NASA's human spaceflight program is 'adrift' as budget cuts may doom deal

Orlando Sentinel: NASA's human spaceflight program is 'adrift' as budget cuts may doom deal

CAPE CANAVERAL — Just seven weeks after members of Congress applauded themselves for brokering a grand compromise on the future of NASA, the new law — meant to broadly benefit the aerospace industry and key NASA states — is in deep trouble.

Looming budget cuts are threatening to undermine the whole concept, especially the development of a powerful "heavy lift" rocket by 2017 that one day is supposed to take humans to the moons of Mars.

Officials are questioning whether the rocket, which is supposed to be built using key parts of the space shuttle, can be done on time and for the $11.5 billion that Congress called for — but now is unlikely to give the agency.

Without a new rocket, there is a growing fear in the space community that NASA's human space program might be grounded forever. In response, one of NASA's primary contractors is making a power play to change the terms of the debate.

"The United States' human spaceflight program is adrift," said John Karas, the general manager of Lockheed Martin's human space flight division, in a recent interview.

"Everybody's arguing, debating. We are in this giant storm with no direction, and more than likely we're gonna get hit with more waves of money cuts. So we have to have some future plan here; some future direction — or we're just going to get capsized," he said.

Lockheed Martin is proposing an alternative it says will permit deep-space exploration in affordable stages culminating in a trip to Mars on Feb. 22, 2031. Not surprisingly, it centers on the company's Orion crew capsule, on which NASA already has spent $4.8 billion as part of the now-defunct Constellation moon-rocket program.

The company is proposing to launch a test version of the capsule in 2013 aboard a Delta IV-Heavy, an existing rocket built by an alliance of Lockheed and The Boeing Corp. The company has already agreed to purchase a rocket for the test launch.

The proposal envisions initial unmanned flights as stepping stones to more-ambitious manned missions, such as a visit in 2018 to the Earth-moon "L2" Lagrange point — a place on the far side of the moon where the combined gravity of the Earth and the moon allows a spacecraft to hover over one spot – followed by trips to asteroids and then to Mars by 2031.

Karas insists that these later flights are dependent on NASA developing a "heavy-lift" rocket. But others in the aerospace industry, and the politicians who support them, fear that an initial successful launch could undermine the need for a new rocket — and cost them contracts and jobs.

"I hate to see different entities try to cannibalize the process," said U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R- Utah, a staunch supporter of his state's solid-rocket industry. "There is money to move forward on [a heavy-lift rocket using solid-rocket motors], as well as the capsule, as long as NASA budgets its money wisely and doesn't waste it on wild goose chases."

The debate over NASA's future is expected to take center stage Wednesday when the U.S. Senate commerce committee meets in an attempt to salvage a workable policy out of the NASA compromise plan.

An overriding issue is money, as almost no one thinks NASA will get the full $19 billion requested by the White House in the 2011 budget. The size of the cuts — combined with NASA's propensity to deliver projects late and over budget — could significantly impact NASA's ability to fund any future beyond the space shuttle, which will be retired next year.

With this fiscal environment in mind, Karas argues that Orion is the only NASA project far enough along to fly — and may be the only way to keep the agency's space-faring ambitions alive.

"The reason we decided not to wait for a rocket any more is because we'd be sitting on the ground until 2020 which means we would atrophy …," he said.

Putting Orion on a fast track would certainly help Kennedy Space Center, which is set to lose at least 6,000 more jobs when the space shuttle is retired next year. Orion is supposed to be assembled at KSC, and test launches would ensure more work and would attract tourists to the area.

Watching Lockheed Martin warily are commercial rocket developers, who are working on a separate track to develop spacecraft capable of delivering crew and cargo to the International Space Station after the shuttle's retirement.

Industry officials, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the subject, said they were concerned the Lockheed Martin proposal simply is a front for the aerospace giant to muscle its way into their turf — and not exploration.

For their part, NASA officials say they have not agreed either to let Orion fly on a Delta IV or to support the company's long-range exploration proposals. But internal communications last month — around the time when Lockheed signed the deal to purchase the Delta IV — show that NASA officials were looking at ways to allow the agency to reallocate Orion funds to pay for the test.

Predictably, the proposal has generated divisions between those wanting to see the rocket developed first and those who support flying Orion as soon as possible.

In meetings last week, Bishop told NASA chief Charlie Bolden he was concerned that NASA was dragging its feet transitioning from Constellation to the new heavy-lift program that ensured a role for Utah's solid-rocket motor industry. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch said he called the meeting "to explain in no uncertain terms the Utah congressional delegation's interest in ensuring that Utah's solid-rocket motor industry is protected."

However, other space boosters are backing Lockheed Martin.

"NASA doesn't need super heavy-lift to start exploring. They just need to complete Orion and use existing, proven launchers to send astronauts beyond Earth orbit in about 5 or 6 years," said Jim Muncy, a space consultant and space policy expert. "That allows voters to see some exploration payoffs from their taxes sooner, which is vital to sustainability."

Karas insists he's merely trying to give ideas about what's possible. But he warns that NASA must to something to generate a sense of movement in the manned space program or risk becoming irrelevant.

"If the rocket-first guys win, then it will die — and we will be stuck in Low Earth Orbit for the rest of our lives," Karas said.