Today’s launch of the Atlantis was the final launch of any Space Shuttle, after a little over 30 years of space voyages for the program. Its final return to Earth, currently scheduled for July 20, not-so-coincidentally the 42nd anniversary of the first moon landing, will mark the end of an era. But what era will that be?
To listen to many of the hysterical cries a year and a half ago, when the administration abruptly canceled the out-of-control Constellation program — which, had it succeeded on its own terms, would basically have repeated the Apollo missions over half a century later, at horrific cost and years behind schedule — today’s launch marks the end of American human space flight itself. But to think this is to be oblivious to the space industry that is rapidly forming: that of private, for-profit providers operating for private and public purposes. A number of companies are developing systems to deliver passengers to both suborbit and Earth orbit. Some of the suborbital ones — Virgin Galactic, XCOR Aerospace, Armadillo Aerospace, and Blue Origin — may start test flights into space next year. They may start offering suborbital transportation services, both for people who want to experience space and serious researchers, a year or so later.
Advertisement
For orbital transportation, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) successfully launched and recovered a pressurized capsule last December that could have carried a private astronaut, and is expected to be capable of doing so safely in three or four years. Blue Origin and Boeing are also developing capsules of their own, and Sierra Nevada Corporation is working on a small lifting body that will, like the Shuttle, be able to glide to a landing on a runway.
While some of these companies are receiving NASA funds, the amounts are comparatively trivial and on the basis of fixed-price milestones, not the vast expenditures of the bloated cost-plus contracts that led to all the overruns and schedule slips on the Constellation and other traditional NASA programs. With the end of the Shuttle, NASA desperately needs private services to be able to get its astronauts to and from the International Space Station, and with signs that fiscal sanity may be taking hold in Washington, it equally desperately needs to get such services at a more affordable price than either the Shuttle or the Space Launch System can offer. When one totals up all of the program costs over the decades, each Shuttle flight cost well over a billion dollars, and each flight of the SLS will likely cost even more. In contrast, SpaceX quotes a price of $20 million a seat for astronauts — less than one-third of the price we’re now being charged by the Russians, who offer the only means of supporting ISS for crew transfer and lifeboats until we get the new systems on line.
What is really coming to an end is an anomalous and, in a sense, un-American era of belief in Big Government in space. It started in the panic of Sputnik and the “missile gap,” and was exacerbated by being beaten again when the Russians sent the first man into space — in response to which Pres. Jack Kennedy called for a race to the moon. In so doing, he established a paradigm for how we would do space flight that was a huge departure from Dwight Eisenhower’s conception of NASA. NASA was never intended to develop and operate launch systems, but was supposed to provide the technologies needed to keep the young American space industry on the leading edge, as the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics had with aviation for decades. With Apollo’s success, most accepted this mode as normal, despite the fact that the moon program was ultimately canceled because of its high cost. At that point, moving the huge existing NASA centers and contractor base (and political contributions and votes) on to a next big project — the Shuttle — seemed natural, though in retrospect it was as absurd as a country developing its own unique airplane and using it as the basis for a state-run airline, with exactly the results one might expect from such a project.
Astoundingly, the president, of all people, seems to get this much better than some supposed conservatives and Republicans. In his Twitter session, he actually expanded on his vision of space:
We’re still using the same models for space travel that we used with the Apollo program 30, 40 years ago. And so what we’ve said is, rather than keep on doing the same thing, let’s invest in basic research around new technologies that can get us places faster, allow human space flight to last longer.
And what you’re seeing now is NASA, I think, redefining its mission. And we’ve set a goal to let’s ultimately get to Mars. A good pit stop is an asteroid. I haven’t actually — we haven’t identified the actual asteroid yet, in case people are wondering. [Laughter.] But the point is, let’s start stretching the boundaries, so we’re not doing the same thing over and over again, but rather let’s start thinking about what’s the next horizon, what’s the next frontier out there.
But in order to do that, we’re actually going to need some technological breakthroughs that we don’t have yet. And what we can do is for some of this low-orbit stuff, some of the more routine space travel — obviously no space travel is routine, but it could become more routine over time — let’s allow the private sector to get in so that they can, for example, send these low-Earth-orbit vehicles into space, and we may be able to achieve a point in time where those of you who are just dying to go into space, you can buy a ticket, and a private carrier can potentially take you up there,while the government focuses on the big breakthroughs that require much larger investments and involve much greater risk.
BEO may be done with existing or near term available EELVs, like Atlas V, Delta IV and Falcon 9. By using in orbit refueling, propulsion modules that stay in orbit and inflatable habitat modules to carry people, we can mount expidetions to anywhere in the inner solar system sooner and for much less than waiting for SLS . This model of how to do things even has the support of NASA, though not of the centers tied to SLS.
"NASA is building SLS for BEO missions, which private business cannot support since there is no profit in it."
You mean to tell me if NASA wrote a 300 Million Dollar check to Robert Bigelow for a BA-330 Habitat and a $150 Million dollar check to Elon Musk for a Falcon
For aronud 300 million for a Bigelow BA-330 and 150 million for Falcon Heavy to deliver it, you are telling me both would not take the money and run all the way to the bank?
It is actually feasable in the near future to place a Skylab-sized space station at EML-1, near the Moon in deep space, for the price of a single Shuttle launch today.
Wow, Obama actually said something that I agree with. Having space socialized for the "common good" has always been the wrong approach to getting us out in space. NASA did some good things, but the thinking about what to do with space has never gone beyond "let's put a man in orbit to build a space station that is fifty years behind schedule" or "let's put a small rover on a distant planet and be surprised that we got more life out of the rover than the estimated 90 days we originally thought we would get." If you're going to dream big, it is better to let 300 million people dream and scheme than 1 million do it.
I would be much more comforted by the end of NASA's human spaceflight capacity if these two conditions were met:
1) There existed another, functioning, American owned spacecraft which could launch humans
2) NASA had established a goal, say moon round two or asteroid round one or some Lagrange point round one. Then, we could be certain that the ideal would happen: private corporations compete for the easy and proven tech while the govn't pushes to achieve the much harder tech.
Finally, to those conservatives who are giddy at the demise of NASA. Think of the alternatives. The government, instead of spending money on scientific and technological exploration, has freed up cash to prop up the entitlement state for another few months. NASA, for all its faults, gave the US its lead in spaceflight and its development programs, especially the more esotaric items such as ion drives and improved radiation hardening, necessary for deep human spaceflight, have very critical military needs in the next decade.
Furthermore, do people really want the US to be a country which devotes all of its R&D budget to either developing military weapons or trying to save all the baby boomers? In that case, as has already happened with the top level of physics, the scientists will just go abroad to where the money and jobs are. Or, the worse case scenario, they won't go into the sciences at all.
That is the ironic part, the President, and all political parties, really, want to improve math and science education in the country, and yet they are more than willing to end the most visible and in some senses exciting technological program.
Thank you for the wonderful quotation by Mark Albrecht, "The system has become adept at resisting reprioritization and powerful in protecting itself and the status quo."
That needs to be carved in stone above the entrance to every major government building, but applies especially to NASA.
Having worked in aerospace, the image I acquired of an American aerospace contractor is of the Great Pyramid of Giza, inverted, its entire mass bearing down on the tiny apex, representing the few dozen engineers and technicians actually doing the work.
The rest of the weight (500 or so bodies) would consist almost exclusively of (ultimately fearful) greedy, self-important, pompous, politically-entrenched, delusional managers who are incapable of actual work, and who are, consequently, terrified of an industry shakeup.
All this with each successive layer of managerial deadweight enjoying much greater salary and benefits than the layer immediately below. Management's salary *bonuses* alone for slave-driving their teams to meet milestones were often as large again as each manager's considerable salary.
Corruption, cronyism, project mismanagement, and more corruption define the American aerospace industry.
Talented engineers who are willing to work will always be able to find jobs. However, highly-paid non-technical managers will be at each others' throats to survive streamlining in the aerospace industry.
Aerospace *management* will fight to the death to prevent industry privatization. They've got lifestyles of unearned, privileged excess to lose.
I'm amazed that Obama actually made sense when he said the space shuttle is the end of an era and that we should move on to explore the solar system and land human beings on Mars. That reflects my opinion exactly as long we stay focused on our goal to build safe space vehicles to transport humans to actual other bodies in our solar system. Maybe Barack Obama should should be transferred to NASA. That's a "voyage" we would all support!
"Privatization" is not always the best avenue, but it is long past overdue (was that a Bushism?) when it comes to space. Entrepreneurs can lead us better than government check-cashing bureaucrats and engineers.
I think back on the 60s and 70s and was glad we won the "Space Race." But, we had only one rival then, and our survival was a matter of true national security. Today, we have many rivals for the peaceful development of space technologies, and it is vital that we put our "first teams" in the game.
If I had a few billion to spare, I would not buy a seat on a sub-orbital flight. Instead, I would fund a bunch of geeks to sit around, stay up late, drink Mountain Dew, eat pizza, sushi, and see what they came up with.
The Air Force can handle the launches. They do that every week right now, so it's no problemo, senor.
Eat your hearts out techies. LOL. I was an accountant in my former life, but I flew both the Shuttle and B-1 simulators. Crashed more often than not. Guess I will stick to the infantry and terrestrial engineering projects.
Still hoping to hit the Lotto though. That way I can start a tech company and the kids can teach me about this FaceBook thing while taking us beyond the "Final Frontier."
I think it is in the strategic national interest for out country to have the capability to put people in space. And we should look to continue to hand off more launch services to private contractors. However, they need to prove themselves rather than this risky proposition of eliminating the U.S. capability before seeing if they can do it. It's not as easy as it looks.
Mike Griffin had the best plan given the circumstances and if it had been allowed to work , both public and private sector space interests would have been served responsibly.
Instead, what we are getting is a plan to end human spaceflight while using the language of "privatization" to gain public support. NASA will be turned into just another government lab that will be used for job politicking and social programs.