Election may impact NASA's future

CAPE CANAVERAL -- Amid an election year that will put new leaders into the White House, many are questioning the direction of the nation's space program.

The discovery of a serious vibration problem with NASA's Ares 1 moon rocket is causing consternation among some in the aerospace industry.

Some are campaigning for a switch to an alternative derived from the Atlas 5 and Delta 4 rockets developed under the Air Force's Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program.

Others are re-examining the moon-bound course President Bush and Congress put NASA on after the 2003 Columbia accident.

The timing of these issues is not coincidental.

"My own opinion is the time is right for this kind of questioning to happen before the new administration takes office," said Scott Hubbard, former director of NASA's robotic Mars exploration program and a member of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. "I started thinking last year, 'Gee, I wonder what will happen when the administration changes,' " Hubbard said. "Many of us want to make sure we take a critical look at where we're going."

The U.S. space program was put on its current path after Columbia accident investigators raised concerns about a lack of a national mandate for the future of NASA's exploration program.

"The U.S. civilian space effort has moved forward for more than 30 years without a guiding vision, and none seems imminent," the investigators said in their August 2003 report.

Four months later, Bush laid one out. He told NASA to finish the International Space Station and retire the aging shuttle fleet by 2010.

He called for a new spaceship that could ferry astronauts to the station, but its main job would be flying missions beyond Earth's orbit.

And he directed NASA to return astronauts to the moon by 2020 — "the launching point for missions beyond," a proving ground for voyages to the asteroids, Mars or other celestial destinations.

Lawmakers' take

Congress staged a lengthy debate, discussing the "Vision For Space Exploration" and its own ideas about the path NASA should follow.

After 23 months of discourse, Congress passed the 2005 Authorization Act for NASA, legislation that affirmed the "vision."

"It's the best authorization act we've had in 40 some years," NASA Administrator Mike Griffin told FLORIDA TODAY.

"It was hugely bipartisan, and they took almost two years to do it. And I think that is great," he said. "Everybody who wanted a say, had a say."

In this election year, though, NASA is facing questions about the Ares 1 development program and a "thrust oscillation" problem that could shake the rocket severely enough to injure astronauts.

NASA is downplaying the problem, but some are urging the agency to abandon the Alliant Techsystems rocket in favor of derivatives of the United Launch Alliance Atlas 5 or Delta 4 rockets.

"It's just noise. It's people who would like to sell Atlas 5 trying to use methods outside the market. They are trying to use political methods to get people to buy their product instead of another product," Griffin said.

"This is not an argument between NASA and anyone else. This is an argument between a losing contractor and a winning contractor by a losing contractor that (thinks) the winner should be overturned," he said. "Sorry."

The Atlas 5 and Delta 4 rockets would be capable of launching NASA's Orion spacecraft to the station. But Griffin said NASA assessments show it would cost less to develop and operate the Ares 1.

Moreover, Griffin said, neither the Atlas 5 nor the Delta 4 rockets are well-suited for moon missions

In a statement, United Launch Alliance said the company fully supports NASA's moon program, "including the Ares launch vehicle element that is critical to its success."

"ULA has every confidence in the objectivity and credibility of the process used by NASA to optimize the Constellation architecture, weighing program objectives of performance, reliability and cost," the statement said.

Pushing forward

The inevitability of new residents in the White House next January prompted leading space scientists, engineers and astronauts to gather this month to re-examine Bush's plan.

Hosted by Hubbard at Stanford University, the invitation-only workshop was held behind closed doors, fueling speculation that the group would develop and back a different roadmap.

But the group surprised many by reaffirming NASA's current course, saying it is time the nation again ventured beyond Earth orbit. The next president should give NASA another $3 billion a year to accelerate human space exploration while maintaining robust science and aeronautics programs, the group said. Their biggest fear is that NASA's plans for a lunar outpost might slow progress toward Mars missions.

"Mars is a much more interesting place scientifically and is the ultimate target," Hubbard said.

Nominated for the NASA administrator job by Bush in March 2005, Griffin led the development of the agency's moon-Mars strategy.

'Altruistic policy'

It's unclear whether he will remain in the post after the presidential inauguration in January, but Griffin doesn't expect major changes in direction.

"People need to remember that in the post-Columbia time frame, the Bush administration — whatever anyone thinks of them — executed an altruistic policy. They took the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, which specifically noted that our goals for space exploration needed to go beyond flying people back and forth to the space station," Griffin said.

"The administration responded and put forth a set of goals: finish the station, sustain human presence on the moon and prepare the way for Mars. That's what they said 'go do,' basically, in a bumper-sticker version," he said.

Congress debated the matter fully, Griffin said, and passed the 2005 authorization.

"Everybody needed to have their say. They did," he said. "We can't change our minds every three years and get anything done."