A brief review of recent NASA history might be instructive in understanding what the Obama Administration wants to do with the space program. The rationale behind the human spaceflight plan is pretty simple, actually. Much of it is getting lost in the thicket of details.
For the last five years, there has been a strong undercurrent of dislike for the Constellation architecture. In particular, Ares I was seen as too expensive, too complicated, and too long in development. The general belief among critics is that NASA’s plan to adapt existing shuttle hardware led it into a cul-de-sac. The process was so complicated that it had all the costs of building a new rocket from scratch but the drawbacks of doing so with legacy hardware.
There was always a feeling that for orbital missions, NASA could have human-rated Delta IV or Atlas V. That would have been easier and cheaper. It would have freed the space agency up to work on a real heavy-lift vehicle to go beyond low Earth orbit.
The Bush Administration looked into these options, but did not deviate from the program of record. Nor would it fund that program properly. Once the Bush Administration ended, that debate was reopened. And it is clear that critics of Ares gained the upper hand under the current administration.
In the meantime, NASA has funded COTS. That program looks like it could create two viable rockets, the Falcon 9 and Taurus II, with cargo freighters to serve the International Space Station. Those systems potentially could be upgraded for crew transport.
So, NASA now has at least four potential options on rockets. Three of these boosters are produced by companies that have long histories in rocketry. The fourth is being done by a start-up.
The Obama Administration is wagering that at least one of these bets will hit. Perhaps several of them. Thus, Charles Bolden’s often repeated statement that the U.S. is aiming for redundant domestically available access to space. Something it didn’t have with the space shuttle.
One of the major objections to the plan is that it does not set a specific date by which NASA will send humans beyond LEO. This seems to be a practical nod toward budget realities. It’s also an acknowledgment that with Constellation, the moon program wasn’t very realistic.
But, this is where Obama’s plan gets really interesting: it shifts space policy from destinations (ISS, moon, Mars) to a state of being. And that state is a low Earth orbit that is commercially viable for space stations, tourism, industrial development and eventual settlement.
In essence, it’s a government agency putting itself out of the business of orbital transportation, an area it has been in for nearly 50 years. That’s a pretty big change. And one that probably surprises many conservatives used to calling the Obama Administration as socialist.
How could this work? Consider one scenario:
In 2014, Bigelow Aerospace launches the first of seven modules into orbit for its private space station. The following year, the first crew launches to the station aboard one of the commercial systems that NASA has helped to create. Bigelow’s station is successful, the company plans more stations, and the commercial crew companies have plenty of work as they haul cargo and crews to private stations and ISS.
With orbital transport secure, NASA accelerates work on heavy-lift vehicles, orbital refueling stations, and other technologies required to go to the moon, Mars or asteroids. It could use COTS-style procurement techniques to work with the private sector. One of those projects could be adapting Bigelow’s flight proven orbital hardware for use on other worlds.
Sometime in the early 2020’s, a NASA funded heavy-lift vehicle roars off the pad at Cape Canaveral carrying a Bigelow built lunar base. The first crew follows a short time later in a smaller rocket that refuels on orbit. They land on the moon and activate humanity’s first permanent base on the lunar surface.
This is one possible scenario of the future. If the commercial sector grows over the next decade, there could be many others.