Sunday, October 11, 2015

‘Are We Really Going to Mars?’: House Subcommittee Discusses Space Exploration

Doug Cooke (left) and Dan Dumbacher (right) testifying before the House Subcommittee on Space on Oct. 9. Photo Credit: House.gov

With the Hollywood blockbuster movie “The Martian” being screened in theaters, the discovery of liquid water on Martian surface and NASA releasing its plan outlining future mission to Mars, the Red Planet is back in the spotlight. Pondering the possibilities of sending a manned expedition to Mars, the House Subcommittee on Space held a hearing on Friday, Oct. 9, to ask questions about the details of this future long-term program.

The representatives were mainly concerned about the budget, schedule, or deadlines of the “NASA’s Journey to Mars: Pioneering Next Steps in Space Exploration” report released by the agency on Thursday, Oct. 8. The GOP lawmakers point out that the plan is lacking detailed cost information, is too vague and ambiguous.

“I want to comment on the recent handout that we have all seen by the administration called NASA’s Journey to Mars. This proposal contains no budget; it contains no schedule, no deadlines. This sounds good, but it is actually a journey to nowhere until we have that budget and we have the schedule and we have the deadlines,” said Lamar Smith (R-Texas).

Smith chairs the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which includes the Subcommittee on Space. He also criticized the Obama administration for cutting space funding – including $440 million cut to Mars programs.

“I hope the administration will change its posture and decide in the future that it is actually going to support SLS [Space Launch System] and Orion [spacecraft] and keep them on schedule because their proposals to cut SLS and Orion every single year is not helping us achieve the great goals that most Americans want to achieve in space,” Smith said.

Testifying before the Subcommittee were: Doug Cooke, Owner of Cooke Concepts and Solutions and Former Associate Administrator, Exploration Systems, NASA; and Dan Dumbacher, Professor of Engineering Practice at Purdue University and Former Deputy Associate Administrator, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, NASA.

They tried to answer the questions about budget uncertainties by assuring that financial obstacles won’t stop NASA SLS and Orion programs from continuous significant progress. Dumbacher noted that the agency is dedicated to building all systems as safely as possible, as soon as possible, and as cost efficiently as possible.

“The Space Launch System, its Orion capsule, and their support infrastructure together create the needed foundation for US expansion beyond Earth’s boundaries. Each of the Programs is making significant progress, despite substantial fiscal obstacles. The team is diligently working to build this powerful launch vehicle, and its spacecraft, to reach Mars and eventually, go beyond,” Dumbacher said.

He added that NASA carefully manages the programs at all levels, recognizes the cost constraints, and most importantly assures the future safety of space travelers.

But Brian Babin (R-Texas), the Subcommittee Chairman expressed his worries about the cuts proposed by the Administration. He is concerned that these cuts still have a negative impact on the exploration programs. According to Babin, the annual budget uncertainty that the Administration perpetuates impairs NASA’s ability to manage the program’s efficiently on behalf of the taxpayer.

However, leaving the budget constraints and uncertainties alone, Babin acknowledged that there is actually a great public support for future Mars missions.

“Last week was an amazing time for the space community. A major Hollywood film about the exploration of Mars debuted within days of NASA announcing a significant scientific discovery – liquid water on Mars. The coincidence of these two events garnered the public’s attention, and rightly so. Rarely does popular culture and science align in such a serendipitous fashion,” Babin noted.

“The attention also prompted obvious questions from the public such as ‘How will discovering water on Mars impact future exploration?’, ‘Are we really going to Mars?’, and ‘How and when are we going to get there?’” he added.

Cooke, answering these questions, described them as important ones that specifically address deep space exploration, and the impacts of the President’s budget. He said that the most challenging aspect of management and successful execution of the exploration programs is the impact of constrained budgets and unplanned changes to operating budgets. In contrast, Cooke sees the technical challenges as: “fun in comparison and engineers can solve them”.

“The disparity between the President’s Budget Request and budgets passed by Congress for Exploration vehicles causes problems in managing these programs. It also causes issues in perceptions of program health. To advance these programs Congress has consistently passed budgets each year that are significantly greater than the President’s Budget Request. It has been clear Congress intends to follow through with this necessary funding, yet the Administration continues to ask for less,” Cooke told the lawmakers.

Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, defended the current path that NASA has chosen to send astronauts to Mars and other deep space destinations. She highlighted the role of other non-financial factors that shape the future of space exploration.

“It’s not just a question of more money—it’s giving NASA some predictability as to when that money will actually show up. If this Congress is looking for reasons why NASA’s exploration program faces potential delays, we need look no further than ourselves,” Johnson said.

She added that too many times in recent years, NASA has had no idea when it would actually get an appropriation, whether that appropriation would be for more than a few months, or whether they might even have to suspend their work due to a government shutdown.

“That is no way for America’s premier research and development enterprise and its dedicated workforce to have to operate. If we are going to ask NASA and its contractors to carry out the extremely challenging job of getting America to Mars, this Congress is going to have do its job too,” she concluded.

The Subcommittee on Space has legislative jurisdiction and general oversight and investigative authority on all matters relating to astronautical and aeronautical research and development including: national space policy, including access to space; sub-orbital access and applications; NASA and its contractor and government-operated labs; space commercialization; exploration and use of outer space; international space cooperation and space law.

Friday’s hearing was entitled “Deep Space Exploration: Examining the Impact of the President's Budget”. It’s main purpose was to examine the President’s five-year budget projection for SLS and Orion programs.

NASA announced in August a one year slip of the first Exploration Mission (EM-1), the maiden launch of SLS, from 2017 to 2018. The Subcommittee stated that the announcement was made despite numerous statements from NASA officials to Congress that the program was on schedule and that no additional funding was needed. Last month, NASA made a similar announcement about the Orion, pushing the launch readiness date for EM-2 back two years to no later than 2023 from an original date of 2021.

In the report released by NASA on Oct. 8, the agency outlined the technological and operational challenges in three categories: transportation, sending humans and cargo through space efficiently, safely, and reliably. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden hailed the document, saying that the report is unveiling additional details about mission to Mars and how the agency is aligning all of its work in support of this goal.

“In the coming weeks, I look forward to continuing to discuss the details of our plan with members of Congress, as well as our commercial and our international and partners, many of whom will be attending the International Astronautical Congress next week,” Bolden said.

1 comment:

  1. While I laud the political drive to excite the public and turn that into more sustainable funding, I worry that nowhere in the 36 pages of the report does it say NASA will have a "permanent human colony by 2030," as erroneously reported by a few news sources. An orbit in 2039 and a follow on mission with a 1,100 day surface stay in the 2040's is a much different animal and should be reported as such. Though it is a long headline, it is in fact, NASA's working plan at this moment...one that is completely possible, if only slightly misleading, since colonies take more than 1,100 days to make (especially to 100's of billions). As "The Martian" taught us, settling a place means planting food. Although the intent should be to stay and explore and create tech to help Earth...on purpose and not on accident.

    ReplyDelete