Picking the option that extends the shuttle program for several years, but also includes a “flexible path” exploration approach, might be the best fit for the nation’s needs. (credit: NASA/KSC)

Human space flight: in praise of (a modified) Option 4B

by Edward Ellegood
Monday, September 21, 2009

The Review of US Human Space Flight Plans Committee has submitted a summary version of its report to the White House, listing options for NASA’s future human spaceflight program. I hope President Obama recognizes the opportunity he has been given to—as the Committee puts it—“chart a path for human expansion into the solar system.” Talk about a legacy!

With the report as his guide, Obama can also make some relatively easy decisions that would save tens of thousands of high-value jobs nationwide, advance US leadership in several strategic areas of research and technology development, re-establish space as a stimulus for math and science education, open new commercial space markets, and keep some key campaign promises in an important electoral swing state.

Unfortunately, the path ahead isn’t very clear. The Committee offered no official recommendations, only five options (eight when including their variants, compared here) mixed with some hard-to-avoid conclusions about how badly we’ve gone astray with the current Constellation program. Here are some of the Committee’s findings:

• NASA cannot retire the Space Shuttle in 2010 while safely completing its remaining missions.
• It would be a huge waste of money and opportunity to end NASA’s support for the International Space Station in 2015.
• NASA has cannibalized key exploration R&D programs to pay for its Constellation vehicles.
• Exploration beyond low Earth orbit won’t happen at NASA’s current budget levels.
• Opportunities to leverage commercial and international capabilities have not been adequately pursued as part of the Constellation plan.

The President will be compelled to address each of these issues as he reviews the options, and Florida could be a major beneficiary of his decisions. So which option is best for our state? If we base our preference on meeting Florida’s goals of minimizing the human spaceflight and heavy-lift rocket gaps, promoting commercial involvement, keeping the Space Station operational until at least 2020, and enabling near-term exploration beyond low Earth orbit (LEO), I think the best of the bunch is Option 4B.

Like some of the others, Option 4B keeps the Space Station going through 2020, uses commercial rockets to launch cargo and crew to space, and brings humans back to the Moon by the mid-2020s. Unlike the others, 4B extends the Space Shuttle to 2015 and debuts a new “Shuttle-derived” vehicle before 2020, shrinking the human spaceflight gap to 1–2 years and the heavy-lift rocket gap to 0–5 years.

But wait, there’s more! Based on an initial review, it appears feasible to swap the Moon destination in Option 4B with the “flexible path” destinations (asteroids, etc.) described in Option 5. This would accelerate our exploration beyond LEO by five years or more. Call it Option 4C.

It’s important to note that the options compared here are from the Committee’s incomplete “summary report,” and they’re subject to changes that might be included in their final report. Unless these changes are significant, I think President Obama has an opportunity here to do the right thing for both Florida and the nation.

Edward Ellegood is a Space Policy Analyst at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. He edits the FLORIDA SPACErePORT.

Home