[ad_1]
When the Hubble Space Telescope mechanics were meticulous 25 years ago, NASA scientists did not have to worry: they sent astronauts aboard a space shuttle to maintain this revolutionary observatory. .
Ten or fifteen years ago, crews regularly scheduled shuttles for the International Space Station to conduct research, learn about life in space, and build and repair the in-orbit laboratory. they shared with their international partners.
But NASA is quite different today than it was at the time, faced with a new reality made difficult by a series of unfortunate events earlier this month that have left the Hubble in the dark, a long-awaited journey on the modern moon mired in questions and an American astronaut failed a Russian spacecraft took a terrifying fall across the sky.
The incidents may seem unrelated, but experts say they could go back to the early 2000s, as the end of the space shuttle program approached and the agency began trying to do too much with too little.
"The sudden purpose of the shuttle program is what leads to that, but the root cause of this problem is the lack of money to do everything we wanted," said Herb Baker, a former director of NASA who retired last year after 42 years. .
Read more: NASA is working on repairing the Hubble Space Telescope
The decision to end the shuttle program was made in 2004 when the administration of President George W. Bush turned more towards the borders beyond the Earth's orbit. But with too few pieces to divide among its many projects and a lack of political leadership, the agency responsible for history was forced to change course almost every four years, as the political winds change.
"NASA's budget and policy seem to be based on Twitter," said Keith Cowing, editor-in-chief of NASA Watch, a website devoted to information about space. "It's like," How can I suggest something in 280 characters? We can not think long term. We can not think of multi-administrations. "
This leaves space agency leaders wondering what will happen after the 2020 elections. President Donald Trump has tried to strengthen human exploration – with an eye on the moon and then on Mars – but what is happening will pass if he is not re-elected is to guess.
Fluctuations in policies "can be difficult to manage," Houston Chronicle Mark Geyer, director of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, told reporters. "This can cause fluctuations in the space program and it's difficult if you try to move the country forward. But it's life, so we need to develop strategies to make it happen.
Change priorities
Bush's decision to end the shuttle program followed the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia crew in 2003 when the spacecraft disintegrated in northeastern Texas and Louisiana while he was returning to the earth's atmosphere.
The gargantuan shuttles are perfect for transporting low Earth orbit modules for the construction of the space station, but this work will be completed in 2010, he said in a 2004 speech at headquarters. from NASA in Washington, DC. rendered useless.
It was time, said Bush, to explore again.
"In the last 30 years, no human has walked into another world or ventured farther into space than 386 miles, roughly the distance from Washington DC to Boston, Massachusetts." Bush said. "America has not developed a new vehicle to advance human exploration in space for nearly a quarter of a century. It is time for the United States to take the measures that it imposes. "
More: NASA launch in Orion may be delayed by new issues with rocket
The Constellation Bush program has called on NASA to develop a new spacecraft, named Orion, ready to host a crewed mission by 2014. This vehicle would take astronauts to the space station after the end. of the shuttle program, but also "Beyond our orbit to other worlds", he said.
By 2015, humans will perform long missions on the moon, he said, and then on the red planet.
"It was too expensive to continue using the shuttle, to spend the money and to have the people we needed to get Constellation or Orion moving," said Baker.
After three decades of flying, stopping the shuttle program was the right decision, said Charles Bolden, director of NASA from 2009 to 2017, in a 2015 editorial published in wired, an online news publication.
"It was the recommendation of the board of inquiry that was investigating the loss of the space shuttle Columbia and many people in the space community, including myself, had approved it," he wrote. "But it was not meant to be the final decision."
The Bush edict was well received, Cowing said, and NASA continued to buzz.
"It was a little unbelievable. I did not think I would live to see it, "Cowing said. "Everyone had an idea and Congress passed it."
But Bush's second term ended. And everything has changed.
Read more: US and Russian astronauts safe after emergency landing of Soyuz probe
President Barack Obama abolished the Constellation program in 2010, a year before the last flight of the shuttle, claiming that it was too expensive and inefficient. Instead, it has chosen to fund the construction of NASA's most powerful rocket, the Space Launch System, to send a crewed Orion spacecraft to an asteroid by 2025 and near Mars by the 2030s.
The decision stunned NASA staff, who had already spent five years and about $ 9 billion on Constellation. Bolden likened the move to "a death in the family," according to Space.com.
"Everyone needs to understand that and we need to give them time to mourn and then we need to give them time to recover," Bolden told reporters at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.
When the last space shuttle landed on Earth in July 2011, NASA found itself without assistance.
However, a commercial crew program was underway in which companies would be funded to build vehicles to send American astronauts to the space station. In the meantime, NASA would count on the Russians at a cost of $ 82 million per astronaut per trip.
"Human spaceflight has always been assumed to be temporary because we have made the necessary transition to a new generation of spacecraft, operated by US commercial carriers," wrote Bolden in 2015. "Similarly, by paying space on Russian spacecraft to send our astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) has always been designed to be a palliative. "
The economic benefits of using private companies would be enormous. In 2015, Bolden said that sending astronauts in commercial vehicles would cost only $ 58 million per seat, significantly less than the amount paid to the Russians.
Now, however, NASA has a new directive – again. Trump asked the space agency to return to the moon as a springboard for Mars and build a mini space station orbiting the moon so that the country can return to the lunar surface in a sustainable manner.
Seven years after landing the last shuttle, a private company is still striving to complete a commercial crew program. And the United States still has no way to engage its own astronauts in space, even when the Hubble telescope is out of order.
Inadequate financing
Three years after President John F. Kennedy visited Rice University in Houston in 1962 and declared the moon the country's next big adventure, NASA was awarded $ 5.2 billion, or 5 billion dollars. % of the federal budget, according to the National Park Service.
That would be about $ 41.7 billion in today's dollars.
"We will never have Apollo funding again," said James Oberg, a former NASA engineer who worked for 20 years in control of the Johnson Space Center mission in Houston. "It was naive of us to think [JFK’s speech] was a sign of a new era of funding when he really intended to demonstrate America's superiority over the world. It was not going to continue at this level.
Read more: NASA turns 60
By comparison, Trump has proposed $ 19.9 billion to NASA for the current fiscal year, starting October 1, about 0.5% of the federal budget. Trumped has signed a resolution that runs until December 7 because Congress has failed to pass a budget for NASA and several other agencies on time.
Still, NASA has been trying to do more and more with limited funds. He has launched countless satellites and telescopes; the rovers went to Mars and the probes went to Jupiter; he continued to send humans into a low Earth orbit where the space station flies; and tried to develop new vehicles to bring humans even deeper into space.
The money, however, can only go so far. And this led the United States to the difficult situation in which they were in the 2000s, as they tried to manage three major programs at the same time.
The country was pouring money into the space station for development and human habitation, carrying out regular space shuttle flights and trying to build its next leading spacecraft.
"We just tried to do too much with not enough money," Baker said.
Something, he said, had to yield, and that was the shuttle program.
"We could have said," Hey, forget Constellation, Orion and SLS, "but that would not have been a good thing," he said. "At one point we had to switch to a new generation spacecraft."
Unfortunately, the construction of a new spacecraft costs much more than expected. Since the beginning of the year, NASA has spent $ 11.9 billion on the SLS rocket alone. The entire Apollo project, which included missions from 1966 to 1972, cost $ 24 billion, the National Parks Service announced.
That would be about $ 145 billion today.
Look to the front
As the fiftieth anniversary of the moon landing is only nine months away, the United States may not be able to bring astronauts into space during this holiday season.
And this problem is strongly felt at the end of 2018.
Hubble – recognized for altering the understanding of the solar system by humans and the way it has formed during its nearly three decades orbiting the Earth – is still extinct after the failure of the One of its six gyroscopes, limiting the ability of telescopes to point accurately for long periods. The telescope needs three gyroscopes to be fully operational, but three have failed and one has problems.
In the past, NASA reportedly sent a space shuttle to service the Hubble; they did it five times between 1993 and 2009. But without the shuttle, the options of the agency are limited.
Cowing thinks Orion could be equipped for a maintenance mission at Hubble, but it should first take off. The launch of Orion – the spacecraft built to bring humans back to the moon – has been delayed because of the cost and development problems of its rocket.
"Poor Orion," said Cowing. "There is nothing wrong with Orion, it just has the misfortune of being able to be used only on a big rocket that will never fly."
The first unmanned Orion mission was originally scheduled to take place in 2017. This schedule had already been postponed until mid-2020, but a recent report by NASA's Office of the Inspector General concluded that this date was no longer feasible. NASA does not agree with this assessment.
This will likely have an impact on the crewed Orion mission around the moon, which was due to end by 2023 at the latest.
Cowing does not think humans can board a spacecraft attached to the SLS rocket, although it can potentially carry cargoes into space.
"Will it be launched? That does not seem to be a bad rocket, "Cowing said.
Read more: NASA astronaut Nick Hague ready to take over the plane after aborted launch of Soyuz
The commercial sector, meanwhile, builds rockets for much less. Since 2014, Boeing and SpaceX have been building spacecraft to transport American astronauts to the space station, although both companies have delayed the launch of their first crew test flights scheduled for this year.
This brings NASA to its current problem. The United States has already spent over a billion dollars to pay for the transportation of its astronauts to the space station, but a rocket booster abort on the Russian Soyuz satellite on 11 October forced the launch launch. Astronaut Nick Hague was on board, but was not injured. The Russians are now investigating.
It would not be a problem, however, if NASA could transport its own astronauts to the space station or rely on a private company. These options will take time.
Cowing said it was time for the commercial sector to "scale up".
The private sector "is just writing checks and doing things that NASA would love to do but could not do," he added. "I think we'll start seeing planetary missions at some point, not government, because someone with money wants to do it. Unfortunately, NASA will not accept this willingly. "
Alex Stuckey writes about NASA and the environment for the Houston Chronicle. You can reach her at [email protected] or Twitter.com/alexdstuckey.
[ad_2]
Source link
