Flexible Path to the Moon and the 2011 NASA Budget: Adjusting the Space Technology Budget

... while at the Same Time Supporting the Earth Science, Heliophysics, Astrophysics, and Planetary Science Budgets

It's interesting to consider NASA's new Space Technology budget in the context of the Flexible Path to the Moon. The Space Technology budget is meant to be "crosscutting". It's not meant to serve the needs of NASA Exploration, or NASA Science, or the space industry, or other government agencies. Instead, it's meant to serve the needs of all of these U.S. space interests. NASA technology development that isn't specific to one area and its missions falls in the general Space Technology budget.

Satellite and observatory assembly and servicing includes a broad array of crosscutting technologies. These capabilities are applicable to exploration, as they provide one type of justification for astronauts reaching achievable exploration destinations like Lagrange points, GEO, and lunar orbit, all likely locations for this type of servicing and assembly. They are also applicable to all major NASA science areas. Earth observation satellites, Heliophysics observatories, Astrophysics observatories, and remote sensing Planetary Science (e.g.: lunar orbit) probes, for example, could all potentially benefit from astronaut assembly and servicing. Robotic servicing, possibly combined with astronaut servicing, is another variant of this capability. The ISS can benefit from new servicing and assembly capabilities, and can also serve as a platform for demonstrating or even operating new servicing and assembly capabilities. Satellite servicing also has the potential to benefit other U.S. space agencies, commercial space vendors with space assets to service or with the ability to offer satellite servicing, and international partners. This sort of servicing and assembly work is "crosscutting" in many ways, and thus should be featured prominently in NASA's new Space Technology budget. If the Flexible Path to the Moon is taken, satellite and observatory assembly and servicing will take an even more prominent role, since this is one of the main drivers and benefits of reaching early Flexible Path to the Moon destinations like lunar orbit, GEO, and Earth-Moon Lagrange points.

The 2011 budget features special budget lines set aside for "Small Satellite Subsystem Technologies" and "Edison Small Satellite Demonstration Missions". Satellite and observatory assembly and servicing are similar to small satellite technologies in that they are crosscutting, multifaceted, and potentially highly practical technologies that also deserve a significant slice of the Space Technology budget pie, especially if the Flexible Path to the Moon is taken. It might make sense to create special budget lines within Space Technology for satellite servicing and assembly technologies and demonstration missions.

Some satellite servicing capabilities are well understood, and just need to be transferred to new missions on the serviced and servicing sides. It might make sense to use some of the satellite servicing "demonstration" funds to augment mainstream satellite or observatory missions by adding fairly well-understood features that make the satellites easy to service as technology demonstrations. This could benefit relatively near-term NASA Earth science, Astrophysics, Heliophysics, or Planetary Science missions, missions of other U.S. government agencies, or commercial missions like communications satellites. Demonstrations on the servicing side could take place in the near term only if the satellites are in (or can be moved to) orbits that are reachable before operational beyond-LEO missions are ready. More advanced serviceability and servicing capabilities would be handled like any other pre-demonstration Space Technology work.

Another possible way for the Space Technology budget to support the Flexible Path to the Moon is to fund space exploration technology work through the Centennial Challenges prize program. Prizes could be offered for work at destinations on the Flexible Path to the Moon. We already have the private Google Lunar X PRIZE competition as a model for this sort of opportunity. Centennial Challenge prizes that take advantage of, or that dovetail with, the work being done for that private competition might make sense. This could include variations on lunar surface work, lunar orbit work, and many other possibilities that function within the private competition's limitations on government funding for the prize-winning missions. Using services of future winners of the private competition to deploy various Space Technology products should also be considered. (There are also many similar opportunities within the new HSF Robotic Precursor budget line, especially for "Scout" missions). The Space Technology budget has a good opportunity to support crosscutting needs of NASA Exploration along the Flexible Path to the Moon and commercial and other private space organizations.

There are many other ways that the Space Technology budget can support exploration along the Flexible Path to the Moon and support other U.S. space organizations at the same time. One of the benefits of the Flexible Path to the Moon is that its exploration concentrates on destinations that have many "crosscutting" overlapping needs and benefits with other space organizations focused on science, commerce, and operational needs of the government. The Flexible Path to the Moon specifically concentrates a great deal on destinations like GEO that are mainstays of traditional space work, unlike the Flexible Path to Mars, which doesn't mention GEO and which could be interpreted to skip past other near-term destinations as quickly as possible. This attribute of the Flexible Path to the Moon allows for many crosscutting technologies in the Space Technology budget to be applied to exploration along that path while at the same time benefiting other non-exploration space organizations that use the same destinations.

Flexible Path to the Moon and the 2011 NASA Budget: Adjusting the Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology Budget

We have already seen several examples of how the 2011 NASA budget can be adjusted to support the Flexible Path to the Moon by emphasizing near-term space destinations like lunar orbit and Earth-Moon Lagrange points (the same early destinations that start the Augustine Flexible Path to Mars) as well as longer-term destinations on the lunar surface. We simply focus most of our efforts on the reachable destinations along this path rather than difficult destinations like the Martian surface. The 2011 NASA budget for Heavy Lift and Propulsion is no exception.

Early Flexible Path to the Moon destinations don't need heavy lift, and if we can lower launch costs through something closer to mass production of launchers, and at the same time we can demonstrate technologies like autonomous rendezvous and docking, propellant depots, in-space assembly, ISRU, reusable space-only vehicles, and/or reusable lunar landers, we won't need heavy lift for the lunar surface, either. We shouldn't expect success with all of these technologies, but success with a few should be good enough. Leveraging commercial and international participation should also help us develop affordable and sustainable lunar surface access and development without having to develop an unaffordable heavy lift vehicle like Ares V or its close relatives.

It may make sense to advance some sort of heavy lift capability to add to our bag of tricks, but only if it can be done in a way that is both useful and affordable. We don't need heavy lift, but we can surely benefit from useful and affordable heavy lift. Fortunately, the 2011 NASA budget already takes a useful and affordable approach. It develops an RD-180 class engine made in the U.S. that can be used on a future heavy lift vehicle. Such an engine doesn't require a heavy lift vehicle for its justification; it can be used in other rockets (the Atlas V uses the Russian RD-180). Thus, the budget's heavy lift development approach is inherently useful beyond the HLV. The budget's approach also appears to be affordable, leveraging the existing EELV infrastructure and expertise that will exist and need to be paid for whether or not NASA explores or develops an HLV.

The Flexible Path to the Moon would benefit from propulsion capabilities like the following:

• reusable propulsion for astronaut vehicles to go back and forth between LEO and beyond-LEO cislunar space destinations
• highly efficient (and possibly reusable) propulsion to get cargo from LEO to beyond-LEO cislunar space destinations
• propulsion for (possibly reusable) vehicles to get cargo and/or astronauts to and from the lunar surface

If the Flexible Path to the Moon is taken, propulsion research and demonstrations should concentrate on these crucial areas as a higher priority over propulsion to shorten long deep space missions or propulsion for heavy lift.

Flexible Path to the Moon and the 2011 NASA Budget: Adjusting the Technology Demonstration Budget

The new exploration technology demonstration budget includes a number of in-space demonstrations of new technologies to allow those technologies to be comfortably introduced into later operational missions. Like the robotic precursor missions, these are categorized into a set of larger "flagship" missions and smaller missions. Example technologies identified in the budget include in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, lightweight or inflatable space modules, automated rendezvous and docking, landing technologies, closed-loop life support, ISRU, in-space propulsion, EVAs and servicing, and others. These missions can be done in partnership with commercial or other government agencies.

There are a number of reasons that the next few years are a particularly good time to perform technology demonstrations. The obvious driver is that the Ares-based form of Constellation has failed and is being shut down and the Shuttle has been on a path for retirement for several years, requiring a focus on establishing a foothold in LEO again. Technology demonstrations allow us to make considerably more progress towards exploration than Ares-based Constellation would have made in the same years while much of our attention is necessarily focused on the immediate LEO access problem. Now is also a good time for technology demonstrations because a number of factors give us more opportunities for success with these demonstrations:

• a focused driver and motivator for selecting and prioritizing technology demonstration choices - The Flexible Path to the Moon can provide this focus and motivation.
• a backlog of technologies ready for demonstration
• the near-term availability of the completed, funded, and fully staffed ISS as an in-space technology demonstration platform
• the growing capabilities of the low-cost and responsive small satellite industrial base
• the potential near-term availability of commercial reusable suborbital rockets as technology demonstration platforms
• the near-term availability of robotic HSF precursor missions in the 2011 NASA budget that can serve as technology demonstration platforms
• the potential for near-term incremental improvements in launch vehicle cost, availability, and responsiveness presented by new entries in the space access market, the NASA COTS program, and shared space access industrial base costs enabled in part by NASA's switch to rockets that can be used by multiple users like the EELVs
• the potential near-term availability of commercial space lab platforms like the DragonLab that can serve as technology demonstration platforms
• the availability of commercial space businesses that will likely be interested in partnering with NASA on certain technology demonstrations (e.g.: Bigelow Aerospace and others for inflatable modules, ULA and others for orbital propellant depots) and that will therefore likely be willing to contribute funding and focus to these efforts if they can benefit from the demonstrated technologies
• the potential availability of early Flexible Path to the Moon destinations as technology demonstration locations - if we can squeeze a basic capability to reach these destinations into the 2011 budget

The approach that should be taken with the technology demonstration missions to enable the Flexible Path to the Moon is to focus most of those missions on technologies that are relevant to cislunar space and the lunar surface. This is just a shift in focus; there should still be room to explore technologies relevant to more futuristic missions. Here are a few examples:

Entry, Descent, and Landing Technologies; Autonomous Precision Landing - Focus should be put on demonstrating landing technologies relevant to the Flexible Path to the Moon (precision landing and hazard avoidance on the Moon, landing on Earth following Flexible Path to the Moon missions) rather than on, for example, landing on Mars.

Advanced In-Space Propulsion - Focus should be put on demonstrating in-space propulsion technologies relevant to the Flexible Path to the Moon (lunar lander propulsion, efficient and possibly reusable propulsion for cislunar space transportation) rather than on, for example, propulsion for quickly reaching distant deep space destinations like NEOs and Mars.

Human-Robotic Interactive Systems Demonstrations - Focus should be put on demonstrations relevant to the Flexible Path to the Moon, like cooperative human and robotic satellite servicing or observatory assembly in cislunar space, or telerobotics for robots on the lunar surface.

Extravehicular Activity Demonstrations - Focus should be put on EVA demonstrations relevant to the Flexible Path to the Moon, such as spacesuits usable on the lunar surface, and suits that enable servicing, assembly, and similar work in cislunar space.

You begin to get the idea. If the Flexible Path to the Moon is taken, each type of technology demonstration should be focused mainly on enabling or improving the cislunar and lunar surface destinations along the Flexible Path to the Moon.

The successes and failures of these technology demonstrations will help drive the operational missions on the Flexible Path to the Moon. At the same time, they will still break ground for more distant destinations, since there is room for some deep space technology demonstration work, and since many of the demonstrated technologies have applicability both on and beyond the Flexible Path to the Moon.

Flexible Path to the Moon and the 2011 NASA Budget: Adjusting the Robotic Precursor Mission Budget

NASA's 2011 budget proposal includes a strong line of HSF robotic precursor missions to follow the model of LRO and LCROSS. These precursor missions are intended to blaze a trail for astronauts at various potential HSF destinations like the lunar surface, NEOs, Mars moons, Lagrange points, and Mars. Unlike robotic science missions, these HSF precursor missions will concentrate on identifying hazards and resources of concern to astronauts. Collaboration with NASA Science and non-NASA missions, such has hosting instruments, can also take place.

The budget includes $3B over 5 years for these missions. Two classes of missions are planned: the traditional missions which are expected to cost less than $800M each (typically substantially less), and Scout missions that are expected to cost from $100M to $200M each. It doesn't take much math to realize that in order to do the many jobs required to chart a course for the Flexible Path to the Moon, such as resource assessment, various types of ISRU demonstrations, astronaut site selection, hazard assessment, astronaut site preparation, and others, we will need to concentrate most of these missions on the destinations in the Flexible Path to the Moon. The Moon itself needs to be the primary subject of this series of missions if we're to succeed on the Flexible Path to the Moon. It's worthwhile to spend some effort on later destinations like NEOs, Mars Moons, and Mars, but a "concentration of forces" is needed at the Moon. The same may eventually well be the case at more distant destinations as we begin to accomplish the goals of the Flexible Path to the Moon and turn our gaze to more distant destinations. Indeed, if NASA actually implements the Augustine Flexible Path to Mars as many expect, it should concentrate its precursor missions on the more achievable destinations along that path.

The 2011 NASA robotic precursor budget actually gives the Moon a lot of attention, considering that the Flexible Path to Mars seems to be in favor. The budget starts 2 precursor missions in 2011. One will probably be a lunar surface mission to assess resources and demonstrate telerobotics at the Moon. A second mission could be centered on lunar or asteroid ISRU or NEO/Mars moon landing, so there is a chance that the second mission could go to the Moon, too. Mission starts would continue in later years. The new line of robotic precursor "Scouts" seem to be perfect for small commercial missions like those planned by Google Lunar X PRIZE teams. The Moon would naturally be an appropriate destination for such teams.

Nevertheless, if the Flexible Path to the Moon is taken, an even greater concentration of lunar precursor missions would be needed than is suggested in the 2011 NASA budget. This is just a matter of shifting the distribution of mission destinations within the precursor budget. Even with this shift, the limited funding for precursor robotics and the significant exploration and development ambitions of the Flexible Path to the Moon demand that this line leverages as much as is possible those opportunities offered by commercial space, international partners, and other parts of NASA like Science missions and new technology demonstrations. It is really here in the robotic HSF precursor missions where the Flexible Path to the Moon succeeds or falls short.

Flexible Path to the Moon and the 2011 NASA Budget: Adjusting the Planetary Science Budget

The proposed Planetary Science budget from 2011 to 2015 includes a number of lunar science missions. The Lunar Quest Program funds LADEE (Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer) and the ILN (International Lunar Network). It also funds Lunar Research and Analysis. The LRO (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) now orbiting the Moon is scheduled to be handed over to the Lunar Quest Program later this year. The ILN is currently under review by the Decadal Survey process because of cost reasons. According to Future Planetary Exploration blog, the Decadal Survey is also considering a Lunar Polar Volatiles Lander.

The Discovery Program is managing GRAIL (Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory), and one of the 3 finalists for the next New Frontiers mission is MoonRise, a lunar sample return mission.

The Lunar Quest Program has a relatively small budget - not much over $100M per year. That makes sense because this program is focused on small, affordable missions and research. Considering GRAIL, and assuming Moonrise wins New Frontiers and ILN or some mission to replace it is funded, an appropriately strong lunar science program to set the stage for the Flexible Path to the Moon would exist. However, there is no guarantee that this will happen.

Noting that the Mars Exploration science budget is about $500M per year, if the Flexible Path to the Moon is to be implemented, it seems appropriate to considerably increase the Lunar Quest Program budget to allow more small lunar science missions, or to start a separate line of larger lunar science missions. This would ensure a steady series of lunar science missions appropriate for the Flexible Path to the Moon. In the near term, this might come at the expense of other planetary science missions, but the capabilities developed along the Flexible Path to the Moon should in the long run build a strong foundation for more cost-effective and ambitious science missions across the solar system. The short-term effect on other planetary science missions might not be great anyway; GRAIL is already funded and it's possible that MoonRise will be funded too. This change simply ensures that a steady series of lunar science missions is funded to help pave the Flexible Path to the Moon, and to set the stage for more detailed lunar science and development when astronauts eventually reach the lunar surface.

Flexible Path to the Moon and the 2011 NASA Budget: Introduction to Adjusting the Budget

This post begins to consider how to implement the Flexible Path to the Moon largely, but not entirely, within the constraints of the 2011 NASA budget. First, let's consider the first of the 3 steps in the Flexible Path to the Moon. From the original post, the first step is:

Establish a Foothold - The first phase includes developing commercial and international partnerships for the full Flexible Path to the Moon, beginning a long-term program to maintain and fully use the ISS through at least 2020, developing U.S. commercial crew and cargo services to support the ISS, establishing a vigorous technology development program, and starting an ambitious robotic lunar precursor effort for science, resource scouting, engineering tests, and more with NASA, commercial, and international participation. This phase could also include robotic precursors to destinations that are beyond the scope of the Flexible Path to the Moon, like Near Earth Objects and Mars Moons. Given the fairly large number of robotic missions envisioned here in support of the Flexible Path to the Moon, it is likely that there would be fewer outer planets robot missions.

As it turns out, the 2011 NASA budget proposal includes the ISS, commercial crew and cargo, technology development, and robotic precursor elements. In other words, it's a good start for step 1 of the Flexible Path to the Moon. My guess is that the Flexible Path to Mars rather than the Flexible Path to the Moon will be selected, so the focus of the commercial and international partnerships, technology development, and robotic precursors may include more emphasis than the Flexible Path to the Moon would warrant on destinations that come after that path such as NEOs and Mars, but in its general form the 2011 budget matches this first step.

Future posts will look more closely at some of the prominent items in the 2011 NASA budget proposal to see how they could be shaped to better lay the foundation for the Flexible Path to the Moon. These posts will cover Planetary Science, the other NASA Science directorates considered collectively (Earth Science, Heliophysics, and Astrophysics), Space Technology, Technology Demonstration, Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology, and Robotic Precursor Missions. Finally, I'll present some thoughts on actually starting beyond-LEO missions.

Flexible Path to the Moon and the 2011 NASA Budget: Background

I recently coined the phrase Flexible Path to the Moon for an approach to exploration and development of space by astronauts and robots intended to reach the Moon using gradual, incremental steps that are useful and sustainable. This phrase is based on the Augustine Committee's "Flexible Path to Mars". In fact the Flexible Path to the Moon uses the early destinations of the Augustine Flexible Path to Mars: Earth-Moon Lagrange points and lunar orbit. It also uses various Earth orbits used by satellites will be accessible if these other destinations are accessible. However, the Flexible Path to the Moon takes more time to build infrastructure, establish commerce, gather science data, and develop various operational capabilities at these initial beyond-LEO destinations. As implied by the Augustine Committee, such steps can and ultimately should be a solid foundation for additional exploration at more distant deep space destinations like Earth-Sun Lagrange points, asteroids, and eventually Mars. However, the intent of the Flexible Path to the Moon is to first use that foundation to explore and develop the lunar surface for science, commerce, and security, while at the same time making more distant exploration more achievable through the use of lunar resources.

There are three steps in the Flexible Path to the Moon, with potential overlap between steps. Each step might take a considerable number of years, depending on the available budget. The steps are to establish a foothold in low-Earth orbit that leads to the next steps, to go to beyond low-Earth orbit to lunar orbit, Earth-Moon Lagrange points, and beyond-LEO satellite orbits for immediate practical benefits and to enable later exploration, and finally to reach, explore, and develop the lunar surface.

With the recently-announced 2011 NASA budget proposal, It may be useful to consider how the Flexible Path to the Moon might fit in that proposal. The 2011 NASA budget contains many changes. Very briefly, it cancels the Constellation program intended to support the space station and eventually reach the Moon's surface. It replaces Constellation with human spaceflight precursor robotic missions, a general space technology program, an exploration technology demonstration program, a heavy lift and propulsion effort, a more fully used International Space Station that will be maintained longer and expanded, additional funding for the existing COTS commercial cargo program to account for the more intensely used space station, a program to encourage commercial crew services to the space station, and a considerably expanded Earth observation program.

Although there is some confusion about what the physical destinations will be for the astronaut exploration component of NASA, all indications are that something like the Flexible Path to Mars is planned. Like the Flexible Path to the Moon, this path might include visits to nearby destinations in space as well as the lunar surface. However, it probably would not develop as much infrastructure and capability at these destinations as would the Flexible Path to the Moon. Instead, it would reach more distant deep space destinations before the lunar surface, and would move as quickly as possible to Mars. There is little information yet about what we would do at various destinations. Would the missions be focused on science? Resources? Exploration? No specific exploration hardware or missions have been spelled out. Some details may come soon, and others may have to wait years for results from robotic precursor and technology demonstration missions.

I would argue that the Flexible Path to the Moon is more achievable and affordable than the Flexible Path to Mars, and is also more rewarding. Even though it seems likely that the Flexible Path to the Moon will not be taken, it could be taken, given the decision to do so. The 2011 NASA budget could, with some minor changes in emphasis, begin to implement the Flexible Path to the Moon. That opportunity will be the subject of later posts.

Consellation vs. NASA's Bold New Space Initiative: Health and Medicine

I haven't been able to determine any returns on taxpayer investment related to health and medicine with the Constellation approach.

The new NASA budget gives the following health and medicine benefits:

Full Utilization of the ISS - One of the suggested plans for the ISS is to deploy a centrifuge for human physiology research. In general, we can expect full use of the ISS to involve more pharmaceutical research and other research related to health and medicine.

Critical Technology Demonstrations - Closed loop life support systems is one of the technologies cited for demonstration in this portfolio. That is likely to involve some aspects of biotechnology and human factors.

Robotic Precursors - One of the jobs of the robotic precursors will be to assess hazards to human health at exploration destinations.

Commercial Crew and Cargo - Jump-starting a commercial crew industry and a stronger commercial cargo industry makes it more likely that a commercial space station or uncrewed space lab industry will develop. Related technology demonstrations also help make this more likely. These platforms are likely to be useful for health and medicine work.

Space Technology - It is possible that some of the work on low-cost space access in this portfolio will encourage the new reusable suborbital rocket industry. The services this industry seeks to offer could be used for various purposes related to health and medicine, such as aerospace medicine tests and qualifying pharmaceutical experiments destined for deployment in orbit.

With its destruction of the ISS in 2015 or 2016, Constellation has little to offer in the way of health and medicine payoffs to the taxpayer. The 2011 budget wins in this category since its competition, Constellation, doesn't even show up in this case.

Constellation vs. NASA's Bold New Space Initiative: Commerce

Both Constellation and the new NASA budget generate economic activity, at the expense of taxes that tend to inhibit economic activity. No matter what approach NASA uses, when it spends a certain amount of dollars, it's going to set off a certain "baseline" amount of economic activity as it pays for contractors, who in turn pay for employee salaries, pencils, hardware, computers, and so on. To some extend these events in turn result in more economic activity. What I'm interested in is identifying "value added" or "growth-oriented" economic activity beyond this baseline. First I'll take a look at Constellation.

Constellation is centered on building NASA rockets and spacecraft. This hardware isn't available for use beyond NASA's programs. Thus, the "value added" economic activity generated by Constellation is hidden in the matrix of suppliers for small parts and services. Since NASA's 2011 budget will have similar "value added" cases where suppliers are enabled to generate additional business, I'll consider this type of business as equivalent for Constellation and the 2011 budget.

Lunar Business - The major economic benefit promised by Constellation is the beginning of lunar space business. The theory is that once Constellation starts serious astronaut activity on the lunar surface, NASA will have a need for commercial partnerships to deliver supplies, mine resources, and contribute robotic helpers. These services would in turn be applied to other customers.

There are several problems with this promise. One major problem is the great risk that Constellation will never reach this stage. Another problem is that, since Constellation is not expected to be able to reach the lunar surface until year 2035 or so, economic activity is deferred so long that it's hardly worth considering today. Yet another problem with the theory is that there is no way to ensure that NASA will suddenly decide to use commercial services at that point, rather than using the Ares rockets and other NASA work more. Finally, there is nothing preventing NASA from shifting away from the Moon to some other destination once it's done a few astronaut sorties on the Moon. Thus, Constellation's promise of lunar business is quite weak.

The 2011 budget includes the following "value-added" economic activity.

Space Technology - Participation in this portfolio includes commercial partnerships, such as SBIR and STTR arrangements. The technologies chosen are meant to make commercial (and other) space activities more affordable and capable. Example technologies include sensors, smallsats, robots, materials science, communications, propulsion, and affordable space access. It's easy to see, for example, how improvements in these technologies would be useful in the commercial communications satellite industry. This portfolio includes prizes, which often include small business competitors that develop their businesses while competing.

Heavy lift and Propulsion research and development - The projects within this category can include commercial partnerships, and thus may enable "value-added" business if the commercial partners are interested in the technology as a business driver rather than as a source of profit.

Critical Technology Demonstrations - The projects within this portfolio can involve commercial partnerships, and thus may enable "value-added" business if the commercial partners are interested in the technology as a business driver rather than as a source of profit. In-orbit propellant transfer has the potential to be a driver not just for commercial businesses to supply fuel depots, but also for commercial businesses to supply fuel from Earth and perhaps even derived from space resources. ISRU is also one of the technologies cited here, and that could result in commercial businesses for fuel (as just mentioned) or other goods. Other technology demonstrations may have similar commercial potential.

Commercial Crew and Cargo - Naturally commercial crew and cargo services encourage commercial activity for the ISS. The overall level of economic activity is increased if a COTS-like approach is used, since the development funds include not just NASA money, but also commercial investments to implement the services. In other words, NASA "matches" commercial investments that otherwise would not happen.

There are many facets of this commercial crew and cargo transportation beyond just the ISS. The rockets may be used for all sorts of non-NASA business. The same is true of the spacecraft. For example, new rockets or existing rockets with more shared costs can address commercial and government satellite launches, commercial crew launches to non-NASA destinations, and "DragonLab" sorts of science missions. The crew and cargo capabilities could enable a whole new commercial space station industry with numerous additional business possibilities.

Earth and Climate Science - The additional traditional Earth observation satellites funded by the 2011 budget should at a minimum encourage new technology and satellite industry support that can be applied to NOAA, military, commercial, and intelligence Earth observation satellite missions. There is the potential for "hosted payload" or "data purchase" type of business in this category, too, although that is purely speculative. The small new Venture class missions may help enable commercial smallsats, reusable suborbital rockets, and other small aviation and space businesses with potential beyond the NASA market. Some of the additional funding may be applied to the computer market for data analysis, and that market has plenty of commercial potential.

Planetary Science - The additional funding here can be enabling for similar commercial businesses, such as spacecraft launch, satellites, and robotics.

Robotic Precursor Missions - This new line of missions can be enabling for similar commercial businesses, such as spacecraft launch, satellites, and robotics.

Full Utilization of the ISS - The ISS can be used to encourage new commercial rocket and spacecraft businesses to supply the station. The station can also be used for technology demonstrations with commercial potential, such as inflatable structures and refueling. Some of the research performed on the ISS may be for commercial interests, such as pharmaceutical companies.

21st Century Launch Complex - The overhaul of KSC may open up many new "value-added" business opportunities like cost-effective launch services.

Aeronautics and Green Aviation - The new programs for fuel efficient aviation, national airspace safety, and UAVs in the national airspace all have the potential to enable commercial business.

Much has been made of the new commercial crew opportunities in the 2011 budget. This alone might be enough for the 2011 budget to surpass Constellation in "value-added" economic potential. When all of the other opportunities to promote business growth are considered, the 2011 budget clearly has much more potential than Constellation in the economic category.

Constellation vs. NASA's Bold New Space Initiative: Education

Constellation is a single program that offers relatively few ways for students and academic organizations to participate. It is hoped that having a program to return astronauts to the lunar surface will inspire students to be interested in STEM fields as happened during the Sputnik and Apollo eras. However, it's difficult to see how this can happen when the Vision for Space Exploration's approach has been discarded by Constellation, and an "Apollo on Steriods" approach is used instead. An 8 year old third grader in 2005, when ESAS essentially replaced the Vision for Space Exploration, would have to be inspired by a program that may return astronauts to the lunar surface in 2035 or so, when they're 38 years old ... and since there's little commercial participation, international participation, or technology innovation of the sort envisioned in the VSE, at best ESAS will be able to do little more than Apollo did long ago. It's unlikely many students will be inspired by that prospect.

In contrast, the approach used in the 2011 budget encourages STEM and educational participation in a number of ways:

NASA Education - This includes educational activities like the new "Summer of Innovation". The overall budget also includes participatory exploration activities across various programs. Participatory exploration will encourage interest in STEM.

Space Technology - Participation in this portfolio includes academic partnerships. There should be many opportunities for universities and their students to get involved in the diverse efforts to develop improvements for sensors, smallsats, robots, materials science, propulsion, affordable space access, and other space technologies. Prizes, one of the methods used in this category, often include university teams and educational outreach.

Heavy lift and Propulsion research and development - The projects within this category can include academic partnerships, and thus participation by academic researchers and their students.

Critical Technology Demonstrations - The "enabling technology development program" within this portfolio can involve academic partnerships, and thus participation by academic researchers and their students.

Commercial Crew and Cargo - The commercial transportation services may result in lower-cost launch that makes space more accessible to education interests like universities.

Earth and Climate Science - The funding increase for Earth science missions should give opportunities for educational participation and outreach. For example, students should have access to mission science data, and the missions should include an outreach component. It would not be unusual for university researchers and students to supply missions with components like science instruments. The small new Venture class missions should be even more accessible to university researchers and their students.

Planetary Science - As with the Earth science budget, the Planetary science funding increase should give opportunities for educational outreach, student access to science data, and university participation in the missions themselves.

Robotic Precursor Missions - It's probably safe to speculate that the robotic precursor missions will include educational outreach activities, student data access, and university involvement in mission formulation like other NASA robotic missions.

Full Utilization of the ISS - One of the goals for the increased use of the ISS is to make ISS facilities "available to educators and new researchers".

The new NASA budget provides many opportunities to make an "Open NASA" that gives students and universities on-ramps to participate in and learn from NASA work. The best way to inspire students in space isn't to show them they may see astronauts on TV again when they're much older if all goes well, it's to allow them to contribute to real space activities.

Consellation vs. NASA's Bold New Space Initiative: Science

Constellation gives the following science benefits:

Ares V heavy lift - Science returns from payloads such as space probes launched by Ares V could be quite impressive. However, it's not clear that such expensive heavy lift rockets or their payloads are affordable by NASA science disciplines or other science organizations. Also, heavy lift would not be available until about the year 2028.

Science Hitchhikers - One proposal included hitchhiker packages in Orion launches. These packages could add bonus science value to Orion missions.

Lunar Surface Science - One of the goals of the lunar surface visits planned by Constellation is to do science there. This could include lunar science, astrophysics, heliophysics, and even Earth observations. However, these lunar visits would not be expected to occur until the mid 2030's, if then. That is so far in the future that it becomes difficult to expect that the program would survive after so many years. However, if it occurs, and NASA is able to deliver a large payload per mission and to afford a steady pace of missions, the science results at the lunar surface can be expected to be significant.

The 2011 budget includes many new missions that can return science results and many new technologies that can enable science.

Space Technology - Many, if not most, of the advances sought in this category would benefit science, especially science conducted by space missions (such as NASA planetary science, Earth science, heliophysics, and astrophysics, NOAA Earth science operations, etc). Examples identified in NASA's budget documents include sensors, robotics, materials, propulsion, low-cost access to space, small satellites, and rapid prototyping.

Heavy lift and Propulsion research and development - If heavy lift is to be useful to science, it needs to be affordable. This research and development effort seeks to make heavy lift affordable. Even if it's not successful in that goal, some of the results may lead to improvements in smaller launch vehicles that would benefit science payloads. The same is true for general propulsion research in this category.

Critical Technology Demonstrations - The exploration technology demonstrations in this line would, if successful, lead to improved human space exploration that can contribute science results. Some of the technologies are also useful for purely robotic science missions. Examples include in-orbit propellant storage and transfter, automated rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support, power generation and storage, telerobotics, ISRU, advanced in-space propulsion, and inflatable structures. It is possible that some of the technology demonstrations themselves will return science data, just as past technology demonstrator missions like DS-1 and EO-1 did.

Commercial Crew and Cargo - This effort is expected to result in more options to support the ISS, enabling science experiments and technology demonstrations that can lead to later science improvements there. It may also help enable commercial space stations and other services (eg: the SpaceX DragonLab) that can be used for science. It can also be expected to lead to lower-cost rockets to replace the role of the Delta II, as well as shared launch costs for science missions that use EELVs.

Earth and Climate Science - The budget includes a large increase in NASA Earth science mission funding, which should result in several more science satellite missions identified by the National Academies being flown this decade. In addition, it expands funding for smaller Venture-class science missions (also identified by the National Academies).

Planetary Science - The budget include a significant increase in NASA Planetary science mission funding. It increases funding for Near Earth Object searches, starts Plutonium-238 production for deep space missions, and continues the pipeline of planetary science missions.

Robotic Precursor Missions - These robotic missions are designed specifically to scout destinations for human spaceflight for resources and hazards rather than for science. However, it's a safe bet that scientifically useful data will be returned by these missions in the process, and that technologies useful to science will be introduced or supported by these missions.

Full Utilization of the ISS - The full use of the ISS for research and development considerably improves the expected science results from this facility, as do the intended support for the ISS through 2020 or beyond and a new program to continuously upgrade ISS capabilities.

Space Shuttle - The additional funding for the Space Shuttle ensures that it completes its missions to the ISS, and thus helps enable the science work that can be done there.

21st Century Launch Complex - This includes improvements in the Kennedy Space Center range and payload processing capacity that could be useful to science missions launched there.

In terms of science returns, the taxpayer wins in dramatic fashion with the 2011 budget. Constellation's large potential science return from lunar surface work is greatly offset by the expectation that it would happen so far in the future, if at all. There is a substantial risk that, with Constellation's high cost, long schedule, and all-or-nothing approach, it would never achieve its objectives.

The 2011 budget's broad push on multiple science missions and science-enabling technology fronts ensures that, even though there will be individual failures, a considerable amount of new science data and an increase in science mission capabilities per dollar spent will be achieved. Whether that science data and increase in capabilities succeeds in establishing the foundations for later beyond-LEO astronaut successes in science and other fields remains to be seen.

Consellation vs. NASA's Bold New Space Initiative: Energy and Environment

Constellation gives the following energy/environmental benefit:

Ares V heavy lift - Heavy lift could be used to launch major environment monitoring satellites. However, it's not clear that such expensive heavy lift rockets or their payloads are affordable by environment or energy agencies, or that alternate strategies like dry launch and in-orbit fueling, docking, and in-space assembly wouldn't work better even if such payloads can be afforded in the first place. Also, Ares V heavy lift would not be available until about the year 2028.

The new NASA budget gives the following energy and environment benefits:

Critical Technology Demonstrations - This portfolio includes technologies useful for environmental stewardship on Earth like closed-loop life support systems (i.e. recycling). It also includes technologies that ultimately should allow us to better maintain and service environment monitoring satellites, such as in-situ resource utilization and in-orbit propellant transfer and storage. This effort also includes power generation and storage technologies that could have use on Earth.

Space Technology - This effort in general space technology includes many technologies that can benefit Earth observation satellites that can monitor the environment, help transportation systems on Earth run more efficiently, and assess energy resources on Earth. Examples presented in the budget documents include communications, sensor, materials, small satellites, and low-cost access to space.

Full Utilization of the ISS - Remarks by NASA management in the budget rollout indicate that one of the uses of the ISS would be to fly Earth Science payloads. Use of commercial crew for ISS transportation and demonstrations of inflatable structures on the ISS could help bring about commercial space stations that could be used for the same purpose.

21st Century Launch Complex - The upgrades to the Kennedy Space Center include enhanced environmental cleanup.

Earth and Climate Science - NASA's Earth Sciences portfolio gets a large increase, which is directly applicable to monitoring the environment. This includes accelerating the development of several new environment monitoring satellites. It also includes expanding and speeding up the new Venture-class Earth science missions, which are small Earth science investigations appropriate for suborbital rockets, small satellites, and other low-cost platforms.

Aeronautics and Green Aviation - The increases for Aeronautics include environmentally responsible aviation work.

It's pretty clear that the new budget is a win from the energy/environment perspective.

Consellation vs. NASA's Bold New Space Initiative: Security

I will define national security fairly broadly, and include the military, intelligence agencies, homeland security, disaster warning, and disaster response.

Constellation gives the following national security benefits:

Ares V heavy lift - Impressive security payloads could be launched by Ares V. However, it's not clear that such expensive heavy lift rockets or their payloads are affordable by security agencies. Also, heavy lift would not be available until about the year 2028.

Partial common hardware with EELVs - This commonality encourages lower cost to security agencies for some EELV components. However, this benefit pales in comparison with the alternative, which is actually using EELVs. Also, significant benefits don't begin until Ares I operations in 2017-2019, and they are still quite minor due to low Ares I flight rates. Only when Ares V becomes operational would this benefit be felt.

Solid rocket support - This advantage seems to be quite indirect and diluted compared to the more straightforward security benefits that come with the new budget.

The new NASA budget gives the following national security benefits:

Space Technology - Many of the investments in this portfolio, such as sensors, robotics, propulsion, materials, small satellites, low-cost access to space, rapid prototyping, and communications, can be expected to benefit the military, intelligence agencies, disaster warning and response, and homeland security. Some of this work will also share launch infrastructure costs with security agencies.

Heavy lift and Propulsion research and development - Research and development into cost-effective heavy lift may provide benefits to the various security interests. If heavy lift is ever to benefit such organizations, it is going to have to become affordable, so investments in affordable heavy lift now seem more useful than starting to build an unaffordable heavy lifter after Ares I is operational. In addition, even if affordable heavy lift doesn't pan out, such R&D results might be applied to other classes of rockets. General propulsion research and in-space engine technology development should also benefit security organizations.

Critical Technology Demonstrations - Some of these demonstrations will be very useful for security agencies. For example, in-orbit propellant transfer would be useful for providing a market for EELVs and new low-cost rockets, lowering their per-unit price. Such technology could also be used to maintain security satellites. The applicability of various demonstrations to security will depend on the individual technology, but many can be expected to be helpful. Some of this work will also share launch infrastructure costs with security agencies.

Commercial Crew and Cargo - The additional cargo funding could bring Falcon 9 and Taurus II rockets online faster, making these rockets available to security agencies. The commercial crew effort would bring more flights to EELV or new low-cost rockets, presenting security agencies savings by sharing infrastructure costs or by availability of new low-cost rockets (or both). This effect could be greater if additional markets for crew transportation are established. In addition, our dependence on the Russian Soyuz for crew rescue since the beginning of the ISS and for crew transportation has been cited as a security liability. The Augustine Committee estimates that Ares I would be ready by 2017-2019, whereas commercial crew would be ready by 2016 at the latest.

Earth and Climate Science - The new missions in this portfolio will allow more cost-sharing with national security rockets. In addition, the satellites and their sensors will allow shared industry support with national security satellites, especially those that observe the Earth (spy satellites, missile warning satellites, natural disaster warning satellites such as NOAA's weather satellites, etc). The new funding for Venture-class Earth science missions may encourage the reusable suborbital rocket and smallsat industries, which will present new opportunities for Operationally Responsive Space and other security functions.

Robotic Precursor Missions - These missions will also share industry support with security agencies for launch vehicles, satellites, and robots.

Aeronautics and Green Aviation - New funding for unmanned vehicles in the national airspace may help broaden this technology used for security.

Full Utilization of the ISS - Closer ties with ISS partners helps certain international relationships which may be advantageous from a security standpoint.

Planetary Science - The new budget restarts plutonium-238 production in support of deep space exploration. Our current dependence on Russia for plutonium-238 has been cited as a weakness, and this budget would begin the long process to remove that weakness. In addition, the Near Earth Object survey is strengthened, delivering a certain sort of security to the Earth.

The security benefits of the new NASA budget seem more numerous, direct, timely, widely applicable, likely to actually happen, and of larger magnitude than their Constellation counterparts.

Consellation vs. NASA's Bold New Space Initiative: Overview

Now that the 2011 NASA budget proposal has been released, we know that many dramatic changes may be in store for the space agency. These changes include, among other things

• a modest budget increase (in a difficult budgetary environment)


• a large new exploration technology development and demonstration program for ISRU, in-orbit refueling, inflatable modules, and more


• a new research and development program for exploration propulsion and heavy lift


• a general space technology program that includes existing programs, but with a considerably larger budget


• a robotic human spaceflight precursor program with a budget that is considerably larger than the historical budget for such missions


• a larger budget for space station use, with the intent to continue the ISS until 2020 or beyond


• a major new program for U.S. commercial crew transport to the ISS, and new incentives for the existing commercial cargo effort


• additional funding for the Space Shuttle to ensure it completes the ISS


• major upgrades to the Kennedy Space Center


• a big increase in the NASA Earth sciences budget


• an increase in the planetary science budget, with continuing work on missions to potential HSF destinations (GRAIL, MSL, LADEE, MAVEN, Mars 2016) and other destinations, more NEO search funding, and plutonium-238 production start


• an increase for Aeronautics

The budget also cancels the whole ESAS-derived Constellation plan to build a NASA system to transport astronauts to the space station and later to the Moon. It does not replace Constellation with another beyond-LEO astronaut program; the nature, schedule, and destinations for any such program are still being evaluated. This cancellation has prompted a considerable amount of debate and commentary in the media and various space interests.

Even though there was a budget increase, the planned increase over several years is smaller than that envisioned by the Augustine Committee, so we may see something that more closely resembles the Augustine "ISS Focused" option than any of the others, but with stronger technology development and commercial transportation efforts than we might have expected.

In light of all of the controversy over the 2011 budget proposal, including calls that "NASA is cancelled," and "U.S. human spaceflight is cancelled," I'd like to compare the budget with the Constellation program of record using a number of measures based on what I'll call "national benefits". The comparisons will be qualitative, but I think it's useful to look at the budget proposal from these different perspectives to get a better overall picture of what the changes are. Although the views are individually narrow, I hope that in combination we get a good overall view of the changes, what they can deliver for the taxpayer, and how they compare to NASA under Constellation.

I don't intend to compare the new budget to other proposals, including the Flexible Path to the Moon that I prefer over the new budget since it attempts to do achievable exploration and development in the near term using existing rockets while retaining most of the strong research and technology development, ISS use, and commercial participation seen in the 2011 budget. Instead of comparing the 2011 budget to this or that idea for NASA, my focus is simply to compare the new budget to the status quo Constellation-based program of record to see if the changes are an improvement. I will refrain from giving the new budget plan credit for exploration results that may occur in later years, since we don't know what the detailed exploration plan is.

The national benefits I've selected as measures for this evaluation are security, environment and energy, economy, science, health and medicine, and education. These are areas where there are national-level problems and opportunities, where taxpayers have historically been willing to invest tax money in, and where space can have a role to play.

I could compare the current budget and Constellation using many other criteria, such as ability to make reasonable progress given a changing budget (i.e. sustainability), international partnerships, commercial participation, robotic (non-science) HSF precursors, ISS and general space station use, technology development, and affordable space access, but I think it's pretty obvious that the new budget is better than the Constellation version of NASA in all of those areas.

I could also attempt to compare the current budget and Constellation in terms of destinations and specific exploration plans, but the current budget's exploration plans are not available yet and are likely to depend on results of robotic precursors and technology developments. In addition, Constellation's small chance of being able to do "Apollo on Steroids" in the mid 2030's strikes me as falling far short of what is needed for a space exploration and development program worth the cost. As far as beyond-LEO astronaut exploration is concerned, I simply have to consider both plans as "incomplete."

The following will show links to the various comparisons as they are completed.

Consellation vs. NASA's Bold New Space Initiative: Security

Constellation vs. NASA's Bold New Space Initiative: Energy and Environment

Constellation vs. NASA's Bold New Space Initiative: Health and Medicine

Constellation vs. NASA's Bold New Space Initiative: Science

Constellation vs. NASA's Bold New Space Initiative: Commerce

Constellation vs. NASA's Bold New Space Initiative: Education

Flexible Path to the Moon

The Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee Final Report presents two main viable exploration plans based on destination. The first is called "Moon First". This plan focuses on missions to the lunar surface. In contrast, the "Flexible Path to Mars" features a variety of more and more ambitious destinations, such as lunar orbit, Lagrange points, Near Earth Objects, Mars orbit, and Mars Moons (with the possibility of lunar surface visits some time after NEOs are reached). These missions are intended to eventually lead to the Martian surface, possibly after both are achieved.

A number of different approaches are described to reach the Moon First and Flexible Path to Mars destinations. However, all of these approaches require a trend to a roughly $3B/year increase in the NASA Human Spaceflight budget. Such a large increase may be difficult to reach, and even more difficult to maintain over many years. Given this difficulty, I would suggest a third series of destinations, the "Flexible Path to the Moon".

The Flexible Path to the Moon is just a new name, not a new idea. The concept can be found in different forms in some of the documents linked here.

Let's suppose we cannot find the budget needed to implement either one of the Augustine Committee approaches on anything like a timely schedule without unacceptable sacrifices in other NASA areas. Instead of ignoring this problem and plowing ahead anyway on one of the two Augustine paths with an expensive heavy lift development effort that cannot be afforded while developing payloads for the vehicle, using the ISS to its fullest, doing needed technology development, and other important jobs, the Flexible Path to the Moon removes or at least postpones the heavy lift development and its expenses. It also delays or sacrifices the more ambitious Flexible Path destinations, such as NEOs and Mars orbit. These destinations can be addressed at a later time when the Flexible Path to the Moon has developed sufficiently that they are in reach. In compensation, the Flexible Path to the Moon focuses on easier and more near-term destinations like LEO, GEO, lunar orbit, and Earth-Moon Lagrange points, and lingers longer at these destinations to make the most of them. These destinations are used for a variety of purposes. Among other things, infrastructure at these destinations is developed to ultimately allow a cost-effective lunar surface astronaut program.

The Flexible Path to the Moon consists of three phases:

1. Establish a Foothold - The first phase includes developing commercial and international partnerships for the full Flexible Path to the Moon, beginning a long-term program to maintain and fully use the ISS through at least 2020, developing U.S. commercial crew and cargo services to support the ISS, establishing a vigorous technology development program, and starting an ambitious robotic lunar precursor effort for science, resource scouting, engineering tests, and more with NASA, commercial, and international participation. This phase could also include robotic precursors to destinations that are beyond the scope of the Flexible Path to the Moon, like Near Earth Objects and Mars Moons. Given the fairly large number of robotic missions envisioned here in support of the Flexible Path to the Moon, it is likely that there would be fewer outer planets robot missions.


2. Go Beyond LEO - The second phase builds on the first, which would largely continue in an operational mode while the second phase begins development. This phase includes astronaut missions to GEO, Earth-Moon Lagrange points, and lunar orbit using the same class of rockets used in the first phase. Astrophysics, Earth Observation, and Heliophysics observatories could be assembled by astronauts and perhaps robotic helpers in appropriate locations as described in this NASA Spaceflight article, but, given cost constraints, the observatories would most likely be considerably smaller than the ones described there. Satellite servicing capabilities, such as satellite refueling, instrument upgrades, and component replacement could be demonstrated at various locations. Lunar orbit could be used for lunar observations and telerobotics, perhaps to demonstrate telerobotics capabilities for mission beyond the scope of the Flexible Path to the Moon. Space transportation from LEO to and from the more distant destinations would be designed to be affordable and most likely reusable. Reusable space infrastructure would be developed to support these efforts, such as satellite assembly and servicing nodes, lunar orbit space stations, and fuel depots. Spacecraft refueling would become operational. Space infrastructure in LEO, such as commercial LEO space stations to team with the ISS efforts, would be encouraged. It should be noted that the destinations described here are similar to those in the early "Flexible Path to Mars". However, in the Flexible Path to the Moon, we are spending much more time at these destinations. Phase 2 could involve many missions over many years. If the budget does not allow all of this to be done at once, it is possible that there would be multiple sub-phases within Phase 2.


3. Return to the Moon - This phase builds on, and maintains, the infrastructure and capabilities developed in the earlier phases. Using commercial access to space, refueling, reusable spacecraft, and space infrastructure nodes in lunar orbit and/or at Earth-Moon Lagrange points, astronauts would already be close to reaching the lunar surface. Lunar robotics would have prepared the way for productive work at the surface. As the budget allows, this phase adds a lunar lander that could be reusable. It also incrementally adds lunar surface capabilities as needed. These capabilities might include surface mobility, a base, or ISRU facilities, depending on the results of the many earlier lunar robotics efforts.

This Flexible Path to the Moon allows us to achieve great synergy between human missions beyond LEO and NASA science, including ISS Science, Earth Observation, Heliophysics, Astrophysics, and Planetary Science. It provides many opportunities for commercial and international participation. Given that most of our existing science, security, and commercial satellite infrastructure is in the locations described here, this approach provides many ways to achieve the original Vision for Space Exploration goals of science, security, and economic benefits.

I would suggest that the Flexible Path to the Moon is more affordable that either the Moon First or Flexible Path to Mars scenarios envisioned by the Augustine Committee. If one is skeptical that the sort of reusable infrastructure not launched by HLVs described here is cheaper than the HLV-based Moon-First approach, then simply discard or postpone phase 3 above. At least you will still be able to accomplish some useful work with the first 2 phases described above, and still get closer to the Moon and Mars, than if an HLV-based Moon-First or Flexible Path to Mars approach is used without the budget to make them possible.