[FPSPACE] Ares I and Ares V should be abandoned: Augustine Panel

[Peter Pesavento]

>From the Orlando Sentinel:

 

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/orl-augustine-panel-s
ummary-090809,0,2236463.story

 

"...


 NASA should abandon its plan to develop an Ares I rocket for crew and a
larger Ares V rocket for cargo, and develop a "lite" version of the Ares V
capable of carrying both. NASA has spent more than $3 billion on Ares I and
is budgeted to spend another $1.4 billion next year.

 

 

.."

 


OrlandoSentinel.com


Space panel: NASA needs new direction and $3B more in funding


The report presents President Barack Obama with some less-than-welcome
choices


Mark K. Matthews and Robert Block

Sentinel Staff Writers

7:33 PM EDT, September 8, 2009

WASHINGTON

A presidential panel told the White House Tuesday that NASA's
manned-spaceflight program is on an "unsustainable trajectory," can't afford
its current goal of going to the moon and must work more closely with other
countries and private companies to preserve a "viable" human-exploration
program.

In a 12-page executive summary, the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans
Committee offered a bleak assessment of NASA's situation.

"The U.S. human spaceflight program appears to be on an unsustainable
trajectory. It is perpetuating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that
do not match allocated resources," said the summary, which will be followed
by a full report later this month.

"Whatever space program is ultimately selected," the report continued, "it
must be matched with the resources needed for its execution."

Indeed, the report said NASA's four-year-old plan to return to the moon by
2020 is unaffordable due to budget cuts and recommended a "flexible path"
that would explore the inner solar system - and ultimately go to Mars - over
several decades. This could include a trip to the moon.

But to do that, the panel found, NASA needs $3 billion a year above its
current $18 billion annual budget. The panel said that "no plan compatible
with [NASA's current budget projections] permits human exploration to
continue in any meaningful way."

While the findings largely conform to the conclusions that the committee
voiced in public hearings last month, several recommendations stood out
strongly.

 NASA should abandon its plan to develop an Ares In rocket for crew and a
larger Ares V rocket for cargo, and develop a "lite" version of the Ares V
capable of carrying both. NASA has spent more than $3 billion on Ares I and
is budgeted to spend another $1.4 billion next year.

NASA needs to enlist other counties in human space exploration.n The report
mentions international partners and partnerships in space exploration 15
times. "Actively engaging international partners in a manner adapted to
today's multi-polar world could strengthen geopolitical relationships,
leverage global resources, and enhance the exploration enterprise," it says.

Then life of the international space station should be extended five years,
to 2020. "Not to extend its operation would significantly impair U.S.
ability to develop and lead future international spaceflight partnerships,"
it said.

The recommendations are in sharp contrast to NASA's current approach, which
aims to put American astronauts back on the moon by 2020 with little help
from anyone else. One of the few NASA strategies the panel endorsed is
retiring the space shuttle by sometime in 2011 - though the panel said it
might be possible to keep it flying until 2015.

The panel depicts NASA as a cash-starved agency trying to realize a 2005
"vision" to return to the moon without the resources to do so.

"Destinations should derive from goals," the 10-member panel, headed by
former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, wrote, urging a revised goal of
broadly exploring the inner solar system, including fly-bys of the moon,
asteroids and Mars.

The report presents five exploration options, from continuation of NASA's
Constellation moon program to a "flexible path" of exploratory missions.
Possible hardware ranges from the Ares I and heavy-lift Ares V rockets, to
shuttle-derived lifters.

But the panel said any viable option requires $3 billion more a year through
2014 and inflation-adjusted increases after that to fund a "reasonable,
though hardly aggressive, timetable. The committee believes an exploration
program that will be a source of pride for the nation requires resources at
such a level."

A final decision on which of the panel's recommendations to adopt belongs to
President Obama. For now, the White House isn't publicly picking favorites.

"Until the options are thoroughly considered, it would be premature for
anyone to draw conclusions from the committee's work. The president will
consult with senior advisers, including the NASA Administrator, before
making his final decisions," White House spokeswoman Gannet Tseggai said in
a statement.

But senior White House officials have said privately that continuing to
develop Ares I, flying the shuttle past 2011 or giving NASA a big budget
increase are not their first choices.

The stage is now set for a scramble among contractors, NASA factions and
members of Congress to influence the White House choices.

Last week, senior executives from NASA's contractors -- including ATK; The
Boeing Co.; Pratt Whitney; and Lockheed Martin Corp. -- held a
teleconference to map out a strategy to press for more money to keep Ares
and its Orion capsule alive

Tuesday, a senior executive for ATK, which is building the solid-rocket
first stage of the Ares I and would have much to lose if the rocket was
supplanted by commercial lifters, took issue with that recommendation.

Charles Precourt, a former chief astronaut for NASA and now an ATK vice
president for launch systems, told the Cocoa Beach chapter of the National
Space Club that the space community needed to understand the consequences of
giving commercial companies a larger role.

Asked whether he thought NASA would be willing to put astronauts on a
commercial rocket, he said, "I wouldn't be if I were [still] the chief
astronaut."

But commercial supporters insist that they are the most affordable way
forward.

"Whatever architecture is chosen, commercial crew activities create jobs and
create human spaceflight faster than the exploration program will and that
will be important to Florida and the nation," said Bretton Alexander,
president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation.

Florida legislators and other shuttle supporters favor an option that
extends the space shuttle era to 2015 and builds a new spacecraft from
shuttle hardware. It's seen by many as the only way to avoid the loss of up
to 7,000 jobs at Kennedy Space Center once the shuttle is retired.

"Clearly, there is no gap if shuttle keeps flying," said Frank DiBello,
acting president of Space Florida. "For Florida, that would be the best
near-term outcome ..."

But that's also seen by most observers as the least-likely option.

No matter what option the White House chooses, the report found, it will
take at least seven years to build a rocket that can lift astronauts to the
space station. In the meantime, NASA will rely on the Russian-built Soyuz.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.friends-partners.org/pipermail/fpspace/attachments/20090909/8eecb434/attachment.html