NASA's FY2011
Something has been bothering me for a couple weeks now. As everyone (should) know Obama has recently announced an end to NASA’s human space flight. Now, I’m sure there are people in the back yelling, “The shuttle was already going to be canceled under Bush’s plan”. Nice try, but if your doctor tells you that you need a heart bypass, and you get a second opinion, do you think the doctor will tell you that even though you don’t need the bypass, they should still take out your leg vein because that’s what they other doctor was already planning to do. The shuttle was to be canceled because of the work done on the new vehicle. Without the new vehicle, you’re removing functioning parts for no reason.
So, congress sees this as potentially harmful and has rightfully objected. Though, being congress, they aren't very good at finding the right thing to do. Predictably, this has started a debate. How exactly do you compromise these two plans, Obama’s and the Program of Record? It’s no surprise that everyone’s own pet plans are all being called the ideal compromise. But I disagree with them all.
First, we need to examine exactly what the plans are, starting with Bush’s, or more accurately, Michael Griffin’s plan. Who the fuck is Michael Griffin, you ask? He’s the guy who threw out the normal process of competing designs and single handedly came up with Orion and Ares. He changed the goal of NASA from returning to the moon and going to Mars, into making an Ares I. NASA could definitely make an Ares I, but even it’s proponents admit it wouldn't be able to fulfill its original objectives.
Obama’s plan is tricky because it’s not very settled, but I think that’s actually a feature of its design. As it’s currently understood, the plan is to get rid of the STS and Ares I and all the work and materials associated with them. As a trade off, they will reduce the mission requirements for the Orion to be a cargo transport, with the possibility of being used as an escape capsule. It hasn't been decided how the Orion (or the astronauts that will go up separately) will get to the ISS. This is all secondary to the big idea of increasing research. But with no necessity, one wonders what inventions this research will be mothered by. Lastly, in five years, we’ll decide if we need a heavy launch vehicle and if so, what its design will be.
Those are the plans, more or less. “Build Ares I”, or “Don’t build anything”. What’s the compromise? Congress thinks it’s “Keep building the Ares I, but don’t fly it”. I think that’s not too far off from a true compromise.
Obama’s plan only starts returning humans to space after sufficiently advanced technology is invented. And as we all know, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. After NASA invents magic, they will design and build a rocket and go to Mars in about 25 years. But even with magic, we will absolutely not go back to the moon.
Research is not a fungible commodity. You can’t go to NASA and say, “give me $5billion worth of research”. It takes an infinite amount of money to guarantee a result for research in a fixed amount of time. So, if you say, I want NASA to invent magic for you in the next five years, you will have to pay them an infinite amount of money to guarantee that invention. Could you get it for less? Of course you could. But you might not get it at all. And all that assumes that the magic is actually possible.
What if NASA doesn’t invent magic? Then we rely on the private sector, who’s economic model the Obama plan cleverly mimics. Orion will be placed in direct competition with Dragon and the others for cargo transport. And if the private industry decides to man-rate their craft? Then NASA will man-rate the Orion and compete with them there too.
I should explain that. NASA has rules for qualifying a vehicle for human use called man-rating. These requirements are very tough. So tough in fact that NASA has never succeeded at man-rating anything. The Shuttle and the ISS were both grandfathered into the law.
Another bit of trivia. The VAB, one of the largest buildings in the world, has no use except to assemble heavy launch vehicles. Launch complex 39A and 39B also have no use except to launch heavy launch vehicles. In the five years after the shuttle is retired and before the new heavy launch vehicle is designed, maintenance costs will be almost $2 billion. Then it will be at least 3 more years and another billion or two in maintenance before they are used again.
But just think, if Obama’s plan does succeed at inventing magic, how brilliant he’ll look 25 years from now and how stupid we’ll all feel for doubting him. That is, if the Chinese don’t start dropping BFRs on our head from their lunar catapults before then.
So, congress sees this as potentially harmful and has rightfully objected. Though, being congress, they aren't very good at finding the right thing to do. Predictably, this has started a debate. How exactly do you compromise these two plans, Obama’s and the Program of Record? It’s no surprise that everyone’s own pet plans are all being called the ideal compromise. But I disagree with them all.
First, we need to examine exactly what the plans are, starting with Bush’s, or more accurately, Michael Griffin’s plan. Who the fuck is Michael Griffin, you ask? He’s the guy who threw out the normal process of competing designs and single handedly came up with Orion and Ares. He changed the goal of NASA from returning to the moon and going to Mars, into making an Ares I. NASA could definitely make an Ares I, but even it’s proponents admit it wouldn't be able to fulfill its original objectives.
Obama’s plan is tricky because it’s not very settled, but I think that’s actually a feature of its design. As it’s currently understood, the plan is to get rid of the STS and Ares I and all the work and materials associated with them. As a trade off, they will reduce the mission requirements for the Orion to be a cargo transport, with the possibility of being used as an escape capsule. It hasn't been decided how the Orion (or the astronauts that will go up separately) will get to the ISS. This is all secondary to the big idea of increasing research. But with no necessity, one wonders what inventions this research will be mothered by. Lastly, in five years, we’ll decide if we need a heavy launch vehicle and if so, what its design will be.
Those are the plans, more or less. “Build Ares I”, or “Don’t build anything”. What’s the compromise? Congress thinks it’s “Keep building the Ares I, but don’t fly it”. I think that’s not too far off from a true compromise.
Obama’s plan only starts returning humans to space after sufficiently advanced technology is invented. And as we all know, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. After NASA invents magic, they will design and build a rocket and go to Mars in about 25 years. But even with magic, we will absolutely not go back to the moon.
Research is not a fungible commodity. You can’t go to NASA and say, “give me $5billion worth of research”. It takes an infinite amount of money to guarantee a result for research in a fixed amount of time. So, if you say, I want NASA to invent magic for you in the next five years, you will have to pay them an infinite amount of money to guarantee that invention. Could you get it for less? Of course you could. But you might not get it at all. And all that assumes that the magic is actually possible.
What if NASA doesn’t invent magic? Then we rely on the private sector, who’s economic model the Obama plan cleverly mimics. Orion will be placed in direct competition with Dragon and the others for cargo transport. And if the private industry decides to man-rate their craft? Then NASA will man-rate the Orion and compete with them there too.
I should explain that. NASA has rules for qualifying a vehicle for human use called man-rating. These requirements are very tough. So tough in fact that NASA has never succeeded at man-rating anything. The Shuttle and the ISS were both grandfathered into the law.
Another bit of trivia. The VAB, one of the largest buildings in the world, has no use except to assemble heavy launch vehicles. Launch complex 39A and 39B also have no use except to launch heavy launch vehicles. In the five years after the shuttle is retired and before the new heavy launch vehicle is designed, maintenance costs will be almost $2 billion. Then it will be at least 3 more years and another billion or two in maintenance before they are used again.
But just think, if Obama’s plan does succeed at inventing magic, how brilliant he’ll look 25 years from now and how stupid we’ll all feel for doubting him. That is, if the Chinese don’t start dropping BFRs on our head from their lunar catapults before then.