— Donald

I too am encouraged about SOFIA (as it is properly spelled), though the issue is that SOFIA has been 90% complete for quite a while. The question is whether cost and schedule even remain realistic, and partly whether the science justification remains strong. A difficult issue with SOFIA that should not be ignored is that ops costs are essentially the same as development costs. Unlike space missions, in which the cost curve drops sharply after launch, SOFIA will keep costing a lot.

Get science out of NASA? Well, sure, that would clear the way for footprints in dirt. But seriously, are you suggesting that as a way of doing better science, or just as a way of disposing of science? If the former, then it certainly isn’t obvious to me that it would work, even if you tranferred the science portion of the NASA budget over to those other agencies.

1) Mary Cleave actually handled herself very well and came off as prepared. I just do not see where Doug and David are coming from. She’s in a very tough position to be sure, one I would not want to be in right now. She knew it was obvious that she as going to be taking a beating going into this,

2) I am encouraged personally that so many reps were behind the completion of Sophia. I have to agree with the sentiments of one of the reps in that it just makes no sense when we are looking at cancelling a project that 90% complete. Yes, as Dr. Cleave has stated it is close to 50% over budget, but it only needs about $100 to finish and we as a country need to show our international partners that we can complete a cooperative program with them.

3) It is also obvious as others have stated that what is happening here is a pitting of the human side of NASA vurses the science side of NASA. As was pointed out by the several on the panel, what is really at stake here is the long term problem in what is NASA’s priority. Last year they slashed aeronautics for manned endeavors, this year science. What is left next year?

The more I listen to this the more I am convinced that a conversation needs to start that science be removed from NASA. The way I see it, earth (budget $1.5B) and sun(budget $680M) science can easily goto NOAA. They already have GOES and a case can be made very easily that but earth and helio science can fall under this charter. It may even be worthwhile to move all of Goddard to NOAA.

As for astrophysics (budget $1.5B) and planetary science (budget $1.6), these are more difficult. There are two alternative choices I see here, either moving them under the NSF or put into a seperate agency similar to the Department of Energy to coordinate their research. I personally like the NSF route as it the NSF already has a budget in 2003 of $3.5B that includes funding four FFRDC with missions based in astronomy. Adding JPL and possibly Langely to that list would fit their charter nicely. The DoE route is also attractive too but I have yet to put enough of my thoughts together to write on that yet.

I would argue that space science and exploration should have higher priorities than other sciences, however, it points out the disingenuousness of planetary scientists who state that human exploration is “too expensive” while automated space science is justified on its results. Their are many scientists who would question why their laboratory budgets are being cut while we’re “wasting” $30 million completing an asteroid mission. When we’ve got AIDS and Bird Flu and “people starving in Africa,” who gives a damn about asteroids (or Saturn or Mars), anyway.

Recall that SpaceDev (in which I own stock) started out proposing a commercial Near Earth Asteroid science mission. The model was to build the spacecraft as a utility and market resources to experimenters. It went nowhere, presumably because no one out there was willing to cough up the money their experiments really cost.

Maybe it’s time to revisit this idea, especially with a nearly completed spacecraft. Split the remaining cost between the institutions that have experiments on the spacecraft and find out just how much people really want to fly these experiments.

— Donald

Affirmative action hires in mgmt. positions are another of NASA’s diverse problems.

But the essence of being a good NASA head is to allocate limited funds wisely and to tell the truth if demands are unrealistic.

Griffin is doing neither, so why feel sorry for him?

You can’t please anyone all of the time, but science decisions made without formal consultation with the science community (yep, that’s what happens when you remove all the science advisory committees) is a slap in the face, and kind of dumb.

I pity Mike Griffin. He’s between a rock and a hard place. He’s been told to go to the Moon by 2018, told to keep shuttle and station longer than he wants to, and told to make do with a budget that he KNOWS is insufficient. He does not have what he wants by a long shot.

And yes, Cleave was a sacrificial lamb, but I’ve never seen such a lamb basically shoot itself in the head. She was awesomely unprepared for that hearing.

Dr. Mickey Griffin’s mouse club wants to use a modernized J-2 engine for their “new” second stage.

J-2 engine — what Saturn used. They might as well also build some Saturn V first stages.

NASA Internal Charts: ESAS Update: Accelerating Lunar Missions aka “Lunar Sooner”

STATUS REPORT
Date Released: Monday, February 27, 2006
Source: NASA HQ

…

# New accelerated approach:

* CLV: 5 segment RSRM / 1 J-2X upperstage.
* CaLV: 5 segment RSRM / 5 SSME core stage / 1 J-2X EDS stage.
* Requires development of a single upperstage engine, a single low cost SSME derivative for the CaLV core stage and a single solid rocket booster stage.
* As documented in ESAS, this concept achieves similar loss of mission / loss of crew estimates to that of the 4 segment /1 SSME concept.
Definitions for the J-2 engines:
o J-2: original LOx/H2 engine used on the Saturn V 2nd and 3rd stages
o J-2S: simplified J-2 developed as a replacement engine for the J-2 at the end of the Apollo Program
o J-2X: Nomenclature for modern day replacement for the J-2/J-2S

Summary Advantages of Accelerated Approach

Reduces overall risk to the Constellation program.

* Addressing critical systems sooner.
* Eliminates the top two ESAS identified risks (LOx/Methane propulsion and SSME air start) and addresses another risk earlier (J-2 development).

Lower overall Constellation costs to 1st human lunar landing

* Reduced post-2010 funding ramp-up.

Lower overall integrated risk to a 1st human lunar landing.

* Lower overall development risk for CEV: use current propulsion technology and eliminate dedicated unpressurized cargo delivery vehicle.
o Single upperstage engine development (J-2X).
+ More robust upperstage engine cycle for altitude start / capable of restart – proven in Saturn.
o Single solid rocket booster development (5 segment RSRM).
o Single core engine development (expendable SSME).

* More ‘balanced’ engine production rate requirement between J-2X and SSME.

Maintains safety and reliability projections with significant reliability growth with evolution from proven systems.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19768