[ad_1]
The 2019 budget proposal calls for a confrontation with Congress following NASA funding. The proposal calls for cuts in funding for the International Space Station, but some lawmakers disagree and want to continue funding the ISS.
In a recent report, NASA's Office of the Inspector General said that the agency would not be able to continue to fund the ISS and carry out missions outside the low Earth orbit without significant funding. most important. The agency has spent more than $ 75 billion on the ISS, which has always occupied occupants since 2000 and was not completed in 2011.
The reductions would also include space shuttle flights for construction and replenishment purposes.
NASA is allowed to continue funding the ISS until October 1, 2024, at an estimated annual cost of $ 3 billion to $ 4 billion, or half of the manned space budget. Despite the budget request for 2019, Sens Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) Have introduced legislation to extend this funding until 2030, arguing that it is a unique resource that the NASA can not afford to lose.
But NASA's Inspector General, Paul Martin, said the priority was to disagree with the administration's stated goal of returning to the moon and preparing for a Mars mission.
"The decision to continue operating the International Space Station until 2028 or even beyond, as proposed by current legislation, would remove the date at which NASA could realistically send crews well beyond from the 2030s and 2040s. People had hoped that we could see the first orbit of at least March, "Martin said on Agency in brief: NASA. "It's just going to kick in because half of NASA's exploration budget will be spent on ISS maintenance."
But, he said, the ISS offers a unique research opportunity to test deep space exploration technologies and study the risks to human health related to space travel.
"The station's microgravity environment provides a great place to conduct this kind of research, which is essential for man to safely explore the space beyond his current low Earth orbit," Martin said. . Federal Drive with Tom Temin.
For example, NASA uses the ISS to test new survival systems, a new space suit and ways to grow food in space. A potential Mars mission will not need nearly two years of food.
Although some health problems can not even be prepared on the ISS.
"When you're in a station, you can look down – you're 26 miles away – you can still see the Earth," said Martin. "When you go on a nine-month round trip to Mars, you've been in a very small capsule for at least nine months. And you have all these physical problems, things we've all heard about: radiation exposure, eye problems, balance deficiencies, immune system changes due to prolonged lack of seriousness. But you also have the important interpersonal and psychological concerns of a trip. "
Martin said that when the BIG auditors interviewed the four-time astronaut and the former NASA administrator, Charlie Bolden, he stated that his main concern with deep space exploration was problems psychological potential.
What happens if NASA stops funding the ISS?
The Trump administration wants it to be privatized and that NASA becomes a customer of the ISS rather than its owner. But we do not know who would take him back. Cost is the biggest hurdle: a $ 1.2 billion project to operate in 2024, ignoring replenishment launches.
It is also unclear what privatization would look like. Would the industry install new private modules? Would they be launching a new platform? The ISS is about 20 years old and although functional, it requires more maintenance as it ages.
Of course, Congress could still decide to increase funding for NASA to cover both the ISS and future missions. But that would be a huge increase, and Martin said it was unlikely to happen.
"The objective of our audit is that in the absence of a major and extraordinary shock in NASA's budget, this is the reality," he said.
The audit also highlighted, among other issues, the problems of NASA's scientific portfolio. Cost, schedule and performance are major concerns for the $ 5.3 billion annual science portfolio covering research in astrophysics, earth sciences, heliophysics and planetary sciences.
"It's about choosing the right assignments at the right time and developing realistic budgets and schedules while respecting those budgets and schedules," said Martin. "NASA's project management has gone through a series of challenges throughout its history. It's a very ambitious agency, but we, and others, have warned against excessive optimism. "
This kind of optimism can lead to unrealistic schedules and budgets. The James Webb telescope is a great example, said Martin. According to initial estimates, it would have cost between $ 1 and $ 3.5 billion between 2007 and 2011. It has already cost $ 8 billion and should reach $ 9.6 billion before 2021, the most recent launch date.
This is due in large part to technical complexity and human error, Martin said. But the question is: if Congress had known the actual cost and timing at the time of the initial authorization, would they still have?
"If you make a $ 9 billion James Webb, you probably will not realize 5 or 6 other very important projects," said Martin.
And that same dilemma is now emerging around the ISS.
Source link
