Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Keeping Up with Human Spaceflight News

Staying informed about news in general has been quite the task lately, and human spaceflight news is no different. Over the past few months two large and important stories jumped out of NASA circles. First, as mentioned in a previous blog post, the Trump administration asked NASA to evaluate placing a crew on the first flight of the Space Launch System (SLS). Earlier this month, that plan was formally ruled out by NASA officials. Second, a relatively detailed definition for a lunar orbiting space station came out of NASA. Although the lunar space station story is from March, it has taken me this long to get a grip on my feelings and thoughts—albeit a loose one. Before I rush to my opinions, let’s cover some background information for both stories.

Before the Trump administration requested NASA to study placing a crew on the first flight of the SLS, the schedule called for Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1) to fly the Orion spacecraft around the Moon without a crew. A second Exploration Mission (EM-2) would fly astronauts around the Moon around 2021 (hopefully). This strategy of an uncrewed EM-1 mission followed by a crewed EM-2 mission still won the approval of NASA managers, thus rejecting the idea proposed by the administration. A crewed EM-1 mission would have increased costs, delayed the launch date, and would have been much riskier. These factors ultimately led NASA to stick with the current crew and mission arrangement.
  

Artist Concept of  SLS Block 1A During Launch (Credit: NASA)

While NASA was tinkering with the idea of adding a crew to the EM-1 mission, details emerged on the agency’s planned lunar orbit (cis-lunar orbit) space station. Construction will begin in the early 2020s with a launch of the SLS carrying the new station’s Power and Propulsion Bus (PPB). Other modules, structures concerned with habitation, will be added to the PPB in later missions. A Russian airlock module will also be added for easier station based spacewalking. Maximizing consumable usage and minimizing waste will be critical design goals for the station, which will prove to be no easy task. Each crewed shift on the lunar outpost will feature a dedicated supply vehicle—NASA still must determine whether the supply ship will be provided by a public or private organization. Although, I would place my bets on a private company providing the supply vehicle.

Overall, the lunar station will provide a platform for dress rehearsal Mars missions and a hub for returning robotic and crewed spacecraft from lunar surface operations. Design flexibilities will also allow Russian and possibly Chinese spacecraft to use the station.


NASA Lunar Space Station Concept (Credit: Popular Mechanics)

Now my opinions.

Leaving the EM-1 mission uncrewed appears to be the best option. Placing a crew on this mission would suffer from serious drawbacks (increased cost, delayed launch, and higher risk). Even with an uptick in funding, the increased risk associated with adding a crew serves no valid purpose without a clear goal in mind. Apollo 8’s trip around the Moon was risky as well, but the risk was taken to increase the likelihood of meeting President Kennedy’s goal. Developing complex hardware like the Orion spacecraft and SLS should be taken in a step-by-step fashion to decrease risk and increase the chances of success towards the end goal. This process can be hastened with adequate funding and human resources, but that is not the case with the American space program right now.

Mixed emotions do not begin to describe my feelings towards the lunar space station concept. Frankly, I am an advocate of virtually any human space exploration that extends beyond low Earth orbit. However, I feel using the lunar station as a means for Mars mission testing or getting to the Red Planet expends more resources and time than a direct path. I would advocate for a path similar to the one outlined in Robert Zubrin’s A Case for Mars. Building and testing habitation, propulsion, and Mars landing hardware in the lunar environment before traveling to Mars could be more efficient. For example, NASA could build and test the Mars mission hardware by long duration Moon landing missions. Eventually, this could lead to an Apollo 10 style dress rehearsal for a Mars landing once NASA officials felt necessary objectives were met.

Another issue I have with the proposed lunar station revolves around Russian involvement. It is no secret tensions between the United States and Russia have been high for many years now, and this tension could derail future joint endeavors. U.S. and Russian officials continue to cooperate on the International Space Station because the project is already completed. I would advise NASA to work with the Europeans, Canadians, and Japanese on future projects to avoid potential issues with Russia stemming from international politics.  

I would love to hear your thoughts on either issue!! And, as always, check out The Space Endeavor’s Facebook page for more space related content!

Sources used: