NASA's Human Space Exploration Framework Summary -- Is It 'Affordable?'

NASA's Human Space Exploration Framework Summary -- Is It 'Affordable?'
Mark Whittington Mark Whittington – Fri Jan 14, 5:45 pm ET

Ever since President Barack Obama canceled the Constellation program, NASA has been struggling to come up with a new program that not only incorporates the desires of the President but is aligned with the authorization bill passed by Congress.

In that spirit, NASA has released a new Human Space Exploration Framework summary, a beautiful thing to behold. The summary describes the technical requirements it views as necessary for sending human explorers beyond Low Earth Orbit to a number of destinations, including even the lunar surface. Significantly the included charts imply that landing on the moon is a detour from a straight line process that leads from Low Earth Orbit all the way to Mars. That suggests NASA is still remembering how President Obama distained going back to the moon "because Buzz has already been there," while also acknowledging that the Congress and many of the public have a different idea.

The summary uses the word "affordability" a lot, which is a word that Congress, the White House and the public want to hear. The document also has some verbiage about bringing in other government agencies, other countries, and various private sector entities as partners.

All in all, the latest Human Space Exploration Framework summary is a nice, sensible document that reveals what NASA is currently thinking about exploring the high frontier of space.

There is one principal problem that the HSEF document does not address, which no such document could likely address. That is the question of what constitutes "affordability?"

"Affordability" is an elusive term, with the amount of money involved constantly changing according to the vagaries of the economy and political whim. When Constellation started, then NASA Administrator Mike Griffin presented a plan for exploring the moon, Mars, and beyond that the White House and the Congress agreed was affordable. Then the White House and the Congress changed their minds and provided less money in the following years than they had originally agreed was "affordable."

It is very hard to design a program that meets that kind of moving target. The HSEF plan likely doesn't do that. Indeed, current disagreements between NASA and the Congress over how much the shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle and the Orion space craft will cost gives us a prelude of things to come.

A few months from now, NASA could present its final plan for going beyond LEO, with cost estimates, schedules for technology development, a list of destinations and deadlines, and page after page of supporting documentation and justifications. Congress and the White House are capable of doing a number of bad things.

First, as with Constellation, it can agree with the estimated cost, authorize the program, and then underfund it. This assumes, by the way, that the cost is not being low balled, as has happened in the past, to make it more palatable to the Congress.

Second, Congress can mandate, as it seems to be doing with the SD-HLV and Orion, that the program does not cost X. It really costs X-Y. NASA must deal with it.

Third, Congress could just decide to defer space exploration to the next President, fund some kind of face saving technology program and call it a day.

In the current political and economic climate, with no leadership from the President, agreeing to the program and then properly funding it is very unlikely. Despite calls from some quarters in the Internet that space exploration can be done so much more cheaply "commercially" — whatever that means — any commercial option remains more of a concept than a plan.

So that leaves us with the forlorn hope that the next President will have the wherewithal and the inclination to set things right. In the meantime, more waste, more fraud, and more going nowhere.

Mark R. Whittington is the author of Children of Apollo and The Last Moonwalker. He has written on space subjects for a variety of periodicals, including The Houston Chronicle, The Washington Post, USA Today, the LA Times, and The Weekly Standard.