100 Best Open Science Courses on the Web

NSS member Neal Rudin offers us his selection of the 100 Best Open Science Courses on the Web.

It’s never too late or too early to start expanding your knowledge of science. With the wealth of free courses available on the web, that goal is easier than ever to achieve and can often be done without even leaving the house. The courses listed here will help you get started, offering resources on a wide variety of scientific fields from those that delve into the laws of the universe to those that explain the chemical reactions taking place in your own kitchen.

Physics
Use these courses to learn about both the basics and some of the more advanced topics in physics.

1. Fundamentals of Physics: In this course Professor Ramamurti Shankar will teach you about the basic principles of physics. [Yale]
2. Physics for Humanists: If you’ve always had more of a fondness for the social sciences rather than the natural sciences, this physics course is for you, examining physics issues from a more philosophical viewpoint. [Tufts]
3. Classical Mechanics: Check out this course to learn about physics fundamentals from Newtonian Mechanics to Kinetic Gas Theory. [MIT]
4. Electricity and Magnetism: Those who have a fascination with these subjects will get a chance to learn about everything from lightning to pacemakers in this course. [MIT]
5. Vibrations and Waves: This course will teach you the basics of vibrations and waves with additional lessons in topics like musical instruments to keep things interesting. [MIT]
6. Relativity: Get a better idea of what Einstein was really talking about in this course on special relativity. [MIT]
7. Quantum Physics: Quantum mechanics may sounds daunting, but this course will attempt to explain everything in a way you can understand. [MIT]
8. Particle Physics: Take physics studies to the high energy level in this course that looks at the activities of some of the smallest known particles. [MIT]
9. String Theory for Undergraduates: This entry level course will attempt to break string theory down, though some background in relativity or quantum mechanics is helpful for understanding it all. [MIT]
10. Atomic and Optical Physics: Try out this course to learn some of the principles of light and optics central to modern research projects. [MIT]
11. Introduction to Plasma Physics: Many people don’t know that matter has a fourth state: plasma. In this course you can learn what that is and what it means in physics terms. [MIT]
12. Introduction to Applied Nuclear Physics: While many people around the world rely on nuclear facilities to get power into their homes, few actually know much about how radiation functions. This course will help solve that and offers a range of knowledge on nuclear topics. [MIT]

Chemistry
Give these chemistry courses a try to get a handle on many aspects of the subject.

13. Freshman Organic Chemistry: Use the lessons in this course to teach yourself about the theories and principles of organic chemistry. [Yale]
14. Principles of Inorganic Chemistry: Once you’ve learned about organic chemistry, why not give the inorganic stuff a try with this course? [MIT]
15. Advanced Organic Chemistry: Those who have taken a more basic course in organic chemistry may want to try out the more advanced lessons found here. [MIT]
16. Physical Chemistry: In this course, students will learn about everything from quantum mechanics to chemical bonding. [MIT]
17. Kinetics of Chemical Reactions: Take this course to get some insights into the finer points of the energy produced when substances react with one another. [MIT]
18. Kitchen Chemistry: Chemistry doesn’t just happen in this classroom, as this course on kitchen chemistry proves. [MIT]
19. Principles of Chemical Science: This course is a great introduction to the basic principles of chemistry in both organic, inorganic and biological molecules. [MIT]
20. Organometallic Chemistry: Those who are looking for a challenge can take this course on organometallic transitions. [MIT]
21. Chemistry Laboratory Techniques: If you want to learn how to stay safe and create your own experiments in the chemistry lab, give the helpful video lessons in this course a try. [MIT]
22. Organic Structure Determination: This course will explain how modern chemists unravel the structure of organic molecules. [MIT]
23. Thermodynamics & Kinetics: Check out this course to learn more about equilibrium in systems as well as the impact of chemical reactions. [MIT]

Biology
Study cells, systems, plants and more through these free courses.

24. Introductory Biology: Those who want a good overview of the basics of biology will be well served with the material presented in this course. [MIT]
25. Microbiology: Take your study of biology down to the microbial level with this course on infection-causing bacteria and germs. [Tufts]
26. Molecular and Cell Biology: In this course you can learn more about how organic molecules function and get all the info you need on cellular structure and organization. [Berkeley]
27. Developmental Biology: This course will give you the tools you need to learn about how organisms develop, covering both vertebrate and invertebrate systems. [MIT]
28. Photosynthesis: Life from Light: Take a closer look at the process that keeps plants going and keeps them supplying us with oxygen in this course. [MIT]
29. The Fountain of Life: From Dolly to Customized Embryonic Stem Cells: This course will introduce some of the more basic and advanced concepts of genetic engineering and cloning to you. [MIT]
30. Introduction to Bioengineering: Learn both the fundamentals and the research applications of bioengineering through this course. [MIT]
31. Systems Biology: In this course, students can get a more mathematical and analytical way of looking at some of the big questions in modern biology. [MIT]
32. Biological Chemistry: You can mix both chemistry and biology in this course that explains the chemical processes inherent in many forms of life. [MIT]
33. Cellular Neurobiology: Take this course to learn more about the structure and function of the nervous system. [MIT]
34. Topics in Experimental Biology: Learn how to design and evaluate your own biological experiments in this course. [MIT]
35. Sophisticated Survival Skills of Simple Microorganisms: Microorganisms may be small, but they can also be tough, as this course explains by examining their defense mechanisms for stressors in a variety of natural settings. [MIT]

Astronomy
Take a closer look at some of the things going on in the space outside of our planet through these courses.

36. Frontiers and Controversies in Astrophysics: Professor Charles Bailyn explains some intriguing areas of astrophysics including extra-solar planets, black holes and dark matter in this course. [Yale]
37. Elementary Astronomy: Start with the basics in this introductory astronomy course. [Eastern Utah]
38. Exploring Black Holes: General Relativity & Astrophysics: Ever wonder what a black hole looks like? This course will teach you this and more as you explore many of the mysteries and myths surrounding these phenomena. [MIT]
39. Introduction to Astronomy: In this course you’ll get a chance to learn about the physics of the solar system and the universe beyond. [MIT]
40. Modern Astrophysics: Gain a better understanding of why objects in space do what they do with this course on all aspects of astrophysics. [MIT]
41. The Early Universe: This course will begin with how the universe began–with the big bang theory–and continue explaining theories of cosmology up to the present day. [MIT]
42. Cosmology: From radiation to red shifts, this course will explain many phenomena of the known universe. [MIT]
43. Astrophysics: This course is a more advanced take on astrophysics, tackling topics like dark matter and star structures. [MIT]
44. Particle Physics of the Early Universe: If you’ve already taken the other course on the Early Universe, expand your knowledge further with this course on some of the ways that modern particle physics explains things. [MIT]
45. The Solar System: Stay close to home with this course that examines the planets and happenings of our own solar system. [MIT]
46. Extrasolar Planets: Physics and Detection Techniques: This course offers you the chance to learn about new methods of seeking out and identifying planets well beyond the reach of our own solar system. [MIT]

Computer Science
These courses will help you embrace your inner techie.

47. Introduction to Computer Science and Programming: Even if you’ve never been a big programming geek, you can learn some handy fundamentals in this course. [MIT]
48. Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs: In this course you’ll learn some of the basics of how computers and programming work. [MIT]
49. Artificial Intelligence: Try out this course to learn how artificial intelligence is developed and some of the theories behind how it works. [MIT]
50. Mathematics for Computer Science: Like many other branches of science, computer science is largely based on mathematics, and this course will show you the ropes. [MIT]
51. Great Ideas in Theoretical Computer Science: Take a look at some of the more theoretical, though not always practical, ideas in computer science in this course. [MIT]
52. Micro/Nano Processing Technology: Technology is always getting smaller and smaller, and this course explains how it’s even being taken to the nano level. [MIT]
53. Dynamic Systems & Control: Learn how computer systems are built, managed and controlled in this course. [MIT]
54. Theory of Computation: This course will touch on issues in computability theory, language theory and more. [MIT]
55. Computer Graphics: Give this course a try to learn how computer graphics are developed, programmed and implemented. [MIT]
56. Game Theory and Mechanism Design: Here you can see how game theory can be applied to systems like wireless communications networks. [MIT]
57. Ultrafast Optics: Learn how optics are working at literally the speed of light in this course. [MIT]
58. Advanced Topics in Cryptography: Learn what it takes to keep a computer network secure through this course. [MIT]

Geology
In these courses you can learn about the processes that shape Earth’s surface.

59. Introduction to Geology: Get an introduction to studying the physical features of the earth in this course. [Eastern Utah]
60. Atmosphere, Ocean and Climate Dynamics: Learn about the physics that determine how the oceans and atmosphere circulate in this course. [MIT]
61. Applications of Continuum Mechanics to Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences: This course will give you some practical, real-life situations in which the continuum theory can be applied. [MIT]
62. The Environment of the Earth’s Surface: In this class, you’ll learn about the basic processes that govern changes in Earth’s surface. [MIT]
63. An Introduction to Fluid Motions, Sediment Transport, and Current-generated Sedimentary Structures: Take this course to learn more about fluid dynamics and how those principles can be applied to erosion, sedimentation and more. [MIT]
64. Basics of Impact Cratering & Geological, Geophysical, Geochemical, Environmental Studies of Some Impact Craters of the Earth: It might not seem like it, but Earth has been bombarded by objects from space and has the impact craters to prove it. This course will take a closer look at those craters. [MIT]
65. Structure of Earth Materials: Diamonds may be beautiful, but have you ever considered where they come from? This course will examine crystal structure and theory more closely. [MIT]
66. Sedimentary Geology: Learn about the process of sedimentation and what can be learned from it in this course. [MIT]
67. Essentials of Geophysics: This course will cover topics like gravity, geomagnetism, seismology, and geodynamics among others to give a more complete picture of geophysics. [MIT]
68. Past and Present Climate: Here you’ll find an introductory course on climate studies, offering a look back in time to see how climates have changed over the centuries as well. [MIT]
69. Surface Processes and Landscape Evolution: Get a better idea of how climate, tectonics and processes like erosion have shaped Earth’s surface in this course. [MIT]
70. Introduction to Seismology: Take this class to find out more about earthquakes and how seismic waves can tell us more about Earth’s interior. [MIT]

Environmental Science
Take one of these courses to learn about the science behind ecology, sustainability and other environmentally focused topics.

71. Fundamentals of Ecology: Learn how an ecosystem functions as a single unit and as individual entities in this course. [MIT]
72. Seminar in Environmental Science: Through this course you can become more knowledgeable about recent research in environmental science. [MIT]
73. Modeling Environmental Complexity: Here you’ll see how some of the more complex phenomena on earth are modeled and understood. [MIT]
74. Environmental Earth Science: Take this course to learn how the environment changes alongside some of the big changes that have happened with Earth’s surface. [MIT]
75. Complexity in Ecology: Here you can learn about issues in the complexity of ecology, looking at past models and coming up with new ways of organizing and obtaining data. [MIT]
76. Ecological Theory: This course requires some intense reading on both past and present theories of ecology. [MIT]
77. Chemicals in the Environment: Toxicology and Public Health: Learn how chemicals released into the environment can have a pretty negative impact on human health from this course. [MIT]
78. Water Quality Control: Here, you’ll learn how to model the distribution of substances into a water supply and the importance of maintaining quality water. [MIT]
79. Planning for Sustainable Development: Through this course you can see new ways that more sustainable communities are being developed. [MIT]
80. Environmental Microbiology: Microorganisms may be small but this course will show you what a big role they play in natural ecosystems. [MIT]
81. Strange Bedfellows: Science and Environmental Policy: Learn how scientific discoveries have pushed environmental policy making forward in this course. [MIT]

Health Science
In these courses you can learn about a wide range of medical issues.

82. Histology: Try out this course to learn about the structures and functions of human tissues and cells. [Tufts]
83. Genetics: Learn how genetic diseases are diagnosed and treated in this course. [Tufts]
84. Nutrition and Medicine: Here you can learn more about the big impact proper nutrition has on the health and well being of individuals. [Tufts]
85. Human Growth and Development: In this course you can learn how humans go from embryo to adult. [Tufts]
86. Principles of Human Disease: From contagious diseases to genetic ones, this course explains the modern understanding of diseases. [MIT]
87. Cancer Biology: From Basic Research to the Clinic: Learn what progress has been made in the fight against cancer in this course. [MIT]
88. Human Reproductive Biology: This course will teach you more than just how babies are made, focusing on the structure, function and even diseases of the reproductive system. [MIT]
89. Gastroenterology: Learn about the chemistry and biology of the digestive system in this course. [MIT]
90. Principles of Pharmacology: Most of us take medicines that are prescribed without giving much thought to how they came to be. This course will teach you how pharmacological agents are developed. [MIT]
91. Introduction to Neuroscience: Take this course to learn about some of the amazing and sometimes surprising ways the brain works. [MIT]
92. http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Health-Sciences-and-Technology/HST-947Spring-2005/CourseHome/index.htm
: Learn how artificial intelligence is being used in medical care and diagnosis here. [MIT]
93. Brain Mechanisms for Hearing and Speech: In this course you can learn how your brain takes in information from auditory sources and formulates its own responses through vocal utterances. [MIT]

Miscellaneous
This assortment of courses covers things like evolution, meteorology and science writing.

94. Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior: Professor Charles Bailyn explains some of the central issues to evolution and why we are the way we are in this course. [Yale]
95. Tropical Ecology and Conservation: This course focuses on methods that can be used to increase conservation efforts in the rainforests of the world. [Tufts]
96. Holographic Imaging: Holography might seem more science fiction than science, but this course will explain some of the fundamentals behind it and show you how it could be used. [MIT]
97. Geobiology: In this course you will investigate the way that life and the Earth itself have evolved side-by-side. [MIT]
98. Building Earth-like Planets: From Nebular Gas to Ocean Worlds: Do you know how planets are formed? This course will explains some of the best theories out there on how the planets came to be. [MIT]
99. Tropical Meteorology: Learn how weather works in some of the wettest places on Earth in this course. [MIT]
100. The Science Essay: Learn how best to write about science for the general public in this course touching on both English and science issues. [MIT]

Intelsat 14 – Atlas V Launch

At 10:33 PM Phoenix time, we have eight (8) minutes and counting until a planned hold at T minus 4 minutes in the launch of the Atlas 5 carrying the Intelsat 14 satellite.

Intelsat 14 under construction. Credit: ULA TV

T minus 8 Minutes. Credit: ULA TV

Launch is scheduled beginning at 10:50 PM Phoenix time. Weather is satisfactory.

We have a new T minus zero scheduled at 11:15 PM Phoenix time. Weather is green through the window. Extended hold due to reprogramming the flight computer (to take into account balloon data) taking longer than expected.

Weather Balloon Profile. Credit: ULA TV

Wind shear aloft. Credit: ULA TV

And the weather information updates are taking a long time. New launch time is 11:35 PM.

Wind shear aloft is a problem. Flight profile would not be good. A new balloon has been launched, and we are awaiting a new launch time.

And the weather aloft has now pushed the launch back to 11:55 PM Phoenix time. The US Air Force Range has approved the change. It is going to be a late night for all concerned.

Eye Candy Details. Credit: ULA TV

More Details, at T minus 4 minutes and holding for weather. Credit: ULA TV

The latest word from ULA is that “Things are improving with regard to developing a new flight program. They’re going to have one more shot to create a new program if this one doesn’t work, that will take us to the end of the window.”

All of this is based on the changing wind profiles aloft.

Weather aloft has improved. The launch director is polling all systems prior to coming out of the hold.

… and we are GO for LAUNCH!

T minus 3:48 and counting. Credit: ULA TV	Ignition. Credit: ULA TV
Launch. Credit: ULA TV	Ascent. Credit: ULA TV
Animation – Centaur Burn. Credit: ULA TV	Mid Course Correction. Credit: ULA TV

All systems are go. We are on the way to Geo Stationary Orbit.

Good Night All.

The Augustine Commission – Final Report – Hits and Misses – Part 5

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

In Part 1, we looked at the pieces strewn about our living room floor. In Part 2, we examined the Goals and Destinations in Chapter 3.0. And in Part 3, the three current Human Space Flight programs were reviewed (International Space Station, the Space Shuttle and the Constellation Program). In Part 4, we looked at the launch vehicles examined by The Augustine Commission.

Chapter 6 of the Augustine Commission Final Report deals with Program Options and Evaluation. This is one of the many contentious issues commentators have with the Commission. While they did select five possible exploration programs (Chapter 6), and while they did evaluate various launch vehicles (Chapter 5), the Committee seems to have ignored the possibility that different launch vehicles have greater or lesser ability to cover the five exploration programs. This failure may in the end, prove to be disastrous for human space exploration. As we write, the Space Shuttle infrastructure is being actively dismantled. The end result of failing to evaluate the physical infrastructure and the human infrastructure capable of supporting a Shuttle derived architecture may be that the United States is left with no heavy lift human space flight capability for at least the next several decades. We may have surrendered our space faring capability to Europe, China, Russia, India and Japan.

6.1 Evaluation Criteria

As noted by the Commission:

The Committee did not intend that the evaluation would generate a single numerical score; rather, it would provide a basis for comparison across options, highlighting the opportunities and challenges associated with each. Assigning weights to individual figures of merit is within the purview of the ultimate decision-makers.

Three primary evaluation dimensions were identified:

• Benefits to Stakeholders
• Risk
• Budget Realities

These three dimensions were expanded into 12 criteria for comparing the options.

• Exploration Preparation
• Technology Innovation
• Science Knowledge
• Expanding and Protecting Human Civilization
• Economic Expansion
• Global Partnerships
• Public Engagement
• Schedule and Programmatic Risk
• Mission Safety Challenges
• Workforce Impact
• Programmatic Sustainability
• Life-Cycle Cost

6.2 Key Decisions and Integrated Options

6.2.1 Key Decisions

1. What should be the future of the Space Shuttle?
2. What should be the future of the International Space Station (ISS)?
3. On what should the next heavy-lift launch vehicle be based?
4. How should crews be carried to low-Earth orbit?
5. What is the most practicable strategy for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit?

6.2.2 Integrated Options

The Committee identified five basic options: One based on the Program of Record (POR – Constellation – Ares I and V, Orion and Altair), and four alternatives. Options 2 and 3 were budget compatable alternatives to the POR. Option 4 was a Moon First program (with two variations), and Option 5 was the Flexible Path (avoiding the gravity well of the Moon).

6.2.3 Methodology for Analyzing the Integrated Options

Two budgets were used. The “Constrained Budget” used the FY 2010 budget, while the “Less Constrained Budget” allowed for an increase by 2014 of $3 Billion per year higher than FY 2010.

6.2.4 Reference Cases of the Entirely Unconstrained Program of Record

The Program of Record was evaluated and found to be a total of $45 Billion over the FY 2010 budget by 2020, wherein it is $5 Billion a year over FY 2010 in 2016 and $7 Billion per year over FY 2010 in 2019.

6.3 Integrated Options Constrained to the FY 2010 Budget

6.3.1 Evaluation of Integrated Options 1 and 2

Option 1 was found to allow for rocket development, but lacked funds for exploration. Option 2 extends the lifetime of the ISS, delays rocket development, and has no funds for exploration.

6.3.2 Examination of alternate budget guidance

The Committee found no alternatives to Options 1 or 2 that were viable under the FY 2010 budget. This conclusion has been disputed.

6.4 Moon First Integrated Options Fit to the Less-Constrained Budget

6.4.1 Evaluation of Integrated Options 3 and 4

Option 3 was to execute the POR under a less constrained budget. The ISS is de-orbited in 2010, and the Shuttle flies the remaining missions into 2011. Human lunar return occurs in the mid 2020s and the lunar base becomes operation late in the decade. An alternate extending ISS to 2020 was found to push these dates out by three to four more years.

Option 4 uses the less constrained budget, scraps Ares I and substitutes commercial crew services by 2016 It extends the ISS to 2020. Ares V is scrapped in favor of a dual-launch Ares V Lite vehicle for lunar missions.

Option 4A retires the Shuttle in 2011, while Option 4B extends the Shuttle to 2015 and develops a Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift vehicle in place of Ares V Lite.

6.4.2 Examination of the key decision on the ISS extension

Given the International Partnerships that have been developed, and the fact that the extension to 2020 would only delay the lunar return by a few years, the Committee found that the extension provides greater value than ending the ISS mission.

6.4.3 Examination of the key decision on Ares V vs. Ares V Lite dual launch

Baseline Ares V has more launch capability than the Saturn V, but current NASA studies show that when used in combination with Ares I, it does not have enough launch capability to robustly deliver the currently planned landing and surface systems to the Moon.

The Committee concluded that Ares V Lite represents less development risk, likely will reduce costs and provides more substantial margin for the lunar mission.

6.4.4 Examination of the key decision on the provision of crew transport to low-Earth orbit

Commercial crew services, based on a high-reliability rocket with a capsule and launch escape system could significantly reduce development costs, as well as lower operating costs.

6.4.5 Examination of the key question on Shuttle extension

The Committee favored early retirement of the Shuttle (2010 or 2011), although they noted several advantages to Shuttle extension to 2015, including up-mass and down-mass capability and workforce retention.

6.5 Flexible Path Integrated Options Fit to the Less-Constrained Budget

6.5.1 Evaluation of Integrated Option 5

Option 5 operates the Shuttle into 2011 and extends the International Space Station mission until 2020. A variety of destinations beyond low earth orbit are possible. The Committee developed three variants of this option.

• Option 5A develops the Ares V Lite, visits the Lagrange points, near Earth objects, on-orbit refueling and achieves a lunar return by the end of the 2020s.
• Option 5B develops commercial heavy lift capability, restructures NASA, and follows a similar mission profile as 5A, but on a slower time line.
• Option 5C scraps Ares V Lite and develops a Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift vehicle. 5C follows a similar mission profile as 5A, but on a slower time line.

6.5.2 Examination of the key question on Ares V family vs. Shuttle-derived heavy launcher

While the Shuttle derived in-line launch vehicle (SDLV) with two four-segment solid rocket motors (SRM) and the 8.4 meter external tank (ET) was the 2005 ESAS candidate for the cargo vehicle, it was forced to evolve into the Ares V due to the problems encountered with the underpowered Ares I. For some reason, the Committee decided that in order to match the capabilities of the Ares V, or the Ares V Lite dual-launch mission, that there had to be three SDLV launches. Therefore, operations would be more costly.

This is a clear Committee miss, as the current planned lunar return missions can be accomplished with good margin by a dual-launch SDLV program, thus costing less than the Ares V Lite. There is no need for the enhanced capabilities of the dual-launch Ares V Lite.

6.5.3 Examination of the key question on NASA heritage vs. EELV-heritage super-heavy vehicles

The Committee considers the EELV-heritage super-heavy vehicle to be a way to significantly reduce the operating cost of the heavy lifter to NASA in the long run. It would be a less-capable vehicle, but probably sufficiently capable for the mission. Reaping the long-term cost benefits would require substantial disruption in NASA, and force the agency to adopt a new way of doing business.

6.6 Comparisons Across Integrated Options

6.6.1 Cross-option comparisons

The Flexible Path program (Option 5A) scores more highly than the Baseline (Option 3) on 9 of the 12 criteria outlined in section 6.1 ( See figure 6.6.1-1). The higher rankings include:

• Exploration Preparation (due to much more capable launch system)
• Technology (due to investment in technology)
• Science (because of more places visited)
• Human Civilization (due to the ISS extension)
• Economic Expansion (because of commercial involvement in space elements and crew transport)
• Global Partnerships (gained by extending the ISS)
• Public Engagement (by visiting more new locations, and doing so each year)
• Schedule (exploring beyond low-Earth orbit sooner)
• Life-Cycle Costs (due to commercial crew services)

6.6.2 Examination of the key question on exploration strategy

Three exploration strategies were examined in Chapter 3. The choice of Mars First was found not to be viable due to technological problems. Two strategies remained:

• Moon First on the Way to Mars, with surface exploration focused on developing capability for Mars.
• Flexible Path to Mars via the inner solar system objects and locations, with no immediate plan for surface exploration, then followed by exploration of the lunar and/or Martian surface.

The Moon first is favorable to lunar science and exploration (although much can be done robotically). The Flexible Path missions explore more of the Solar System, while initially doing less on the Moon. Flexible Path has the advantage of developing infrastructure for deep space exploration, including the moons of Mars and Mars itself. The Committe notes that:

Considering that we have visited and obtained samples from the Moon, but not near-Earth objects or Mars, and also that the Flexible Path develops the ability to service space observatories, the Science Knowledge criterion slightly favors the Flexible Path. Broadly, the more complex the environment, the more astronaut explorers are favored over robotic exploration. In practice, this means that astronauts will offer their greatest value-added in the exploration of the surface of Mars.

Final Scoring

Although the Augustine Commission did not publish a final tally of the scores (for reasons they made clear), the following table does compare and tabulate the scores.

Option	Description	Science	Safety	Cost	Schedule	NASA / Industry Jobs	US Skills Retention	Exploration Capability	Technology	Space Colony Potential	Commercial Benefit	Public Engagement	international Cooperation	Sustainability	Total
1	The Status Quo	0	0	0	-2	-1	-1	-2	-2	-2	-1	-1	-2	-1	-15
2	ISS Extension plus Moon	0	0	1	-2	-1	-1	-2	1	-1	1	-1	0	0	-5
3	Status quo + $3 B	1	-1	0	0	0	-1	0	0	0	0	0	-2	0	-3
4	Shuttle + Moon	1	-1	1	0	0	-1	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	4
4B	Shuttle 2015 + Moon	1	-1	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	5
5A	Flexible Path + Ares Lite	2	-1	1	1	0	-1	2	1	1	2	1	0	0	9
5B	Flexible Path + Commercial	2	-2	2	1	0	-1	1	2	1	2	1	0	-1	8
5C	Flexible Path + Jupiter 241	2	-2	0	1	0	-1	1	1	1	2	1	0	1	7

Option 5D: We will have more to say about this proposal in our final segment: “Wrapped Up” or “The Augustine Commission for Dummies”.

Option	Description	Science	Safety	Cost	Schedule	NASA / Industry Jobs	US Skills Retention	Exploration Capability	Technology	Space Colony Potential	Commercial Benefit	Public Engagement	international Cooperation	Sustainability	Total
5D	Flexible Path + Direct	2	-2	1	1	1	1	2	1	1	2	1	1	1	13

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

The Augustine Commission – Final Report – Hits and Misses – Part 4

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

In Part 1, we looked at the pieces strewn about our living room floor. In Part 2, we examined the Goals and Destinations in Chapter 3.0. And in Part 3, the three current Human Space Flight programs were reviewed (International Space Station, the Space Shuttle and the Constellation Program).

Chapter 5.0 Launch to Low-Earth Orbit and Beyond

In this section, The Augustine Commission examines launch vehicles. We begin with the opening statement, with which we agree:

Launch to low-Earth orbit is the most energy-intensive and dynamic step in human space exploration. No other single propulsive maneuver, including descent to and ascent from the surfaces of the Moon or Mars, demands higher thrust or more energy or has the high aerodynamic pressure forces than a launch from Earth. Launch is a critical area for spaceflight, and two of the five key questions that guide the future plans for U.S. human spaceflight focus on launch to low-Earth orbit: the delivery of heavy masses to low-Earth orbit and beyond; and the delivery of crew to low-Earth orbit.

5.1 Evaluation methodologies for Launch Vehicles

The Commission used “cost, performance and schedule parameters, as well as safety, operability, maturity, human rating, workforce implications, development of commercial space, the consequences to national security space, and the impact on exploration and science missions”. They note that some of these are quantitative and some are qualitative measures. Evaluations of the claim for each launcher was made and adjusted, and the uncertainty was assessed. Historical bounds were employed where appropriate. Some 70 lower-level metrics were used to construct 13 top level metrics.

5.2 Heavy Lift to Low-Earth Orbit and Beyond

The Commission began by reiterating the Constellation plan to loft about 600 metric tons (mt) per year to low Earth orbit (LEO). By comparison, NASA launched 250 mt per year during Apollo and the International Space Station (ISS) has a mass of about 350 mt.

Figure 5.2-1 listed the five candidates and their lift to LEO (see Launch Vehicles for visuals) and Figure 5.2.1-1 gave Trans Lunar Injection (TLI) with no refueling and with in-space refueling:



Launch Vehicle	LEO	TLI no refueling	TLI in-space refueling
EELV Super Heavy	75 mt	26 mt	55 mt
Directly Shuttle Derived	100-110 mt	35 mt	75 mt
Ares V Lite	140 mt	55 mt	120 mt
Ares V	160 mt	63 mt	130 mt
Ares V plus Ares I	185 mt	71 mt	150 mt

Notice that the Commission has brought the potential of in-space refueling front and center, either as propellant transfer from one spacecraft to another (as in a dual launch Ares V Lite or Jupiter 246), or from a true propellant depot, which would be supplied by commercial contract. However, “the Committee found both of these concepts feasible with current technology, but in need of significant further engineering development and in-space demonstration before they could be included in a baseline design”. Thus, the initial set of evaluations would need to examine the mass that an Earth Departure Stage (EDS) could push through TLI without refueling.

A detailed study of launch reliability of multi-launch missions commissioned by the Committee concluded that at most three critical launches be used. Reasonable chances for success required 90+ days of on-orbit life for an EDS or propellant depots.

Subsequent to Shuttle retirement, the need for NASA to launch 400 to 600 mt to LEO each year would consume much if not all of the existing and planned excess EELV capacity. Further, it would be expensive.

Finally, the Commission notes that heavy lift vehicles “would allow large scientific observatories to be launched, potentially enabling them to have optics larger than the current five-meter fairing sizes will allow. More capable deep-space science missions could be mounted, allowing faster or more extensive exploration of the outer solar system”.

All the foregoing was seen as justification for the development of Heavy Lift vehicles. The Commission then reviewed the choices in the chart above.

Ares V: This is the most capable of the proposed rockets. Together with the Ares I, it can launch 185 mt to LEO, 71 mt through TLI and land 14 tons of cargo only on the lunar surface, or 2 mt of cargo plus crew. Ares V requires expansion of the External Tank (ET) to 10 meters, the development of new 5.5 segment solid rocket motors (SRM), development of a regenerative version of the RS-68 engine and the development of the J2-X second stage engine (modified from the Saturn J2 engine).

Ares V Lite: Ares V Lite is a derivative of the Ares V, but with an LEO payload of 140 mt. This rocket would require the completion of the 5 segment SRM under development for Ares I. The remaining new Ares V components would still require development. For lunar missions, the Ares V Lite would be human-rated and used in the “dual mode”. In single launch it can place 14 mt of cargo on the lunar surface, and with a larger Lander than Ares V, it can land 5 mt of cargo plus crew.

SDLV Side-Mount: The side-mount and the in-line SDLV both use the existing Space Shuttle ET, the 4 segment SRM and the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME). The side-mount replaces the Shuttle with a cargo pod. The Committee combined the side-mount with the in-line variants for purposes of evaluation. They did note, however, that “the side-mount variant is considered an inherently less safe arrangement if crew are to be carried, and is more limited in its growth potential”.

SDLV In-Line The in-line variants are represented by the Jupiter family of rockets, as proposed by the Direct team. The Committee assumed that three Jupiter 241 vehicles would be used for a lunar mission, and that 5 mt of cargo could be landed with crew. No figure was given for a cargo only dual-launch mission, but the report states that more than 20 mt of cargo can be landed by a single Jupiter 241 using in-space refueling. Now, the three launch scenario is peculiar. Perhaps the Commission was trying to replicate the LEO loft mass of a dual Ares V Lite mission (2 x 140 mt). However, that much fuel, lander and crew far exceeds the Constellation Program (CxP) requirements. Furthermore, Ross Tierney, from Direct, has stated that “the right 2-launch Jupiter architecture is actually capable of landing 19mT of useful payload mass on the lunar surface every crew mission…Given that the Ascent Module only consists of about 6.4mT of that, this architecture is actually capable of landing almost the same 14.5mT* cargo modules as CxP are currently planning to land using cargo-only missions”. So we are left with unanswered questions concerning the assumptions and evaluations made by the Commission, not only about SDLV, but the Ares mission architectures.

EELV Super Heavy The Extended Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) is represented by the Atlas 5 Phase 2 Heavy, which consists of the core rocket plus two boosters of the same basic design along with an upgraded common upper stage (to be used by both Atlas and Delta). The common upper stage would use four RL-10 rocket engines, which have a long history of successful flights aboard Titan, Delta and Atlas among others. This configuration is capable of lofting a maximum of 75 mt to LEO. A dual launch configuration with in-space refueling is capable of conducting Flexible Path missions.

Summary of Findings

• Heavy Lift capability is beneficial to human exploration as well as national security and the scientific community.
• In-Space refueling represents a significant benefit to space transportation systems beyond low Earth orbit. It requires development and would not be on the critical path. A prudent approach is to develop Heavy Lift capable of early missions and phase in in-space refueling when it becomes available.
• A new emphasis of sustainable operations is needed. “NASA’s design culture emphasizes maximizing performance at minimum development cost, repeatedly resulting in high operational and lifecycle costs. A shift in NASA design culture toward design for minimum discounted life-cycle cost, accompanied by robustness and adequate margins, will allow NASA programs to be more sustainable”.
• In-Space Propulsion for missions beyond LEO that last for weeks or months require stages using efficient engines with high-reliability restart capabilities.

The Lunar Surface Capabilities of the various systems are compared in the following table:



Launch Vehicle	LEO	Cargo Only	Cargo and Crew
EELV Super Heavy	75 mt	NA mt	NA mt
Directly Shuttle Derived	100-110 mt	14 mt*	5 mt*
Ares V Lite	140 mt	14 mt	5 mt
Ares V plus Ares I	185 mt	14 mt	2 mt

5.3 Crew Launch to Low-Earth Orbit

Crew safety is an overriding issue in human space flight. The safe delivery of crew to LEO and their return is critical. This is the fourth key question (see Part 1) that the Committee examined. The assumed that Orion would be the crew vehicle, and that the launch vehicle would either be government provided and operated, or a commercial service.

Ares I was selected in 2005 as part of the ESAS study, and was expected to be operational in 2012. The Constellation program now projects initial operational capability (IOC) in 2015, and the Committee thinks this will slip further. Both budgetary and design problems have been encountered.

International Transportation was deemed acceptable by the Committee. However, sustained U. S. leadership in space requires domestic crew launch capability.

A human rated EELV was considered by the Commission. An independent study found that the launch of Orion on the Delta IV Heavy was technically feasible, but the long term development and carrying costs offset any savings versus Ares I.

Commercial Transport of crew to LEO is a hot topic. The Committee asked “can a simple capsule with a launch escape system, operating on a high-reliability liquid booster, be made safer than the Shuttle, and comparably as safe as Ares I plus Orion”? A number of factors were considered:

• A strong role for NASA oversight of the development would be required.
• The cost to NASA of underwriting design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E).
• The potential non-NASA uses of LEO crew transport

The Committee made several estimates of total costs, and arrived at a preliminary estimate of $5 Billion dollars. Assuming a “less-constrained” NASA budget, a commercial LEO crew transport service could be available by 2016.

Finally, the Committee assessed the risks to the human space flight program associated with commercial crew transport. Such development could distract from the near-term goal of developing commercial cargo capability. The commercial community might fail to deliver a crew transportation system. The fall-back position for NASA would be human rating the Heavy Lift Vehicle. The Committee assumes that the first stage of the HLV will be developed as quickly as possible. We leave the implications of this statement as an exercise for the reader.

5.4 Additional Issues in Launcher Selection

Launch Vehicle Performance and Costing The factors in this section include:

• Evaluation of the claimed cost, schedule and performance of the various launch vehicles.
• The advantage of shifting to commercial purchase of space transportation systems.
• The loss of the workforce and expertise built up within NASA from shifting to commercial sources.
• The health and viability of the solid rocket motor industry from all-liquid fuel launch vehicles.

Launcher Reliability The Committee reviewed the historical reliability of the Shuttle, Saturn, Titan, Delta and Atlas programs. Launchers derived from existing systems have shown greater reliability in early stages of development than newly developed systems.

(Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Wrap Up.)

Masten – Final Flight Attempt – Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge

Xoie Ready. Credit: Ustream Screen Shot

We are watching Masten’s Xoie attempt at the Mojave site, live via Ustream. The window began at 9:00 AM PDT this morning. Ready for flight at 10:16 AM. First flight ended successfully after 3 minutes and 2 seconds. Masten is now preparing for the return flight. It is now 11:04 and loading of LOX is underway. Launch. 9 Minutes left in the window. Good Flight. Landed. Now its up to the judges.

The accuracy for Xoie’s first flight was around 11 inches (28 centimeters). Based on unofficial measurements, it appears as if Xoie did well enough on the second flight to take the top spot away from Armadillo’s Scorpius (average landing accuracy was about 35 inches – 89 centimeters). And indeed that is the Case. Level II Prize – Xoie First, Scorpius Second. And for Level I Prize – Scorpius First, Xombie (Masten) Second.

Jonathon Goff, found often on forum.nasaspaceflight.com, built the 1000 lb thrust engine, and Ian Garcia, guidance engineer, wrote the software.

Xoie Ignition. Credit: Ustream Screen Shot

Xoie Climb to Altitude. Credit: Ustream Screen Shot.

Xoie Hovering Over Target. Credit: Ustream Screen Shot

Xoie Landing After First Flight. Credit: Ustream Screen Shot.

Xoie Refueling. Credit: Ustream Screen Shot

Xoie Second Flight. Credit: Ustream Screen Shot.

Xoie Descending on Second Flight. Credit: Ustream Screen Shot

Xoie Second Landing. Wins!! Credit: Ustream Screen Shot.

Ariane 5 – 29 October 2009

Ariane V Launch. Credit: European Space Agency – Arianespace

The sixth Ariane 5 flight of 2009 carried the first satellite launched by Arianespace for Telenor Satellite Broadcasting AS – THOR 6, along with the 32nd spacecraft from the SES group of companies. The previous Ariane 5 mission was October 1 with the Amazonas 2 and COMSATBw-1 satellites. The THOR 6 is a 3,050 kg satellite fitted with 36 Ku band transponders for direct-to-home television services from Telenor Satellite Broadcasting to Central and Eastern Europe as well providing additional capacity in the Nordic region. The NSS-12 spacecraft was produced by Space Systems/Loral and weighs 5,620 kg. It carries 40 C-band and 48 Ku-band transponders. This satellite will also provide direct-to-home television services from SES WORLD SKIES. The audience is in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Australia.

The Augustine Commission – Old Habits Die Hard

Image Credit: NASA Image

NASA Administrator General Charles Bolden, former astronaut, has made a number of speeches and statements that say little about the upcoming report from The Augustine Commission, nor his views about the future course of NASA Human space Flight exploration goals and architecture, but speak volumes about his view of the culture of NASA and Capital Hill. Bolden said the following about the push for commercial crew launch during a commercial space seminar held 23 September 2009 on Capitol Hill: “Old habits die hard. Many of us who have grown up in the traditional space program, you know, we really believe we have all the answers. It has to be our way or no way at all,” he said. “I don’t believe that. I am becoming more and more convinced every day in this job that there are different ways that we can and must do this.”

He described the COTS program with SpaceX to demonstrate the Dragon supply vehicle on a Falcon 9 rocket, and the separate contract with Orbital Sciences Corp. to develop a competing cargo module and rocket. Bolden said that the COTS efforts in Low Earth Orbit abilities “will grow jobs in engineering, design and research, and it will spur economic growth as capabilities for new markets are created.” He wants to make NASA and the space industry innovative, and attractive to new talent. More recently, in a speech delivered to aerospace representatives and U. S. lawmakers on 8 October 2009, Bolden related his initial refusal of President Obama’s request to head NASA. He described his previous eight month assignment in the early 1990’s as Assistant Deputy Director of NASA. He hated it. “It was the worst eight months of my life.” One of the jobs was to corral support for the International Space Station. It succeeded by one vote. Concerning his unease with Washington power brokering: “I am not going to get used to this culture,” he said. “I don’t want to get used to this culture. But if you will allow me to do the job that you asked me to do, I will do it. And I will do it well.” He candidly admits his time at NASA may be brief. But many are hopeful that Bolden will have a long and influential stay. Bolden acknowledges the concerns of the Washington beltway. He has met with members of the House and has met with members of the Senate. The political concerns are well known,and he added, “But, I can’t do anything if we don’t change the way we operate.” Bolden does not want to “back into” a NASA program from the perspective of “here’s a budget, how much can you do with it.” Concerning the rationale for the NASA program: If you’re not doing it for a reason, I think you ought not to be doing it. Which goes straight to one of the key elements emphasized by members of the Augustine Commission, that destinations are not goals. The Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) established a destination, the Moon by 2015 (no later than 2020), and then political indifference to funding crippled the ability to achieve the destination. At least the Augustine Commission has articulated a significant goal, the expansion of human civilization into the Solar System. Bolden has been meeting as many as nine hours a week with his senior team, and indicated that they had pretty well settled the “why” question. They are now looking at the architectural options and developing the recommendation for the President. Given his concern with the budgetary approach taken by part the Augustine Commission deliberations, and the types of missions and architecture that could fit within a given budget, it appears that the recommendations to Obama by Bolden and NASA will be a “why” driven program.

LCROSS – IMPACT Imaged by Diviner on LRO

From the UCLA Diviner LRO blog:

The LRO Diviner instrument obtained infrared observations of the LCROSS impact this morning. LRO flew by the LCROSS Centaur impact site 90 seconds after impact at a distance of ~80 km. Diviner was commanded to observe the impact site on eight successive orbits, and obtained a series of thermal maps before and after the impact at approximately two hour intervals at an angle of approximately 48 degrees off nadir. In this viewing geometry, the spatial footprint of each Diviner detector was roughly 300 by 700 meters.

Credit: NASA / GSFC / UCLA

From the Planetary Society Blog:

preliminary, uncalibrated Diviner thermal maps of the impact site acquired two hours before the impact, and 90 seconds after the impact. The thermal signature of the impact was clearly detected in all four Diviner thermal mapping channels.

The Augustine Commission – Postmortem – SPI Symposium

The Space Policy Institute at George Washington University hosted a half day symposium “Assessing The Options Of The Augustine Commission For Human Spaceflight” on 28 September 2009, and has now released the Notes and presentations.

Some of the participants in the Symposium (and their presentations) were:

• Dr. Scott Pace
• Dr. Doug Stanley
• Dr. Paul Spudis
• Dr. Tom Jones
• Dr. John Logsdon
• Dr. Alain Dupas
• Mr. Brett Alexander
• Mr. Robert Read

Dr. Scott Pace, Director of the Space Policy Institute, began the proceedings by outlining the nine goals set for in the 2004 Presidential directives to NASA. Some have been, or will be, achieved:

• Complete the International Space Station
• Safely fly the Space Shuttle until 2010
• No later than 2008, begin a series of robotic missions to Moon

Some are in danger:

• Develop supporting innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructures
• Promote international and commercial participation in exploration

And some will not be met:

• Develop and fly the Crew Exploration Vehicle no later 2014
• Return to Moon with goal of 2015 and no later than 2020
• Aggressive in-situ resource program and robust precursor program
• Sustained human presence on Moon for national preeminence, scientific and
  economic purposes, leading to Mars and other places

Dr. Pace reviewed the steadily declining budget provided NASA over the past five years (see the Sally Ride Slides – especially this). These cuts total approximately $42 Billion through 2020 versus the original ESAS (Exploration Systems Architecture Study) program, which topped out at $10 Billion per year in 2016 and is now expected to be only $6.5 Billion.

A critical observation was that “Budget Proposals are Policy”. Irrespective of what is said and written about America’s space policy, the budget dictates what can and cannot be done.”

Finally, Pace asked “Are there economically useful activities in space that can sustain human communities in space? Citing examples in the chart below, he concluded that we just do not know if there is anything in the upper right hand box.

The first panel of speakers was led by Gen. Lester Lyles (ret), a member of the Augustine Committee. His comments (see the Notes), centered around the task of the Commission. The Commission was tasked with assessing the following:

• Present human spaceflight program
• Future of Space Shuttle and ISS
• The necessity of heavy lift
• Crew access to low earth orbit and alternatives
• Strategies and alternatives beyond low earth orbit

Major themes to be kept in mind included: safety, reliability, innovation, affordability, and sustainability.

Finally, Lyles summed up the key findings of the Commission:

• NASA needs the right mission with the right size
• Without an adequate budget there is no way that NASA can take on the great things it is asked to and maintain a viable program for space exploration
• International partnerships should be addressed in greater detail than they are currently – there is lots of opportunities for greater partnerships and activities
• Shuttle program should be extended, whether it be for a few flights or longer, it makes sense to consider any way to minimize gap
• “Great nations do great things” – human spaceflight is a task worthy of a great nation
• Extending ISS a “no brainer”– bottom line is we are just now completing space station and the U.S. and its international partners have only just begun to utilize scientific capabilities – Could be extended to 2025
• NASA needs heavy lift capability – Looked at Ares 1, Ares V, and Ares V Light, but did not recommend one or the other; rather it depends on your objectives in space
• Committee views COTS program favorably; it should be continued – Strong potential for commercial space sector to service ISS
• A non-mission specific, basic space technology program should be established to support exploration
• There are human spaceflight pathways to Mars – Mars is the ultimate destination, but may not be the first
• Committee laid out alternatives for Moon and Mars and defined risks as best as they could

Tom Young, former CEO of Martin-Marietta, spoke next. One of his major themes was that the current situation was being driven by budget, and that the decisions made today will influence the course of space exploration for the rest of the century. He hoped that following the great adventure of the twentieth century – landing on the Moon and returning – the twenty-first century would not be remembered for “we saved $3 Billion dollars”.

Quoting from the analysis by Dwayne Day at The Space Review:

Young also warned that in order for NASA to be a smart buyer and to ensure success, the agency needed in-house systems engineering talent. Echoing Scott Pace’s earlier comments, he said that during the 1990s the United States engaged in a number of “acquisition reforms,” including the Air Force’s reduction of oversight of contractor operation of launch vehicles like the Titan IV as well as some of the aspects of NASA’s “faster, better, cheaper” program. (Author’s note: Young was clear that he was not criticizing faster, better, cheaper in its entirety.) “We just fired all of the experienced people,” Young said, and adopted a policy that “government would sit in the back of the room” and let the contractors run the show. “That was a horrible mistake. The net result of that experiment was $11.2 billion in failures. We tried that experiment, it was a horrible failure.”

Young finished by echoing previous speakers that human space flight was a policy issue, not a budget issue. He would quote Lyles: “Great Nations do Great Things”.

Next up was Dr. Doug Stanley, who has worked at NASA and Orbital Sciences Corporation, and is currently from Georgia Tech. One of the items he discussed was the idea that the assumptions made by NASA have driven the designs. For example, if the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) had not been required to go to the ISS, then the Moon mission would have been best accomplished with a dual launch of two identical rockets and an EOR-LOR strategy (Earth Orbit Rendezvous – Lunar Orbit Rendezvous). A single Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle would be the most cost effective solution for the heavy lift requirements. But it would not be cost effective for ISS purposes.

On the other hand, if the focus had been solely on servicing the ISS, then commercial Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV – Delta IV) would have been selected. It would have been cheaper and quicker to operational status than building a new rocket.

Instead, NASA had to satisfy both objectives. And therefore, chose to develop two new rockets (new engines, new tanks, new solid rocket motors). This was the riskiest and most expensive course.

Young concludes with two sets of recommendations:

White House should immediately decide on:

• ISS extension through 2020
• Shuttle extension into 2011 and/or beyond 2011
• Beyond-LEO human mission destination(s) and time-frame
• Out-year available budget
• General policy towards commercial and international ISS crew transport

NASA should be allowed to then define design reference mission(s) and requirements and perform ESAS-like architecture study to:

• Perform apples-to-apples cost/safety/risk comparison of Augustine-defined options and selected other combinations of options
• Re-visit EELV/SDV trades – including side-mount
• Perform detailed definition and economic analysis of propellant depots
• Determine true cost/risk of “commercial” crew transport
• Examine workforce impacts of options
• Define more detailed budgets to support 2011 budget cycle

[Ed: One has to look back at Young's comment above about NASA thinking that a SDLV "...would not be cost effective for ISS purposes" and wonder why they did not realize that the SDLV would only need to be used for a year or so until EELV could come on line for ISS and other LEO missions. The implication is that EELV would have been cheaper than Ares I, and SDLV would have been cheaper than Ares V.]

The second panel discussion, on science and international relations, was begun by Paul Spudis from the Lunar and Planetary Institute.

Dr. Spudis fundamentally disagrees with the “Four Canons” of the Space Program, enshrined in the Summary Report of the Augustine Commission:

• Mars is the ultimate destination
• Heavy-lift is a requirement
• It is necessary to get the public excited
• There is no problem at NASA that money cannot fix

He contrasts the Current Template with the Desired Template:

Current Template: Custom-built, self-contained, mission specific spacecraft Launch on expendable vehicles Operate for set lifetime Abandon after use Repeat

Desired Template: Incremental, extensible building blocks Extract material and energy resources of space to use in space Launch only what cannot be fabricated or built in space Build and operate flexible, modular, extensible in-space systems Maintain, expand and use indefinitely

Obviously, Dr. Spudis takes the Long View: “My objective is to move humanity into outer space. How do you do that? By living off the land.” He wants to find opportunities in the upper right corner of Pace’s matrix.

Next up was Tom Jones, with the Association of Space Explorers and a former astronaut. His comments are summed up nicely in the abstract to the paper he presented:

By conducting a series of piloted Near-Earth Object (NEO) missions beginning about 2020, the U.S. will reinforce the scientific, economic, programmatic, operations, planetary defense, and public outreach elements of its human exploration program. Astronauts exploring a NEO would provide synergistic scientific return from a new “planetary” surface, substantially different in origin, age, and composition from those of the Moon or Mars. Explorers would assay NEO resources vital to future U.S. economic activity in space, and demonstrate extraction and utilization techniques for water, volatiles, and valuable metals. Piloted missions will also provide structural and civil engineering data needed for future deflection of hazardous NEOs. Impact prevention is a common sense, “know your enemy” mission for human explorers; the public will support space-based efforts to better understand and prevent a damaging NEO collision with Earth. Astronaut expeditions to NEOs offer dramatic, high-profile opportunities to engage the public in ground-breaking exploration more than a million miles from Earth. Finally, in the event U.S. plans for a lunar return are delayed, NEOs offer a challenging suite of alternative destinations. Easier to reach than the Moon’s surface, NEOs will nevertheless broaden U.S. space capabilities, demonstrate a firm commitment to ambitious human space activities, and increase momentum toward the eventual exploration of Mars.

Dr. John Logsdon lead of his comments on the International Space Station and International cooperation by quoting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 16 July 2009:

“Our approach to foreign policy must reflect the world as it is, not as it used to be. It does not make sense to adapt a 19th-century concert of powers or a 20th-century balance-of-power strategy. We cannot go back to Cold War containment or to unilateralism. . . . We will lead by inducing greater cooperation among a greater number of actors and reducing competition, tilting the balance away from a multi-polar world and toward a multi-partner world.”

Dr. Logsdon advocated including India and China in multi-lateralization of space. The question in his mind was whether there would be Presidential leadership.

For the international perspective, Dr. Alain Dupas, Director of Strategic Studies at the Paris-based College de Polytechnique, presented his views on the Augustine Committee’s recent report. Europe, he said, has been under the impression that the United States had made a firm decision regarding it’s exploration program. Now, there are serious concerns about America changing its mind. Fortunately, he noted, the ISS would be supported at least through 2020. This bodes well for the discussions about the Global Exploration Strategy. Dupais noted that the Flexible Path option offered “interesting opportunities for Europe”.

Mr. Brett Alexander, from the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, led the third panel of the morning on security and commerce. One of the main points he made was that the Augustine Commission had fallen into a false dichotomy: having to choose between Ares I and commercial EELV access to space. The real issue is choosing Ares I or the International Space Station. NASA does not have the budget for both.

Finally, with regard to safety, Alexander noted that Astronauts will not fly on unproven commercial vehicles, and notes ironically that:

• The Atlas V has a long and proven track record, and the team that puts it together and launches has a demonstrated track that goes beyond the vehicle itself.
• Falcon 9 and Taurus II will have conducted multiple cargo flights to ISS under COTS prior to being permitted to ferry human crew to LEO
• Contrast this with the fact that Ares 1X/1 will have completed only two test flights prior to being permitted to carry crew to LEO

Eric Sterner spoke next. He is a former Republican House Armed Services Committee staffer and currently a fellow at the Marshall Institute. He made several points concerning international cooperation as a policy decision. First, that “International cooperation is useful but policy makers should be aware international partnerships have risks. You inherit or import into your program all their bureaucracy, all the budget woes. ISS proves you can do it, but it took us 25 years.” And second, considering China. “How would the U.S. deal with human rights issues if China were a partner in space exploration? It matters what values you take into space. How do you deal with proliferation issues? The Clinton administration threatened to cut off space-related payments to the Russia for its proliferation behavior with Iran”.

Next to last was Robert Read from the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense. His remarks addressed the implications of NASA and space exploration for the Solid Rocket Motor industry. Historically, the Department of Defense (DoD) has relied on solid rocket motors for land base Minuteman III ICBM and sea launched Trident II D-5, as well as many other weapon systems. He notes that DoD is concerned that shutting down the Shuttle and SDLV programs will so shrink the market that the program might collapse. He points out that:

• One Shuttle stack is equivalent to 10 Trident II D-5 and 17 Minuteman III missiles in terms of solid propellant weight
• The DoD is concerned over the potential loss of SRM suppliers once the Shuttle is retired
• The DoD will be studying the issue further, given the national security implications of further decline of the SRM industrial base.

From The Space Review article, Read’s comments concerning how delicate the industry is at the moment:

He recounted how a few years ago a small company was going to move its operations from Texas overseas. The company’s motivation was that 95% of its business was commercial and the government accounted for only 5% of its business. But moving its manufacturing overseas would have required the government to recertify all of the company’s components, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to the DoD, and ultimately the American taxpayers.

Finally, John Karas of Lockheed Martin addressed the workforce issues. A major concern is the loss of talent. 35% of the workforce is eligible for retirement right now. Industry needs to see NASA with a realistic goal and adequate funding in order to attract new, young talent to learn from the old guard before they retire. America’s heavy lift capability is unmatched elsewhere, and will remain so. But it can, and is currently, slipping away with the confusion and disarray of the space policy and budget problems.

So what do we garner from this long discussion? The debate is a tug of war in many dimensions: practical, political, monetary and technical.

I would like commercial crew launch to Low Earth Orbit and the ISS, a single Shuttle Derived Heavy lift vehicle and propellant depots. But that’s just my opinion.

Tomorrow’s News – NSS Phoenix Space News

28 September 2009

• Stephen Hawking called for a massive investment in establishing colonies on the Moon and Mars in a lecture in honour of NASA’s 50th anniversary. He argued that the world should devote about 10 times as much as NASA’s current budget – or 0.25% of the world’s financial resources – to space.
• The Ares I processing continues toward a 27 October 2009 launch. Descriptions of progress and problems can be seen here.
• For a very detailed view of the lunar surface from the LRO mission, check out this image.

For folks looking for tidbits on space exploration, add NSS Phoenix Space News page to your RSS feed.