comparing VSE to a "many small missions" program

>>From my point of view, some peripheral aspects of the VSE are
potentially positive, such as Shuttle retirement, Centennial
Challenges, commercial ISS resupply, and robotic lunar scout missions,
but the main components seem to have some drawbacks. An alternate
approach to post-shuttle NASA (based on ideas discussed in this
newsgroup) might be to concentrate on many smaller, more achievable,
and immediately relevant missions. For example, assume for comparison
that the VSE takes an average of $8 billion per year starting now to
achieve 2 human moon missions per year starting in 2018. The
alternative to the VSE could:

- Leave the planetary science, astronomy, Earth science, and other NASA
programs not related to Shuttle/ISS as they were before the VSE.
- Split up the VSE's $8 billion per year. For example, allocate $2
billion per year for human spaceflight, and $2 billion per year more to
planetary science, astronomy, and Earth science ($6 billion total).
- Concentrate the new efforts almost exclusively on small spaceflight
missions: science probes, technology demonstrators, and so on. Rely as
much as possible on existing facilities, management structures, and
science analysis capabilties to single-mindedly focus on building and
flying actual missions.
- Use the large number of missions to experiment with varying mission
managment approaches, such as prizes, data purchases, traditional
contracts, and Discovery missions.
- No NASA launchers would be developed. NASA could influence
commercial launchers by offering prizes for demonstrated launcher
improvements.
- On the assumption that not all prizes will be won at all, prize
values (plus overhead costs) could exceed the budgeted amount for a
given year.

For example, a sustained yearly breakdown could be something like the
following, split among the 4 areas (human, planetary, astronomy, and
Earth science missions).

# missions/year cost (millions) # missions/area
----------------------- -------------------- ------------------------
1 1000 1 each 4 years
2 500 1 each 2 years
8 250 2 each year
12 100 3 each year
16 50 4 each year
24 20 6 each year
60 10 15 each year
120 2 30 each year
280 1 70 each year
400 0.4 100 each year
800 0.25 200 each year

The bottom of the scale might consist of missions like current
Centennial Challenges, suborbital flights on launchers that have
already been demonstrated, and similar small missions. If space flight
missions aren't feasible, related projects such as small observatories,
software advances, or sensor technologies could be demonstrated on the
ground along the lines of the current Centennial Challenges. The
middle of the scale might involve missions like the X-Prize, very small
satellites, or piggy-backing sensors or technology demonstrators on
non-NASA missions. The top of the scale could allow missions akin to
Discovery missions, Deep Space 1, ISS resupply, or a series of missions
to a small "man-tended" space station.

To compare this approach to the VSE, I looked at a number of criteria
for evaluating a space program, ignoring the peripheral aspects of the
VSE that would be similar to the small program approach, such as
Centennial Challenges, ISS resupply, and robotic lunar precursors. My
thoughts are that this approach is better than the VSE for all of the
criteria I thought of (listed below). I won't go into a case-by-case
justification. However, I'd be interested in comments or analysis from
others on how this approach compares to the VSE based on any of these
criteria, or others. I'd also be interested in suggestions on how the
VSE could be adjusted to better support any of these criteria:

exploration - visiting new parts of the solar system, or charting parts
of the solar system (or beyond) at better resolutions or in different
ways
science - planetary science, astronomy, geology, geography, atmospheric
science, ocean science, astrobiology, space weather, lunar science,
physics, chemistry, biology, cosmology, etc
access to space - cheap access to space, reliable access to space,
subareas including transporting humans, delicate cargo, bulk cargo,
different payload sizes
support commercial space - does the program help commercial payload
launchers, commercial satellite builders, new space businesses, etc?
space technology development - how much does the program develop better
or cheaper space vehicle components or capabilities - propulsion,
sensors, tethers, guidance systems, thermal control, power beaming,
life support, communication, radiation hardening, etc
support satellite programs in (or used by) non-NASA government agencies
- ie DOD, NOAA, USGS, Agriculture, FEMA, EPA, state and local GIS
users, etc - For example, does the program help lower launch costs for
these agencies? Does it provide economies of scale to allow satellite
builders to provide them cheaper or better products on time? Does it
test space technologies these agencies might want to use in operational
systems?
support existing NASA planetary science, astronomy, Earth science, and
ISS programs - Again, does the program help lower costs or improve
capabilities for these areas?
support education - this includes inspiration to join
math/science/engineering fields, projects for academic departments
(including students) to work on, content for museums, etc
assist in cases of natural distasters - Does the program help forcast
natural disasters (like Katrina, etc)? Does it help in damage
assessment after a disaster? Does it provide services that can help
after a disaster (communications, location services, power, etc)? The
help could be indirect - eg: the program lowers launch or satellite
costs so a new commercial service is deployed and used in a disaster.
support war on terrorism - This is similar to the natural disaster and
other agencies criteria.
engaging the public - How much entertainment value is returned to the
public, including museums, TV shows, classes, launch viewings, air
shows, astromaut talks, books, "prize" races, etc. How much variety is
there? Can the public participate with a mechanism like SETI@HOME?
Are there prizes that groups like the NSS, Planetary Society, Mars
Society, astronomy/rocketry clubs, or academic departments could
reasonably aspire to win?
international cooperation - Does the program provide mutually
beneficial opportunities for international cooperation? Does it
enhance overall international relationships (eg: perhaps more US Earth
observation missions would be viewed favorably in the international
community)?
chance of success - Does the program contain serious technical,
political, or managerial risks?
chance of delay - Does the program contain risks or safety issues that
could cascade into other parts of the program and delay the whole
thing?
chance of cost overrun - Does the program contain risks that can result
in serious cost overruns? How well can cost overruns be managed? How
have similar programs' cost estimates fared in the past?
expected time to results - How long will it take to gain the benefits?
Will they be relevant by that time?
expectations of improvements to program over time - How difficult is it
for the program to improve itself over time (technically and
managerially)? How easy is it to incorporate external improvements
(computer improvements, etc)?
chance of this program harming existing NASA programs - eg: will it sap
funds from existing planetary science, astronomy, Earth science, and
aeronautics programs?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Cost Overruns, Cancelling of Small Missions Have Led to Lost Science Opportunities at NASA (Forwarde
    ... Cancelling of Small Missions Have Led to Lost Science ... WASHINGTON -- NASA's astrophysics program has achieved the agency's ... National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Hypothetical massive spacecraft question
    ... that kind of science. ... and the ability to produce amenable-to-manipulation digital data ... >exploration people always say that robotic missions can do better than ... >human manned missions. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: We choose to go to the moon
    ... Thinking creatively isn't important in science? ... He said "thinking creatively on the surface of Mars". ... the Apollo missions produced greater scientific results than ... scientists don't leave _everything_ to their grad students. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: The destruction of NASA
    ... science results from those machines. ... The rovers have been one of the most successful missions of NASA since ... You could inspect more closely strange "rock" ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Phoenix to land using retros?
    ... VSE, per se? ... White House conflated the vision with the implementation of it. ... Certainly better than space policy up to that ... it's the old story of "let's do cool missions in space (and ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Loading