the most ludicrous plot element comes at the very end of the series. After enduring mechanical difficulties, problems locating the habitat, a global dust storm and a few deaths, the sponsors back on Earth are ready to pull the plug on this experiment in off-world living. But wait! Let’s go out for one last look and collect a sample from a distant outcrop, upwind from the previous collection area. They do – et voilà! Thread-like structures activate and move with the introduction of water onto a slide under a microscope. Life on Mars has been found! The press eagerly crowds around Joon Seung, twin sister of the Mars base commander Hana. Mankind’s settlement on the New World has been saved! Next stop, the stars!

Seriously, how pathetic is this? A human outpost that clearly is costing more than it is worth is saved at the last minute – by science. Anyone who has had more than 5 minutes experience dealing with research and development by any government or commercial entity must surely find this plot device laugh-out-loud hilarious. Yet it is a solemn rite for the Humans to Mars devotees, who believe that finding life guarantees the funding of an endless series of future missions to the Red Planet.

Bob Zubrin appears on screen to intone to the Senate Space Subcommittee that “Mars is where the science is, Mars is where the challenge is, and Mars is where the future is.” That is surely news to the 99.9% of the scientific community who conduct research totally unrelated to anything dealing with Mars. Yet this belief is deeply ingrained in the Mars advocacy community and within NASA as well. The concept that you might use space for practical benefits to create infrastructure and wealth seems alien to them.

Too bad Mystery Science Theater 3000 isn’t on any more – this series would make great fodder.

Posted in planetary exploration, space industry, space policy, space technology, Space transportation | 16 Comments

Restoring America’s Space Program: An Ambitious But Achievable Path

The XEUS, United Launch Alliance’s concept for a lunar lander based on their ACES cryogenic stage. Such a vehicle could be ready for flight within a few years. From Barr (2015).

Last month’s national election results have confounded this year’s annual crop of retrospective pieces on space. Instead of a guarantee of business as usual, America has elected a President that defies normal political calculation. Hanging in the balance are questions over what President Donald Trump will do about the U.S. space program. His statements over the course of the 2016 campaign have been ambiguous, first advancing the idea that filling in America’s potholes was more important than space, then proclaiming that our civil space program was one of the things that “make America great.” So what might this ambiguity of attitude portend for the coming years?

Decisions made over the last eight years have left us with a hollowed out space program and an agency in complete disarray. So regardless of which strategic direction the new Trump administration decides to pursue, they must first repair the agency tasked with executing our national space policy. Appallingly, a programmatic decision made in conjunction with the earlier Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) architecture (the retirement of the Space Shuttle) was not halted in light of President Obama’s cancellation of that direction, and instead, was permitted (with great fanfare) to proceed apace as these workhorses were shuttled off to museums. That decision terminated America’s ability to deliver astronauts to space, while at the same time, Mars was proclaimed as the agency’s end goal. Lunar return was declared a dead-end repeat of past glories, unworthy of our efforts and replaced with a call for the development of technology for a “Journey to Mars” sometime in the distant future.

Vague promises of an “asteroid mission” and the far-off Mars journey couldn’t fill the void left by the termination of the VSE. A call to permit the more nimble “private sector” to develop and provide human transportation to and from the International Space Station was touted as a new way of conducting spaceflight, but nothing from that quarter is yet available to deliver American crews to space. No American human spaceflight capability – government or private – exists and we continue to purchase Soyuz seats from the Russians as our only access to the ISS, a facility that America largely built and paid for.

The relevance of this history is that the current version of NASA has seen the hemorrhage of competent, experienced spaceflight personnel, along with many businesses that have simply faded away. Hanging around waiting for someone to decide where and how to proceed does not feed families or attract talent. So many of the people who had prepared and operated the Shuttle system were lost to retirement, workforce reduction, and to their own crippling frustration and eventual resignation over an apparently nonexistent future in space.

Meanwhile, NASA management resorts to producing meaningless PR hype (“#Journey to Mars”), hoping to convince the public that the agency is viable and on-track for a human Mars mission “sometime in the 2030s.” In fact, the #Journey to Mars is a complete fraud. There is no architecture that enables a 2030’s mission, no strategy to develop one, and no money to implement such a plan, even if one existed.

The net effect of this institutional drift and strategic confusion is an agency bereft of technical knowledge and capability, an entity claiming to be going somewhere, but without any knowledge of how or when it will do so. Despite a reasonably constant budget of about $20 billion per year (not chicken-feed by any stretch of the imagination), the current program is a hodge-podge of disconnected, disparate efforts that have led to no new or innovative capabilities. Is there a way to recover from this state of disarray? There is, but it will take both strong leadership and purposeful conviction to do so.

Honesty about our situation is the first step. We need to recognize that recovery will not come overnight and that a careful, but constant, movement towards a clear direction of reform and retrenchment must begin. There is no “Journey to Mars,” except in the minds and fantasies of some space buffs. We do not have the technological base, the skilled personnel, or the money to conduct a human mission to Mars by the end of the 2030s. There is no government space hardware or infrastructure to conduct an Apollo-type “flags-and-footprints” mission to Mars on decadal timescales. And there are no reusable “Mars Colonial Transports” waiting to whisk hundreds off to the new world to begin construction of Muskopolis. Dreams and inspiration are important, but human endeavor is ultimately answerable to nature. Facts and a workable architecture must exist in the mix if America wants a stake in a future space economy.

The only way we will ever get to Mars is by incrementally developing an expanding, space-based transportation infrastructure, one that gradually extends human reach – first beyond LEO, and then beyond cislunar space – into the Solar System. The key missing skill set necessary to build such a system is the knowledge and ability to find and use what exists in space to create new spaceflight capabilities.

It is for this reason that I advocate a return to the Moon – not to “plant the seventh American flag” or to one-up the Chinese – but to go and learn how to use and exploit what the Moon has to offer. I often hear the argument that it will “cost more to go to the Moon and make rocket propellant for a Mars mission than it would to launch the water directly from Earth.” This belief nicely misses the whole point of going to the Moon. We do not go there simply to “make propellant” but to learn how to make propellant – and all of the other commodities necessary to sail on the ocean of space. Using off-planet resources is a skill set that must be mastered in order to become a true space faring species.

To return to a vibrant, forward-moving civil space program, we need to plan and execute a series of small robotic missions to the lunar poles to characterize their environments and prospect for water ice. When the Vision for Space Exploration was announced in 2004, we did not know to what extent water was present on the Moon. Now we know that promising deposits exist close to areas of near-permanent sunlight near both poles. Because the availability of power is of overriding importance in any off-planet environment, we can confine our detailed explorations to within a few tens of kilometers of these sunlit areas. This localization simplifies prospecting requirements. Initial work can be done with inexpensive, small, expendable spacecraft, such as hard landers and small, fixed soft-landers, eventually followed up by long-lived surface rovers (depending on the findings of the earlier missions). These surveys will reveal in short order the optimum locations for future surface operations.

After the best locations have been identified, a series of increasingly sophisticated robotic craft can land near the site to demonstrate that the ice can be recovered and processed. After that is done, building infrastructure for a lunar outpost can begin. The basic needs are water-bearing feedstock (ore), a nearby zone of near-constant sunlight for power generation, solar arrays to generate that power, and a small array of equipment to harvest, extract and store the water. These tasks do not require a huge industrial facility on the Moon – the initial robotic equipment needed to undertake this work has a total mass of about 20 tones. Emplacement of all the equipment necessary for initial operations on the lunar surface would require only 2-3 launches of the forthcoming SLS heavy lift launch vehicle.

The Orion spacecraft and its SLS launch vehicle are currently in final stages of development, with initial test flights planned for 2018. We can use these existing systems to return to the Moon; indeed, as the remnants of the cancelled Constellation program, they are already optimized for cislunar missions. The only missing piece is a lander to put people on to the lunar surface. NASA’s Altair lander program was cancelled in 2011, but fortunately, a lander may be ready very soon. The United Launch Alliance has outlined a plan for a human-rated lander based around the venerable Centaur stage, using modified RL-10 engines. This vehicle is almost perfectly configured to return people to the Moon, as it is intended to be reusable and utilizes the LOX-hydrogen propellant that we will produce on the lunar surface.

By re-focusing the agency toward the achievable and enabling, instead of the improbable, unrealistic and unattainable, we will be on the Moon developing a permanent, space-based transportation system that opens many possible destinations in space – and all doable within the agency’s existing (or slightly enhanced) budget.

We must return to a program template that knows how to distinguish reality from fantasy. And we must follow a path designed for space permanence, one that assures our nation’s leadership in space. This recovery will happen by a return to the Moon to learn how to use its resources. There we will add to our skill set and demonstrate what is possible – and create an atmosphere in which entrepreneurs can use that knowledge to build new space industries. Our space program requires clear direction, decisive leadership and competent technical implementation. We need for those who understand this – those willing to pursue these vital tasks – to speak up, engage and make our space program great again.

Posted in Lunar development, Lunar exploration, space industry, space policy, space technology, Space transportation | 39 Comments

Favorable Signs for a Lunar Return

New post up at Air & Space discusses events at the recent annual meeting of the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group (LEAG), including a report on Congressman Jim Bridenstine’s great speech to the attendees (which I urge you to read in its entirety).  Comment here, if desired.

Posted in Lunar development, Lunar exploration, space policy, space technology, Space transportation | 30 Comments