Senate’s New NASA Plan: Heavy Lift, Extra Shuttle Mission, Less Commericial and Tech Development

by Nancy Atkinson on July 15, 2010


The U.S. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation today unanimously approved legislation that would add a shuttle mission and jump start work on a heavy-lift rocket next year. The NASA Reauthorization Act effectively cancels the Constellation program, but directs NASA to begin work immediately on a new heavy-lift vehicle to be ready by 2016, along with a crew vehicle. The new legislation takes money away, however, from two main focuses on Obama’s proposed budget: commercial space development and funding for innovation and breakthrough technologies.

Commercial space ventures would only get $1.6 billion for development in the next three years, as opposed to Obama’s plan for $3.3 billion on commercial rocket companies between 2011 and 2013.

Obama had proposed $6 billion over five years for technology development whereas the new Senate bill funds advanced technologies at about $950 million over three years.

Both of these components are a big disappointment for those looking towards the future and not necessarily honing in on the short-term of the next few years.

The plan, mainly spearheaded by Florida Senator Bill Nelson is said to be a compromise between Obama’s plan and those in Congress who opposed it.

“The goal was to preserve U.S. leadership in space exploration and keep as much of the rocket-industry talent as possible employed,” said Nelson, following Thursday’s unanimous approval of the authorization bill.

Nelson said extending the space shuttle into 2011 keeps much of the KSC workforce in place and advances heavy-lift rocket development, with an eye toward manned flights nearly a decade earlier than 2025, as had been proposed by the White House. It also provides the money for operating the International Space Station through 2020.

Some, including business and space advocates on the Space Coast, were critical of the draft bill because it scaled back President Obama’s proposed funding for that program and for technology development, both of which could create jobs.

The heavy lift development would be started now instead of 2015, as proposed by Obama.

But is creating a heavy-lift vehicle by 2016 doable, or is it basically asking NASA to do too much with too little – to which Constellation fell victim?

Although Nelson said the bill would support an overall growth in science, aeronautics, and space technology and define a long-term goal for human space flight to expand a permanent human presence beyond low-Earth orbit, no particular destination was cited.

The ISS would remain funded until 2020.

Here are they key differences between Obama’s budget plan and the Senate’s Reauthorization Act:

Space Shuttle
Obama: end in February, 2011
Senate: end in late summer, 2011

Commercial Space:
Obama: $3.3 billion for 2011-2013
Senate: $1.6 billion during the same time period

Constellation Program
Obama: Cancel, but continue with a “lite” version of the Orion space capsule
Senate: Cancel but accelerate development of a heavy-lift rocket that can also carry astronauts to low-earth orbit and continue development of an Orion-like space capsule

Technology Development
Obama: Fund Flagship Technologies program at $6 billion over five years
Senate: Fund advanced technologies at about $950 million over three years

For education the new bill would support new education initiatives, such as teacher training programs, to reinforce NASA’s role in developing a workforce with strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics skills.

The bill would require NASA to look at alternative management models for NASA’s workforce, centers, and capabilities, while enforcing short-term prohibitions on major center displacements and reductions-in-force until a job study is completed.

Weigh in on your opinions below. What’s next? The White House will probably respond with another compromise, and those who work at NASA will remain in limbo while another compromise is worked on.

Further reading:
Nelson Press Release of NASA 2010 Reauthorization Act
Orlando Sentinel: Better Course on Space
Houston Chronicle: (Sci Guy) White House May be Inclined to Support Senate Bill
Letter from former astronauts supporting Commercial Crew Transport
Letter from former astronauts against Obama plan (MSNBC)

Tagged as: NASA, NASA Budget

← Older Comments
  • redstone

    @TerryG
    Thanks. I forgot to mention, that my point about hoping that NASA takes a look at the Direct proposal again, is not so much that it can lift Orion into LEO. I agree that is over kill. That job probably needs to fall to Falcon 9 or Delta 4 rockets. But Directs Jupiter 130 and 246 can give Nasa it’s heavy lift rocket much fater than other designs. It also meets the commitees direction that the new heavy lift rocket uses existing shuttle technology. Hey I wish Nasa had the foresight not to throw away the Saturn 5 and Saturn 1B rockets of the 60′s and 70′s :)

  • RUF

    Don’t know if anyone saw it….

    Director Bolden was in an interview where he listed the “top three Priorities” for NASA according to the President (Obama):

    1- get kids to be interested in science and math;

    2- foster international relationships;

    and the top priority “above all else” was –

    help make muslim nations “feel good about” contributions they made IN THE PAST.

    Sorry folks, NASA seems to be no longer in the space or exploration biz!

  • Aqua

    @redstone: Actually the Heavy Lift Falcon 9 derivative is on par with any other commercially available heavy lift rocket. Check out the specs @: http://www.spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.php

    The problem with solid rockets is that they use some rather NASTY materials, i.e. Ammonium Perchlorate mixed with Aluminum held together in a base of PBAN or HTPB (rubber-like fuels). When injected into the upper atmosphere the hydrogen chloride created can easily dissociate into water and create corrosive hydrochloric acid biasing the pH of local water and rainfall (See acid rain). Solid fuels also create an abundance of toxic waste in its manufacture, MOST of which has been hidden from public view by the likes of Morton Thikol and other solid fuel manufacturers…

    Google “Pollution generated in the manufacture of solid rocket fuel”, and you will see what I mean..

  • Torbjorn Larsson OM

    @ Restoration:

    If anyone sees this as not being beneficial they clearly do not understand the logistics of the space program.

    Well, maybe you can clarify it then. I note that you haven’t resolved the problem I noted, the non-beneficial effects on technology and jobs, as well as on safety.

    @ redstone:

    Better to just kill Orion all together if that is the only mission.
    As far as the Columbia’s report on designing new vehicles and separating cargo and crew, that is only a recommendation. In my view it is a flawed and expensive one.

    Yes, kill Orion was the original remit of the Obama plan, to first develop a lifter, then the NEO and so forth crafts as needed.

    No, separation isn’t expensive considering that you have LEO crafts. It will cheapen things eventually, as all market driven approaches, because you can use cheaper smaller heavy lifters at the same efficiency level. It is only in the Apollo perspective of one off missions that single lifters makes for cheaper missions (fewer lift offs).

    And it is beneficial if you want cheapest lifters (not man rated) and highest security (low mass high redundancy man rated crafts).

    @ RUF:

    What, no references!? Then it didn’t happen… :-D

  • Aqua

    Umm… I just listened to the Senate press conference on NASA reauthorization.. (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1007/15senate/).. and saw that Sen. Orin Hatch as a MAJOR player in that bill. His INSISTENCE that solid rockets are the ONLY way to go really irks me. Soooo, it turns out that this bill is NOT a good thing after all. There are simply too many fingers in the soup, and too much PORK!

    There they are ranting about ‘bipartisanship’, all the while padding their pockets with lobbyists PORK! Dzzzz…

  • SpaceIsOurDestination

    Aqua. I listened to this same Senate press conference. Sadly I need to agree with you. Sen. Hatch said he talked to “his man” in Utah who told him that solid rockets was the only way. I’m sure that was an unbiased opinion.

    But, having said that, I believe this is an OK plan. I was a kid when Nixon was president and ended the Apollo program without capturing the knowledge to rebuild Saturn V. So I am OK with not terminating solid rockets immediately. But, this is just one more reason to provide more seed capital to commercial space. If NASA doesn’t concentrate on liquid fuels commercial space can and may do a better job given that more designs will likely be tried and tested since there are multiple commercial enterprises that will be in this game.

    Just as important as the amount of seed capital is the speed the seed capital is delivered. I hope we can get funds into the hands of commercial space soon and work toward getting increased funding over time. In fact, I am very hopeful that the demonstrated successes in the recent past and near future will make the return on these investments obvious to all.

  • Spoodle58

    @ TerryG

    There will only be red faces if there is still any blood still going to them, humanity has been waiting too long on the sidelines of space, its about damn time we got out there.

  • TerryG

    @Redstone
    I’ll have a go at the resistance to SRBs question.
    Liquid fueled rockets can be held on the pad after ignition and tested before release and launch. If they don’t pass the test (some engines aren’t reporting correct thrust or the pump pressures are bad etc.) you can shut them down, fix the issue and attempt another launch later. IIRC, this happened with Falcon-9.

    But SRBs can’t be shutdown or even throttled. Once you lite them your committed.

    So for rockets that you intend to strap humans into, the crew have a greater safety margin in designs without SRBs. For example a Falcon or similar would be safer for human flight than an Ares I with it’s SRB first stage.

    Your comment “What doomed the Challenger crew was the lack of any launch escape system” is true in that it might have helped, but the first part to fail was O-ring seal on an SRB. There’s no automatic shutdown if you can detect an SRB malfunction in time. I always remember Richard Feynman’s famous recreation of the component failure with a C-clamp, a sample of O-ring rubber and a glass of ice water (and for his Jersey Groucho Marx accent). :-)

    Can I have a question regarding an earlier post? What details or links do you have regarding NASA requirements for a Heavy Lifter? It was my understanding they aren’t intending to commit to a design until 2015.

  • TerryG

    @Aqua

    Yes, right on que, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) home of ATK (previously Morton-Thiokol) makers of SRBs no less, not wanting to miss a place at the trough.

    Perhaps the Senate sees the new Heavy Lifter painted in a shade of pink, make “oinking” sounds and decorated with lipstick. :-( Term limits anyone?

  • TerryG

    @Spoodle58
    Agreed, lets “get out there”.

    That means bringing the manned non-LEO missions forward in tandem with a Heavy Lifter. Without these missions, the Heavy Lifters might as well rust on the launch pad.
    This Bill pushes for a Heavy Lifter only and so doesn’t “get us out there”. It’s only about making a big rocket from old tech parts sourced form the states whose politicians are sponsoring the Bill. I wish I could share your excitement.

  • Spoodle58

    @ TerryG

    You are totally correct and I agree with you, as for my excitement, I’m too much a manned non-LEO missions optimist (that may change in the next 20 years :) )

  • redstone

    @TerryG
    What passed with bipartisan support from the Senate Committee was to not wait for a 2015 final design on Heavy Lift (which Obama wanted) but to proceed immediately in 2011 with a heavy lift launcher using shuttle, and constellation technology.

    “A heavy-lift rocket and human-rated deep space capsule, collectively called the Space Launch System, is also part of the Senate bill. The authorization act would move up the rocket’s development to fiscal year 2011, which begins in October.

    The government-owned booster and manned spacecraft should lift between 70 and 100 tons to space, according to the current version of the bill.

    The legislation requires NASA to use existing contracts, workers and capabilities from the space shuttle, Orion and Ares 1 programs. ”

    This make perfect sense since in reality there will be no new break throughs in the next 5 years in rocket populsion, and waiting 5 years for a design will only set us back even more. I addition it keeps the workforce intact at not only the space center, but around the country. It also provides a good plan B if the commercial sector has any setbacks in either rocket or capsule development.

    http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1007/15senate/

    On another point on Challenger. Yes the fact that once lighted you cannot shut down solids is their major drawback. But solids are also much more simple than liquid fuel and if you look at all the launches at the cape, whether it be the Shuttle, Titan 4, Delta’s, or even other countries that use them , there is a very high success rate.
    What doomed Challanger in the end was poor management at the cape and the pressure to get the shuttle flying. Engineers knew that the O-rings had problems in extreme cold and told NASA not to launch that morning. Some Martin engineers refused to sign off on the launch that morning and actually did not expect Challenger to make it off the pad. They thought they dodged a bullet when it did.

  • TerryG

    @Redstone
    Thanks very much for that. Nancy Atkinson’s prediction “The White House will probably respond with another compromise” in her essay above looks like the next stage of escalation, so it now comes down to the Administrations reaction.

    At the risk of wandering off topic, we’ve seen them doggedly pursue much bigger issues such as Healthcare and Financial reform and win. Now it’s Immigration Reform. I’ve never noticed them backing away from a fight, and it’s likely they will notice the huge gap between the Augustine Commission’s Plan they are following and this Bill. There remains a strong possibly the only thing that will be flying in the meantime is fur.

  • redstone

    @TerryG
    I hope not. The Augustine Commission really did not provide any single recommendation. They even did not shoot down Constellation other than saying without additional funding (about 3 billion dollars) it could not meet its goals.
    Whats is radically different now is that the Senate Committee truly is bipartisan whether it be Dem or republican on this With the other bills there was no republican support and time was spent getting enough so called moderate and conservative dems on broad.
    My only fear with Obama is that he has pretty much run with the crowd that sees no value in manned space flight or other space programs and that Obama really does not have a plan other than to get Nasa out of manned space flight. I hope I am wrong.

  • RUF

    Reference:

    “Bolden talks to Al Jazeera.” It can be viewed on YouTube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e857ZcuIfnI&feature=player_embedded

    All this talk about heavy lifters, et.al. is pointless unless NASA gets back into the space exploration business — instead of being a Stuart Smiley in space.

  • http://www.crossfirefusion.com/nuclear-fusion-reactor/overview.html Johnson

    Innovation and breakthrough technologies, I hope space program includes cutting edge technologies to advance in space exploration.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ScAHXN_kAY

← Older Comments

Previous post:

Next post: