Space

With the first test flight of a new NASA rocket just days away, a White House panel questioned its utility while singing the praises of commercial alternatives.

The panel, which reviewed NASA's human space flight plans at the White House's request, released its final report (pdf) on Thursday.

There were few surprises in the report itself, which offers the same five options for NASA's future that appeared in its summary report in September, including the so-called flexible path that would see astronauts visit asteroids and orbit Mars. (View a gallery illustrating the options.)

But in comments to the press on Thursday, panel chair Norman Augustine, former CEO of the aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, offered his sharpest criticism yet of the Ares I rocket that NASA is developing to replace the space shuttle, and came out in clear support of commercial alternatives.

Too late

Though Augustine said the rocket's technical problems were solvable, he said its first crewed flights would come too late to be much help in servicing the International Space Station (ISS).

"The issue that comes up under Ares I is whether the programme is useful," he said.

The rocket is set to make its first test flight on 27 October. But the committee believes the rocket will not be ready to loft crew to orbit until 2017, two years after the ISS is scheduled to be abandoned and hurled into the Pacific Ocean, Augustine said. Extending use of the space station to 2020 would not make much difference, since this would eat up funds available for Ares I and delay its first flight to 2018 or 2019, added committee member Edward Crawley of MIT.

Commercial rockets

Commercial launch vehicles could ferry crew to the ISS instead, Augustine said. "We think NASA would be better served to spend its money and its ability, which is immense, focusing on going beyond low-Earth orbit rather than running a trucking service to low-Earth orbit," he said.

United Launch Alliance's Atlas V and SpaceX's Falcon 9 are among the rockets that have been put forward by companies to perform this service.

Augustine also argued for making the NASA administrator more like the CEO of a company, with more authority to shift money around within the organisation as well as to transfer, cut, or add jobs at the various NASA centres around the country.

This would allow NASA to allocate funds more efficiently, he said. "You can either spend your money on fixed costs and overhead or you can spend them doing exciting exploration," he said.

Extra money

Now that the committee has submitted its final report, the White House must decide what it wants to do with NASA. The options that allow for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit require at least $3 billion more per year for NASA, according to the committee. Any such increase would have to be approved by Congress.

The White House has not said when it will decide on a path for NASA. White House spokesman Nick Shapiro issued a statement on Thursday calling the report "a thoughtful and comprehensive review ... against a backdrop of serious challenges with the existing program".

President Obama is committed to "ensuring that the nation is on a vigorous and sustainable path to achieving our boldest aspirations in space", the statement says, adding that the report will be reviewed and "ultimately the President will be making the final decisions".

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.