Space flight panel can't fit lunar mission into NASA budget

August 16, 2009 By Mark K. Matthews and Robert Block
NASA logo

When President Barack Obama named a panel to review NASA's manned space program, his aides said privately they were hoping the group would recommend scrapping NASA's troubled Ares I rocket program and finding another, cheaper way to get humans back to the moon.

But the Review of U.S. Human Flight Plans Committee came to a troubling conclusion this week: NASA's current budget offers no hope of sending humans past the international space station for 20 years or more.

And that confronts the administration with an enormous dilemma: how, in an era of trillion-dollar deficits, to find money to reinvigorate human space exploration and avoid pulling the plug on a program that just celebrated the 40th anniversary of its first .

"The public was promised a Cadillac, or at least a Buick," said one administration science official not authorized to speak for the White House. "There is some concern that we could end up with an Edsel."

Shaping the future of America's space program began Friday, when members of the committee presented their preliminary findings to chief Charlie Bolden and White House officials. Initial reports indicated the group agreed to retire the space shuttle in 2011, extend the space station until 2020 and use more commercial rockets. They also liked the idea of exploring deep space -- rather than landing on the moon.

On Wednesday, the panel said Constellation, NASA's current back-to-the-moon program, is running $50 billion over the current budget through 2020. But the alternatives presented Friday are almost as expensive, requiring $20 billion to $30 billion more than the current budget through 2020.

The outcome was not entirely unexpected.

Even before Obama took office, officials had serious doubts about Constellation, particularly its Ares I rocket, which is expected to shake violently as it climbs through the atmosphere.

They especially questioned a rocket designed in part to take crew to the space station that wouldn't be ready until 2015 -- the same year the complex was supposed to be abandoned.

"I might not have a technical background, but I can read budget and schedule charts, and I can tell you that there are things that don't make sense," Alan Ladwig, now a presidentially appointed policy adviser at NASA, told Florida space boosters last December.

But Obama officials were reluctant to kill the Constellation program by decree. They preferred that an independent panel come to what they saw as the only logical conclusion: that Ares I was, as one put it, "infeasible."

But they didn't expect that NASA's budget would leave no room for another rocket capable of flying beyond the space station.

Even the panel members themselves were surprised.

Norm Augustine, the retired Lockheed Martin CEO who leads the 10-member panel, said he was shocked at its inability to find an option that would fit within NASA's current manned space budget that the committee put at roughly $100 billion through 2020.

"I certainly didn't think it would miss by as much as it did," Augustine said. "One of the things that have troubled NASA the most in recent years is having objectives that they don't the resources to match."

That leaves the White House with a tough decision: back billions more for human space exploration or support an emasculated program that critics will call pointless.

It is up to Obama, says Marcia Smith, formerly a space expert at the Congressional Research Service and now a consultant, to decide whether human space exploration is a worthy priority or an unaffordable luxury.

"Giving NASA a couple more billion dollars a year for the next 20 years isn't really going to affect the deficit that much, considering how huge the deficit is," Smith said. "So it's a matter of presidential policy and what Obama wants to do."

Committee members are trying to find ways to reduce the costs of some of their options to make them more palatable. But the most likely option would be a new rocket designed and operated by a commercial company and purchased by the agency -- a dramatic break from current practices where NASA designs and "owns" its rockets.

And Congress might not go along because that would harm the contractors now working on the program.

What's more, any of the committee's options would devastate Florida's Space Coast, which faces an estimated 7,000 job losses at Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Fla., when NASA retires the space shuttle. That in turn could trigger the loss of 21,000 more jobs outside the Space Center.

If the shuttle is retired in 2011, as now seems likely, it will be years before a new manned space rocket brings even some of those jobs back.

"We need to see what the final outcome is," said Lynda Weatherman, CEO of the Economic Development Commission of Florida's Space Coast. "Right now our strategy is to try to find work that supports a lunar mission. If it's not lunar, then it will be something else. There will be work from whatever they come out with. We just have to be smart enough to take advantage."

But, she added, "it's going to be a tough period."

For NASA allies on Capitol Hill, news that the agency does not have enough money to do what it wants is not so shocking. For years, members of congressional science committees have complained about underfunding.

But in a time of enormous budget deficits, a major boost is seen as unlikely.

"NASA is getting $18 billion a year. That's more than all the other [space] agencies in the world combined. It's very difficult to make the argument for more money," said Vincent Sabathier of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

Sabathier said NASA's best hope lies in giving a greater role to its international partners to develop key components of an exploration system, such as using a French rocket to launch a U.S. capsule.

"If you cannot find more money, you must work more closely with the international partners," he said. "Obama can use space as a foreign-policy tool, to rebuild its leadership in space."


Options presented to the White House by members of the Augustine Committee.

Stay the course:

• Continue Constellation Program of Ares I rocket to ferry astronauts and Ares V heavy-lift rocket. retired in 2010-11. closed in 2015. First moon orbit would be sometime after 2028. Cost: $99 billion through 2020; $205 billion through 2030

Extend space station:

• Retire shuttle in 2011, but keep the station until 2020. Use commercial rocket instead of Ares I. Develop Ares V "lite." First moon orbit after 2028. Cost: $101 billion through 2020; $204 billion through 2030.

Extend shuttle:

• Fly shuttle until 2015; extend station to 2020, with commercial rockets taking crew there. Build Ares V "lite" or a new "heavy lift" rocket from shuttle fuel tank, main engines and solid-rocket boosters to carry humans to lunar orbit and scouting missions. First moon orbit in early 2020s. No cost data available.

3 "flexible" deep-space exploration options with shuttle retired in 2011 and space station in 2020:

• Build a shuttle-derived rocket; use orbiting fuel depots to orbit moon as soon as 2023; orbit asteroids in 2027; orbit Mars in 2029; land on moon by 2030. Cost: $123 billion through 2020; $266 billion through 2030.

• Build a commercial heavy-lift rocket; use orbiting fuel depots to orbit moon in 2024, asteroids in 2026, Mars in 2028 and land on the moon in 2029. $123 billion through 2020; $256 billion through 2030.

• Use commercial rockets to space station. Build Ares V "lite" to orbit moon in 2025, asteroids in 2030, Mars in 2034; land on moon in 2035. $126 billion through 2020; $272 billion through 2030.

SOURCE: Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, Aug. 12 data

(c) 2009, The Orlando Sentinel (Fla.).
Visit the Sentinel on the World Wide Web at
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

Explore further: Funding threatens US return to moon by 2020

Related Stories

Funding threatens US return to moon by 2020

June 18, 2009

US ambitions of returning to the moon by 2020 and then heading to Mars risk being grounded because of "unrealistic" funds allocated to NASA, said Senator Bill Nelson, a former space shuttle astronaut.

NASA denies new space program is too risky, pricey

July 30, 2009

(AP) -- Engineers designing NASA's next moon rocket denied Wednesday that the human space flight program dubbed "Constellation" is too expensive, too risky and would unnecessarily delay man's return to space.

Panel to evaluate NASA's manned spaceflight program

June 17, 2009

A 10-member committee of former astronauts, aerospace executives and academics kicks off an 11-week evaluation of America's manned spaceflight program Wednesday - and the stakes couldn't be higher.

NASA picks Boeing as Ares I contractor

December 13, 2007

The U.S. space agency has selected The Boeing Co. as the prime contractor to produce, deliver and install avionics systems for the Ares I rocket.

Recommended for you

No alien 'signals' from cigar-shaped asteroid: researchers

December 14, 2017

No alien signals have been detected from an interstellar, cigar-shaped space rock discovered travelling through our Solar System in October, researchers listening for evidence of extraterrestrial technology said Thursday.

Dawn of a galactic collision

December 14, 2017

A riot of colour and light dances through this peculiarly shaped galaxy, NGC 5256. Its smoke-like plumes are flung out in all directions and the bright core illuminates the chaotic regions of gas and dust swirling through ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Aug 16, 2009
NASA is a waste of space.
Anyone thing private enterprise could *not* return to the moon given $100billion? How about SpaceX?
4 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2009
Maybe NASA could put Orion on top of Ariane V, which was designed to be human rated, finish Shuttle Derived Heavy Launcher or Direct with RS-68A, 4-block SRBs, fly it, human rate it, then put Orion on top, if needed.
I'm almost sure ESA would be interested, with their CSTS currently in limbo and ITAR going down.

SpaceX is not the only commercial possibility. Bigelow also has some plans to use lighter version of Orion for ISS crew transport, fly it on Atlas V, Orbital has probably most experience, there could be others, but LEO is 350 km high and Moon is close to 400 000 km away and that's a bit of a difference.

And NASA is not a waste of space, just unfortunate to be a political toy too many times.
4 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2009
EarthlingX: While the Ares 1 is kind of lame, and mostly unnecessary, the Ares 5 is a completely different type of animal. It will have substantially more lifting power than the Saturn V did, and there is *nothing* in either the commercial or government funded space communities to match it. Nothing available, and nothing proposed.

So the Ares V is necessary for a (halfway decent) trip to the moon, while the Ares 1 is neither necessary nor desirable.

The problem is that even though the Ares 1 is a PoS, scraping it won't save a lot of money. That's because a lot of the R&D being done for the Ares 1 will be reused for the Ares 5 (Ares 5 is an Ares 1 derived launch system, even though it is *very* different).

However, scrapping the Ares 1 and going with a commercial option (or, better yet, getting another space agency to pay for a commercial option;). Cooperation is a wonderful thing for your pocket-book) for the crew capsule launches would save a little bit of time and money, and that's what I think they should do.

But it really isn't as clear cut a choice as some people like to pretend, as this panel of experts found out, to their surprise.
5 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2009
The best (fastest & cheapest) solution may be man-rating the Delta-V Heavy EELV vice Ares I. It will be ready to go in 30-40 months. At the same time, restart the X-38/CRV program. It would be ready about the same time and have many more capabilities relevant to supporting the ISS than the ORION capsule which is trying to do too many things and cover too many missions. With the Delta and CRV at least you are affordably supporting what is actually in place. Then if you get the money up to build the Ares-V, Shuttle-C, or just uprate the Delta; you can create a fuel tank farm off the ISS. Bring astronauts up and down on the CRV, use the VASIMR engine and ALTAIR to go to the Moon or wherever and one of the above heavy lifters for fuel, exploration or ISS-support cargo. This supports what actually exists, probably costs less and creates an integrated useful in-space infrastructure.
As for NASA: they are engineers. They can't help it they have no political skills and so have no idea how to avoid being a political toy.
not rated yet Aug 16, 2009
The Augustine Committee didn't mention the CYRUS SPACE SYSTEM which can be found on the web site. Can you find it buried there? This is a test. Please, please go to: , then Email the President about what you saw there. I need your help. We can absolutely, positively set foot on Mars no later than 2029. The best solution to any problem is the simple solution...... Again, you can make a difference right now. Thank you, Daniel Sterling Sample Space Designs in Los Angeles
not rated yet Aug 16, 2009
ALSO, the CYRUS SPACE SYSTEM is a patent pending and I could use your brilliant minds to complete it to a full patent. All that is missing from the patent pending is the "CLAIMS" and the "REFERENCE" listings, including prior art. Download the Patent Pending from the web site (look under Emails to the Augustine) and go to work. There are 4 drawings and 14 pages of description for the "Spacecraft Launch and Exploration System" patent pending USPTO No. 61/199,422 . Now you have a mission to accomplish! Get to work and show me what you can do besides bitch and cry about what NASA needs to be doing! If you have trouble downloading the 14 pages of description, Email me and I will send them to you in another format. Daniel Sterling Sample Space Designs in Los Angeles (formerly Las Vegas)
not rated yet Aug 17, 2009
Perhaps it's time for NASA to invite more corporate and commercial participation into it's activities.

As for the manned space program, what's the rush? NASA must have dozens of potential unmanned projects on the back burner. They could consider limiting their manned activities to the ISS until technology and/or attitudes catch up.
1 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2009
Sell off NASA. Government and especially the Obamination has no business in research, not least for their heavy political thumb on 'science'.
not rated yet Aug 22, 2009
I've heard months ago that there was a rift amongst engineers at NASA about the Ares I mainly in part to the vibration during lift-off and that there were engineers working on their own free time to develop an alternative, what happened with this? $100 billion over 10 years is not a lot considering that the national defense is closer to $7 Trillion for the same time span.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.