The End of the Manned Space Program?

February 1, 2010. Big disasters tend to hit the U.S. manned space program this time of year. On January 27, 1967, Apollo 1 was destroyed by fire during a pad test, killing the three astronauts inside. On January 28, 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded 73 seconds into flight, killing the crew of seven astronauts. On February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated during re-entry, killing its crew of seven. On February 1, 2010, the President released a budget which is likely to end the U.S. Manned Space Program.

The President’s budget cancels the Constellation Program, the NASA Program to build a new manned spacecraft that first services the International Space Station, then returns to the moon, then continues to Mars and beyond. The cancellation specifically includes elements such as the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, the Ares 1 launch vehicle, and the Ares 5 heavy launch vehicle. As justification, the Constellation Program’s critics assert that it is behind schedule and unlikely to meet its ambitious goals without a substantial budget increase. The President proposed to replace the Constellation Program with increased funding to NASA unmanned programs, commercial space initiatives, and extensive investment in new technology needed for future space exploration.

The Space Shuttle Program is scheduled to end later this year after the five remaining scheduled flights. It is too late to revive the Space Shuttle Program, as assembly lines for such items as solid rocket boosters have already been shut down. The Space Shuttle is a 30 year old program, and the Constellation Program was its logical successor.

With the end of the Shuttle Program and the cancellation of the Constellation Program, the only remaining active manned space program will be the International Space Station (ISS). The President proposes to extend the life of ISS until 2020, a reasonable goal. However, after the Shuttle stops flying, the only way for U.S. astronauts to get to or from ISS will be in Russian Soyuz capsules. The only way to bring supplies to ISS will be on Russian Progress vehicles, or less frequently, on Japanese HTV or European ATV vehicles. In other words, ISS may be a U.S. led effort, but the U.S. will no longer be able to get there without help from foreign countries. The Constellation Program would have eventually flown to ISS, but this will no longer be the case.

When the Shuttle stops flying, the U.S. will lose all leverage in managing ISS activities. We will have to go cap in hand to the Russians to beg for rides (they will charge us), and the Russians will call the shots. The absence of a heavy lift spacecraft may lead to maintenance problems on ISS. In addition, the end of the Shuttle and Constellation Programs will produce a NASA brain drain that may compound the problems. In short, we can hope that ISS will operate until 2020, but we will depend on good fortune and the kindness of strangers for it to do so.

Two private companies, Orbital Sciences and SpaceX, have contracts to build commercial vehicles to fly to ISS. These vehicles may be ready in several years. After that, they may be upgraded to carry humans to ISS. The President’s plan relies on rapid development of commercial space activities to fill the void left by the Constellation Program.

There are two drawbacks to the commercial space plan. The first drawback is that commercial businesses require a customer base. If ISS operations end, there will be no clear customer for Orbital, SpaceX, or any other commercial companies who wish to be involved in manned spaceflight. Even if ISS operations continue until 2020, those commercial businesses will only be able to rely on a customer for a short period of time – from whenever they are ready until 2020.

The second drawback to the commercial plan is more severe, and likely to be more important to those with a real interest in exploring space. It is unlikely that any commercial business will ever be able to develop a business plan that supports exploration of the solar system outside earth orbit. Companies build satellites because they are profitable, but at no time in the near future will a moon base or a Mars mission be profitable. Advocates of a commercial-only space program must realize that they are confining humanity to earth orbit for the indefinite future.
The largest new line items in the President’s budget involved research and development in three areas: (1) technology demonstration, including in-flight refueling and storage, (2) heavy lift and propulsion, and (3) robotic precursor missions. Such research and development is likely to be useful. However, research and development is more useful when it has a specific mission focus. Which was more useful, the 1804 Lewis and Clark expedition that explored the Louisiana Territory, or theoretical research into building better wagon wheels to enable exploration of the Louisiana Territory?

My six-year old son loves all things related to space, both fictional and real. He watches Stars Wars and Star Trek and asks when we can go to other stars like they do on those shows. I showed him videos of the Ares 1-x burn test and the Ares 1-x test launch. I explained that this was the first version of a rocket which would eventually take us to the outer solar system and then maybe, someday, beyond. I haven’t had the heart to tell him yet that we have decided not to go.