April 14, 2010 9:35 AM

Obama Envisions Manned Mars Mission for NASA

By
CBSNews
(CBS)  This story was filed by CBS News space analyst William Harwood, based at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

As part of a sweeping post-shuttle change of direction for NASA, the Obama administration's shift to private-sector rockets and spacecraft will include government development of a new heavy-lift rocket for eventual manned flights to a variety of deep space targets including, ultimately, Mars, an administration official said Tuesday.

While committed to terminating the Bush administration's Constellation moon program, the president supports development of a scaled-down version of Constellation's Orion crew capsule for use as a space station emergency escape vehicle and possible technology test bed.

Speaking on background, a senior administration official said Tuesday the Orion capsule could be launched unmanned to the International Space Station using commercial rockets as part of a broad effort to reduce reliance on Russian Soyuz spacecraft.

The official said the use of a scaled-down version of Orion, along with the development of new private-sector rockets and capsules to replace the shuttle, would end NASA's reliance on Russia for space transportation services sooner than would have been possible with the Constellation program's Ares rockets.

The president will discuss his new strategy for NASA during a conference at the Kennedy Space Center on Thursday, outlining a series of robotic and eventual manned deep-space missions that will build in an evolutionary, step-by-step approach to eventual flights to Mars, the official said.

While no timetable for such flights will be specified, a decision on what sort of heavy lift rocket architecture to pursue will be made in 2015, based in part on advanced technologies research that will be funded at more than $3 billion over the next five years.

As previously announced, the administration's plan for NASA includes an additional $6 billion over the next five years to fund a variety of technology and infrastructure development efforts that by 2012 will result, the administration official said, in 2,500 more jobs at the Kennedy Space Center than would have been expected under Constellation.

Looming job losses across NASA's contractor workforce have cast a pall over the space program in recent months. With the shuttle program's retirement late this year or early next - only three more missions are planned beyond Discovery's current flight - some 7,000 jobs will be lost at the Kennedy Space Center alone, with thousands more at other NASA field centers.

For more info:
CBS News' Space Place: STS-131 Mission Update
NASA Shuttle Missions

The Obama administration's change of course for NASA will not restore the lost shuttle jobs, but the additional spending will more than make up for the expected Constellation losses, the official said. Along with a shift to commercial launch services, the administration plans a $2 billion upgrade to the Kennedy Space Center's launch infrastructure.

And in the near term, the administration will spend $40 million to fund an "economic development action plan" to help the local workforce make the transition.

Taken together, the new initiatives mark a "more ambitious space strategy" than Constellation offered, the official said, adding that critics who have charged the president's approach represents an end to government-sponsored manned spaceflight "are just flat wrong."

Development of a new heavy lift super rocket will "unlock the solar system," the official said, and do it sooner than would have otherwise been possible.

Whether these new elements - commitment to a heavy lift rocket and use of Orion technology - will satisfy the administration's critics in Congress and elsewhere remains to be seen.

In a recent open letter to the president signed by legendary Apollo flight directors Chris Kraft, Gene Kranz, Glynn Lunney and more than 20 former astronauts, including Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell and Apollo 17 commander Gene Cernan, the administration's plan was criticized for ceding America's "hard earned global leadership in space technology to other nations."

"We are stunned that, in a time of economic crisis, this move will force as many as 30,000 irreplaceable engineers and managers out of the space industry," they wrote. "We see our human exploration program, one of the most inspirational tools to promote science, technology, engineering and math to our young people, being reduced to mediocrity."

In the wake of the 2003 Columbia disaster, President Bush decided to complete the space station and retire the shuttle by 2010. At the same time, he directed NASA to begin development of new rockets, capsules and landers to carry astronauts back to the moon by the early 2020s. NASA came up with the Constellation program to implement those directives, spending some $9 billion over the past five years.

But funding shortfalls resulted in a projected five-year gap between the end of shuttle operations and the debut of the Ares I rocket and Orion crew capsule. To bridge the gap, NASA is paying the Russians some $50 million a seat to launch U.S. and partner astronauts to the space station aboard Soyuz rockets.

During the presidential campaign, Obama expressed support for Constellation but after the election, he set up a panel of outside experts to review NASA's plans and how much they might ultimately cost.

The panel concluded NASA could not afford to implement Constellation, or any other reasonable exploration program, without an additional $3 billion or so per year, primarily to make up for earlier budget reductions. And that did not take into account the cost of operating the International Space Station beyond 2015.

The group favored a shift to commercial launch services to carry astronauts to and from low-Earth orbit while NASA focused on development of a new heavy-lift rocket system that would enable eventual flights to the moon, nearby asteroids or even the moons of Mars.

The Obama administration agreed with the idea of commercial launch services, but it did not explicitly embrace the "flexible path" approach to deep space exploration suggested by the panel, focusing instead on development of enabling technologies and somewhat vague long-range goals.

The result, administration officials said, was an affordable, more sustainable space program.

The new commitment to development of a heavy lifter may defuse at least some of the outside criticism. But the benefits of using a scaled-down version of Orion for space station crew escape are not as clear. Seats purchased on Russian Soyuz rockets include launch and landing and the capsules remain docked at the station throughout a crew's stay, available as emergency lifeboats if needed.

Former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, chief architect of the Constellation program and a signer of the open letter to the president, said in an email "the people who are offering this plan are flailing."

Launching the capsules atop unmanned rockets would eliminate the need for complex abort systems, he said, but even unmanned rockets are expensive, the capsules would need an autonomous rendezvous and docking capability and they would have to be periodically replaced.

"The proposed 'Orion Lite' vehicles will not carry crew to the ISS," Griffin said. "Indeed, the first time they carry crew will be in an emergency. So we will need to replace them periodically to ensure that a fresh vehicle is available. ... Through all this we will have to continue to pay the Russians for crew transfer services until and unless commercial capability emerges.

"In the end, this seems like an expensive proposition that makes simply continuing to use the Russians for crew rescue look like a bargain."



(CBS)
William Harwood has been covering the U.S. space program full-time since 1984, first as Cape Canaveral bureau chief for United Press International and now as a consultant for CBS News. He has covered more than 115 shuttle missions, every interplanetary flight since Voyager 2's flyby of Neptune, and scores of commercial and military launches. Harwood is a devoted amateur astronomer and co-author of "Comm Check: The Final Flight of Shuttle Columbia." You can follow his frequent status updates at the CBSNews.com Space Place, where this story was first published.

Copyright 2010 CBS. All rights reserved.
Add a Comment See all 26 Comments
by anon45 April 14, 2010 6:22 PM EDT
I'm curious, wouldn't those who lost their jobs in NASA have a good opportunity to find work in the private space companies starting up? Doesn't seem to me like NASA is the only game in town anymore when it comes to spacecraft development, and even space development, in the United States. It is still the largest game, but aren't there alternatives where these people can put their skills to use.

Its not necessarily a secure job opportunity, but it is also something new, and something that could potentially be big.
Reply to this comment
by gregorymark April 14, 2010 4:34 PM EDT
Obama wants to go to Mars, but after the Shuttles are retired later this year, the US will have absolutely no way to get men and women into space. Typical of Obama: soaring rhetoric and promises, while undermining the nation's ability to deliver on those promises.
Reply to this comment
by rmwarnick April 14, 2010 4:14 PM EDT
President Obama should cowboy up and tell the world we're not going to do manned spaceflight any more. It's horrendously expensive to send people into space, along with air, water, food, toilets, furniture and everything else they need. Automated spacecraft do the same jobs a LOT cheaper, and we'll get more scientific return for our money!
Reply to this comment
by sunday42 April 14, 2010 1:15 PM EDT
Maybe Obama is just planning for a new home. Cut funding for NASA ,set up a 3 billion study, send a manned vehicle to mars,none of this makes any sense. Obama is an idiot.
Reply to this comment
by tsigili April 14, 2010 1:06 PM EDT
How about another planet.....that we can actually survive on? We are killing this one, with overpopulation, at a rapidly accelerating rate, which no country on the planet will acknowledge.
Reply to this comment
by dred30 April 14, 2010 12:03 PM EDT
All who are blaming this on OBAMA please see below quote from President Bush (2004) and the link from his speech.
President Bush:"
To meet this goal, we will return the Space Shuttle to flight as soon as possible, consistent with safety concerns and the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The Shuttle's chief purpose over the next several years will be to help finish assembly of the International Space Station. In 2010, the Space Shuttle -- after nearly 30 years of duty -- will be retired from service."

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13404
Reply to this comment
by jschmidt27 April 14, 2010 12:38 PM EDT
of course space shuttle retirement was planned but to be replaced with Constellation. Now we need Russia to get us to the space station. And what company is going to produce high risk space vehicles with the risk they have? So let's layoff 7000 trained engineers from the Cape and 23000 others. This experience is not something you learn from a 4 year degree. And you usually don't have engineers from other countries coming in with this experience. Just like with nuclear engineers which all but disappeared after 3 mile island, space flight developers are a breed built from experience. Laying off this many trained engineers will damage space flight development for the US for years to come. Space flight research and development is one of those few things only govt can do. So we will become a second rate space power due to Obama
by dred30 April 14, 2010 1:37 PM EDT
Don't you mean that we will become a second rate space power due to Bush, It was his plan that failed. NASA is the one that said that the shuttles are outside of their operating life span. It was Bush and his NASA appointee that was supposed to have a replacement ready for the shuttles by the year 2012 which NASA said they can not meet. Bad judgments in the years post 2004 have lead to this decision. No amount of hypocrisy can change the facts of bad management by the NASA leadership and funding model. Yes loosing jobs is always bad but to say that you need to keep jobs even when the company (NASA) said that the jobs are antiquated is bad business and irresponsible!
by nasadawg April 14, 2010 11:35 AM EDT
There most be FREE houseing there for his peeps..
Reply to this comment
by rocketjl April 14, 2010 10:40 AM EDT
In a pig's eye. Obama is bankrupting this nation. Don't tell me there is any truth to Obama's plan. Many of you were suckered by Obama and his promises when you put him into the White House, are you still stupid enough to believe him on this outer space thing??????? Boy, you can't fix stupid.
Reply to this comment
by Scimajor April 14, 2010 12:00 PM EDT
"Obama is bankrupting this nation."

LOL, you can't bankrupt something that was already bankrupt. You're not by chance a Republican Obama hater are you? (Don't bother answering. It's as obvious as the N.R.A. card in your wallet).
by kenhamlett April 14, 2010 10:39 AM EDT
I have partially answered my own question regarding the specifics of a comprehensive plan. There is none!
What I see so far is that they took a reverse approach of looking at the funding then finding a hodgepodge of projects to burn out the budget.
We all know NASA budgets have been bled for easy cash for years by contractors, consultants and other leeches that provide little more than lip service instead of working technology and completed products. The panel failed to simply realize that the NASA spending habits are a major source of its inability to function.
They replaced (achievable) goal oriented project parameters with an end goal that is not obtainable without a successful moon project. This is only a sales pitch to mask a disjointed group of make-work projects that would be fine as sideline endeavors but do not merge into a cohesive quest for expanding human exploration of our galaxy. Simply put, they assembled a list of pet projects and pitched them as the components of a strategic end goal, leaving out the very achievements necessary to master space.

Obama has been conned or he is conning us. The goal should be efficiency in achieving real success. If we don't get back on track, we should take our toy rockets and go home.
Reply to this comment
by cbs4111 April 14, 2010 10:12 AM EDT
Unbelievable! Obama is going to spend $3 billion dollars to study this for 5 years!!! Apollo went to the moon in less than 10. A 5-year STUDY????

Unlike building a launch vehicle which requires skilled and educated people with visible results - the rocket either works or it explodes, the study money can be passed around to Obama's voting constituency and no one will ever see how badly the money was wasted.

How can anyone see this to be an improved vision for NASA?
Reply to this comment
See all 26 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook