Translation:Top NASA officials told lawmakers this week that they cannot build the replacement for the space shuttle that Congress wants on the budget and deadline they were given.
"These [spacecraft] systems must be affordable, sustainable, and realistic," the agency said in a remarkably candid 22-page report. Congress' plan would not "meet … these goals."
"None of the design options studied thus far appeared to be affordable in our present fiscal conditions, based upon existing cost models, historical data, and traditional acquisition approaches," the report says, adding: "Any [spacecraft] designs selected … must meet the test of being realistic — not relying on assumptions of increased funding or other 'miracles' for attainment."
The bombshell is a major blow to hopes for the quick development of a new heavy-lift rocket and Apollo-like capsule capable of taking humans to the moon and beyond. It is also a major setback for Kennedy Space Center, which is set to lose at least 6,000 jobs during the next year as NASA retires the space shuttle. The center is expected to languish with no follow-on program imminent.
In addition, a planned five-year, $2 billion program to modernize KSC's aging infrastructure could well be cut or eliminated to find more money for the new rocket.
The report prompted a sharply worded response from the Senate Commerce Committee, including U.S. Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R- Texas, who were the principal authors of the plan passed by Congress last year.
"[T]he production of a heavy-lift rocket and capsule is not optional. It's the law," they said. "NASA must use its decades of space know-how and billions of dollars in previous investments to come up with a concept that works. We believe it can be done affordably and efficiently — and, it must be a priority."
Nelson himself issued a two-sentence statement: "I talked to [NASA Administrator] Charlie Bolden yesterday and told him he has to follow the law, which requires a new rocket by 2016. And, NASA has to do it within the budget the law requires."
Under the plan signed into law by President Barack Obama in October, NASA was supposed to get $11 billion during the next three years to start building a rocket and capsule that could as a first step fly to the International Space Station by Dec. 31, 2016. But new pressure in Congress to slash federal spending means that NASA is unlikely to get even that much.
The plan was intended to keep the human-spaceflight program alive while also preserving jobs in key NASA states such as Alabama, Florida, Texas and Utah. It called for using hardware from the shuttle and the Constellation moon-rocket program, which was canceled last year by Congress and the White House after the agency had spent nearly $12 billion on a technically controversial rocket and capsule.
The new plan had been greeted skeptically by some former astronauts and space experts, because the new projects would get even less money than Constellation's rocket ships, which were over budget and years behind schedule. Still, Nelson predicted success.
If NASA couldn't build a rocket on the budget it was given, he said last year, "we ought to question whether we can build a rocket."
The White House originally wanted to develop a new rocket more slowly while relying on commercial space companies to fly astronauts to the space station on fixed-price contracts. The move was fiercely resisted by NASA backers in Congress. It took almost two years to work out the compromise legislation Obama signed that finally canceled Constellation, which was begun under the Bush administration.
Even now — thanks to a provision inserted into a 2010 spending bill — NASA is prohibited from fully shutting down Constellation until at least March.
The new law all but orders NASA to build its new rocket with shuttle and Constellation pieces, including solid rocket boosters currently used on the space shuttle.
That's a boon to Alliant Techsystems (ATK), which makes the boosters, and to Utah lawmakers who want to preserve ATK jobs in their state. ATK and other Constellation contractors insisted that continuing their contracts would keep development costs down.
In its report, NASA said it could combine the shuttle's 15-story fuel tank and four of the shuttle's main engines to build a liquid-fueled first stage that would be augmented by two solid rocket boosters like those on the shuttle, only taller. A liquid-fueled second stage would support a crew capsule similar to the Orion capsule designed for Constellation.
But the agency concluded that this design was unaffordable and promised a report on alternatives by spring.
That would give the agency time to study options including potential partnerships with Defense Department space programs or other rocket designs. In November, NASA asked ATK and a dozen other companies to develop proposals for a new heavy-lift-rocket system.
"In this context, we are still reviewing overall affordability for the longer-term, and alternative design analysis continues to be part of our strategy," the report said.
NASA's push-back earned praise for the agency in some circles.
"I think NASA should be applauded for being honest instead of telling Congress of what it wants to hear," said John Logsdon, a space expert at George Washington University.
And some expect the prospect of the delay will encourage commercial-rocket builders — such as the upstart SpaceX, which recently launched a cargo capsule into orbit — to demand they be allowed to do the job for less. But that prospect is fiercely opposed by many members of Congress.
NASA "Hey guys we can't make a heavy lift rocket in 4 years with 11 billion dollars using shuttle and Constellation parts. It's impossible. You need to drop some requirements."
Congress "YOU HAS TO, ITS the LAWL!"
Me "Damn it all to hell Congress..."
There is some good news though, the tribune here is running a poll on whether NASA should get more time or money or both to do the job.
The options are
Yes. It's unreasonable to expect fast, quality work from NASA when its budget keeps shrinking. (244 responses) at 49%
Yes. It's unreasonable to expect fast, quality work from NASA when its budget keeps shrinking. (244 responses) at 31%
Maybe -- If NASA can come up with a viable plan that lays out its exact expenses and time frame for building the rocket. (97 responses) at 20%
So while 20% support is conditional, altogether 69% of responders believe NASA should be given the resources it needs to do the job. This certainly does suggest that the news reading public at least is on average smarter then Congress...
I'm gonna go hit something now.
