Later today NASA will hold a press conference to announce its “global exploration strategy and lunar architecture”. What exactly this announcement will entail isn’t known, although the Houston Chronicle reported in today’s edition that NASA has selected a half-dozen justifications for its lunar exploration program, ranging from science to improving international relations. While these reasons “differ significantly” from the Cold War rationale behind NASA’s initial missions to the Moon four decades ago, some of the reasons mentioned in the article sound similar to the justifications previously made for Space Station Freedom and the ISS.
While NASA is taking this step forward in outlining the rationale for the Vision today, there are still many issues with its implementation. In an article this morning, Florida Today reviews concerns about funding shortfalls for the program raised recently by the GAO. Scott Horowitz, NASA’s associate administrator for exploration, said some of those concerns have already been addressed through design changes for the Orion spacecraft and the Ares launch vehicles, although the GAO’s Allen Li said he believes that NASA needs “to complete key design reviews before continuing to commit large amounts of taxpayer money to the project” in an effort to avoid more expensive surprises down the road.
There’s also the concern about what a new administration might do to the program two years down the line. That was mentioned in a talk at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory on Friday afternoon by Robert Farquhar of APL and Joseph Veverka of Cornell, who are working on a study of an alternative exploration architecture for the International Academy of Astronautics. As I noted in an article in this week’s issue of The Space Review, that alternative would bypass the Moon in favor of missions to the Sun-Earth L2 point, near Earth asteroids, and beyond. Farquhar, who sees a human return to the moon as a “cul-de-sac”, said he’s briefed people at NASA Headquarters about the study and they’re interested, since they want to have some alternatives to the current plan in place for whomever is in the Oval Office and the NASA administrator’s office in 2009, should the current exploration architecture fall out of favor.
It’s frustrating that so much focus is going to the moon. I wish we hadn’t gone there in the first place. It’s only a ‘cul-de-sac’ if we allow it. The moon is the easiest stellar object to reach so since we haven’t used any new hardware for interplanetary flight including asteroids in 30 years, it would seem to be the next logical place to test new interplanetary hardware. Why make it more difficult to rescue astronauts than necessary with new untested hardware? (Apollo 13) Aren’t we supposed to be doing things safer & smarter now? How is an asteroid going to better prepare us for Mars or any place? We spend 50% of our energy on politics, 40% on criticizing each other (unconstructive) and 10% on actually doing something.
Really the President doesn’t matter in all this since it’s the parties that control their front man. Remember a judge the president was forced to withdraw because of pressure from his own party not the other side. Now that the Democrats have majority in congress they should run the authorization bill through it again to see if anyone wants to make some changes. Oh wait didn’t that have unanimous approval?
You want to find some wasted money. I seem to remember congress requesting 4 or 5 redesigns to the space station. Does congress think that is cheap? The further along a redesign or even modification to the baseline occurs the higher the cost for that change (engineering 101). Why wait for the next President to make this change the democrats should speak up now or forever hold their peace. And not just speak out against it but actually give an alternative solution. I can just see the democrats suggesting adding wings so it will look cooler. By the way I voted democrat except for the governor which I voted Green party. I didn’t like either the democrat or the republican candidates.
John Malkin: We spend 50% of our energy on politics, 40% on criticizing each other (unconstructive) and 10% on actually doing something. . . . [And,] I seem to remember congress requesting 4 or 5 redesigns to the space station. Does congress [or anyone else] think that is cheap?
I wholeheartedly agree, though I would probably put your percentages closer to ninety percent of our energy bickering with each other over the best plan, five percent politics and five percent actually doing something.
Politics-101: I believe the single greatest threat to the VSE is it getting bogged down in the kind of endless indecision and redesign that swamped the Space Station project, and has destroyed every one of our SSTO efforts so far. While I do not like some elements of Dr. Griffin’s plan, I give him great credit for sticking to it. I wish the wider space community — as reflected in this forum — would give him a little more support in that.
I’m sure that every one of the alternative plans proposed here may be “better” in some element, but not one of them will be executed unless the space community comes together on one plan and executes it. For better or worse, a plan has been chosen and it has a great deal of political momentum behind it. It will achieve a number of our goals — if nowhere near all of them — and minor changes around the edges can make it achieve a lot more.
Abandoning Dr. Griffin’s plan now for something “better” will only renew the bickering over what that “better” plan should be, which will allow supporters of still other plans to enter the frey and perpetuating the indecision, and (even more damaging) dissipate our political momentum.
If you don’t like the current plan, rather than fighting it, a politically far better way to achieve your alternative plan is to support the current one and suggest changes later on. Especially, once astronauts are regularly visiting Earth’s moon — if that happens — that would be a great time to propose a second generation transportation system that would address the faults of the current one. At that time, there would be a reason — a market — to justify developing that better system.
— Donald
I’m not so worried about the politics of this because of the Space Station experience. I look at it this way, if the ISS could be built with its obvious flaws, questionable utility, Rube Goldberg construction and the assumption of a decade of safe shuttle flights, then NASA and its industrial partners should have no problem selling the rational of the VSE, Bush fingerprints and all. I doubt there were many steely-eyed rocket men at Nasa or its primes that believed the ISS could be built on time and on budget as its design matured. Congress had to know too. Yet the beast is in orbit, fully funded. Ares I, CEV and Ares V are a slam dunk in comparison. As for the scientific community, what science is being done on the ISS? Yet they couldn’t stop the ISS when the science baselined into ISS as far back as the 1990’s was thin to begin with.
Now a new president will make changes, republican or democrat and put their name on it. As long as NASA can execute at about 1% of the Fed budget, they will be too insignificant a budget to raise a ruckus. To me, its clear, NASA should win this one. The only way they lose is if they screw up the engineering and waste money on designs that don’t fly.
Two points her Donald
Especially, once astronauts are regularly visiting Earth’s moon — if that happens — that would be a great time to propose a second generation transportation system that would address the faults of the current one.
That is still a huge if. The current plan hasn’t produced much of anything at this point. And, because of both the lack of time, the lack of political will on the part of the administration, and the fact that this is one of the most controversial presidents (if not the worst [yea, I know, there will be more than one who disagrees with me – your wrong, its just that simple]), I still don’t believe VSE will produce lunar visits. As I’ve said before, CEV and CLV (or some rocket that will lift CEV) will get produced, Im sure of that – that still leaves off things like a Lunar Lander, an Earth Departure stage, the lunar spacesuits – forget the lunar base.
At that time, there would be a reason — a market — to justify developing that better system.
The problem here is that if you build a system that is too tightly integrated, something that VSE is suffering from, you can’t really introduce improvements into the system. When problems crop up, or new technology comes along, fixes and improvements are hard, if not impossible, to impliment.
We’ve discussed the launch vehicle before. Lets take another example – on orbit refueling. This is a great technology, for a variety of reasons – anyone who disbelieves me, look around a little bit. Now, the downside of this is, no one has actually demonstrated that it works. But Nasa has said that if and when its demonstrated, it would love to take advantage of it. Fine – Great. Now, most likely, there will be 2 things that take advantage of it – the Earth Departure Stage, and/or the Lunar Lander. However, are the Lunar Lander or EDS being designed with the ability to be refueld in orbit? I don’t know the answer to this, I admit. But I haven’t seen anyone state for certain 1 way or another, and given the history, Im inclinded to think Nasa will NOT design this into their system.
The fundemental point here is, if you build a system that has so many pieces tied together, such that if you pull one piece out they all fail, you end up operating a crappy system long after it makes sense to, because the only option is to start a whole new system, which is increadibly cost prohibative.
Ferris: if you build a system that has so many pieces tied together, such that if you pull one piece out they all fail,
If that’s what Dr. Griffin’s plan was, than I’d probably agree with you. But, one of the advantages of an expendable system is that it’s relatively easy to introduce different elements. To continue your example, need a refuelable lander or Earth Departure Stage? Create second generation vehicles that have that. Need a liquid first stage. Insert it under the stack.
Sure, it would probably be smarter to design all that in from the beginning, but that would also require greater up-front funding. Dr. Griffin’s mandate was (presumably) to avoid up-front costs and keep the Shuttle workforce employed. These political requirements drive the design far more than technical requirements. And, if there is one lesson we should have drawn from the last thirty years, it is that there is not a thing you or I can do to change that.
You and other critics have failed to tell me how you start over with a better design while keeping the current political momentum on line. How do you go to Congress and say, gee, we were wrong all along, we want to do it this way instead, which means writing off all the study money so far, starting from scratch, and spending another n billion dollars before we bend an ounce of metal?
Answer me that, and I might change my tune!
— Donald
For better or worse, a plan has been chosen and it has a great deal of political momentum behind it.
Donald,
If somebody thinks it is “for worse”, then the obvious thing to do is to oppose it.
I think it is for worse. So I oppose it.
It will achieve a number of our goals — if nowhere near all of them — and minor changes around the edges can make it achieve a lot more.
Minor changes around the edges will not make it “affordable”.
Minor changes around the edges will not make it politically sustainable.
Abandoning Dr. Griffin’s plan now for something “better” will only renew the bickering over what that “better” plan should be, which will allow supporters of still other plans to enter the frey and perpetuating the indecision, and (even more damaging) dissipate our political momentum.
Just going along with the Griffin plan, which is guaranteed to be unaffordable, just because it has some short-term political momentum, is not a virtue.
It is insanity.
Don’t blame the space advocacy community for not lining up behind the Griffin plan. If you want to blame somebody, blame Griffin for not listening to the plain common sense of the Aldridge Commission.
If I was working at NASA, and if I was one of the people around Griffin, I would get out now (while the getting is good) before the whole thing crashes.
Nemo2
You and other critics have failed to tell me how you start over with a better design while keeping the current political momentum on line. How do you go to Congress and say, gee, we were wrong all along, we want to do it this way instead, which means writing off all the study money so far, starting from scratch, and spending another n billion dollars before we bend an ounce of metal?
Answer me that, and I might change my tune!
Don,
I already answered you about “how you change the design while protecting the political momentum”, in a separate thread.
BTW, you don’t go to Congress and say “we were wrong”. You go to them and tell them the truth. Something like “We have finally completely the cost assessment. This is how much it will cost. Now that we completed the cost assessment, we don’t think this path makes sense, and we are changing our plans.”
Telling the truth is generally a good rule, and creates trust and credibility. You can try to avoid the truth, but it has a way of coming back to bite you in the behind.
If you are serious about your statement above, that you are willing to consider alternatives, then please respond to my previous proposal.
Thanks,
– Al
I have to say that I, for one, am greatly underwhelmed by NASA’s announcement today. See press release here:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0612/04exploration/
NASA has been working on a “Global Exploration Strategy” for lunar exploration for eight months now. Despite the involvement of 1,000 individuals, including 13 nations as well as NGOs and commercial interests, there are no commitments, or even a hint of progress towards commitments, from these non-NASA entities in the press release. I had hoped to at least hear that the Canadians may be interested in building an arm for a rover, or that the Italians are interested in deploying a habitat module, or that a company is interested in partnering on some ground-based experiments to see if some specific resource could be extracted from simulated regolith or if some propellant could be stored on-orbit for long periods of time, etc., etc. But there’s nothing like that in the release or any of the accompaying press articles and quotes from the NASA officials.
Mike Griffin basically told the world space community that NASA was going to build a highway to the Moon and that NASA was relying on other folks to step up and make use the off-ramps (because our ESAS architecture is too expensive for NASA to afford to make use of those off-ramps itself). But from today’s release it sounds like no one is interested in the destination we’ve chosen and/or the highway we’re building. This is a very sad but important statement (or lack of statement) about how the rest of the world is viewing NASA’s ESAS plans.
The silence is deafening…
The release also mentions that NASA has had a Lunar Architecture Team at work for seven months. Despite all that time, the only thing we apparently have to show for it is a statement to the effect that:
1) We plan to build a lunar base.
2) It will be at one of the poles.
3) It will be solar-powered.
To be blunt, those were all foregone conclusions years ago given that:
1) The President mandated a permanent return to the Moon.
2) The poles are the least explored parts of the Moon and the most interesting lunar locations from the standpoint of resources.
3) NASA can no longer afford to pursue space nuclear reactors (again due to the expense of the ESAS architecture).
I’m sorry, but it didn’t take seven-months worth of who-knows-how-many-NASA-professional-man-hours to come to these conclusions. A panel of college students in the relevant disciplines could have arrived at this depth of detail with only a week of debate (and probably had a couple innovative suggestions to boot).
Where’s the sequence of robotic missions after Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO)? Where’s the technology plan for the human lander? Where’s the buildup strategy based on the projected capabilities of CEV and the human lander? Can we at least come up with the list of what we’d like non-NASA organizations to supply? (Surely NASA know what it can’t afford because the ESAS architecture has eaten up the rest of the budget.)
As a taxpayer interested and supportive of public dollars going to this area, I am becoming more and more disappointed and disenchanted with how NASA is implementing the VSE. The release states that the first human lunar mission won’t arrive until 2020 — I think that’s yet another schedule slip — nearly a decade and a half from now. Between now and then, all we apparently have to look forward to is LRO and some Ares test flights. I know NASA doesn’t exist to entertain my sci-fi fantasies, but c’mon guys and gals, give me some faith that the billions we’re planning to spend are actually going to result in something of worth or interest on the Moon.
And if I, as a space cadet, am this disenchanted, I can’t imagine what the next Administration is going to do when they see the budget wedge for the Ares V heavy lift vehicle ramp up at the end of the decade. If I’m not interested in reinventing the Apollo wheel with a very expensive and NASA-specific heavy lift vehicle in the absence of NASA having the funding or partnerships in place to do anything useful with it, I can’t imagine that the next Administration is going to support Ares V and the lunar elements that follow from it either. Even more so as budget pressures increase with the baby boomer retirement.
I have no dog in the ESAS/EELV-derived/Shuttle-derived/RLV architecture fight. I really wouldn’t care as long as we made substantial progress towards an actual _exploration_ (or even commercial) architecture (not just a smaller NASA-operated ISS transport and Shuttle replacement) before the next Administration has an opportunity to kill it. But with all the safety leaks, I’m not even sure that the ESAS plan is going to produce an ISS-capable tranport to replace the Shuttle. I’m sure that NASA is right that Ares I has the margin to deliver CEV to orbit. But that says nothing about the safety of that orbit, which seems to require multiple firings of a single-string upper stage engine to properly lift the orbit’s perigee above the Earth’s mantle (oy vey…). It also says nothing about the reversed center-of-mass/pressure issue on Ares I and whether a slowly-reacting solid rocket motor can address that issue. Or how we’re going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a test-flight of what is charitably an Ares I mockup that won’t address the center-of-mass/pressue issue in any substantial way.
I saw and respect the other posts that we space supporters should get behind the ESAS plan. But I see no evidence that space professionals outside NASA are getting behind the ESAS plan, no evidence of exploration planning beyond the modified ESAS Ares I/Ares V architecture (despite a year or two of so-called “work”), no apparent regard for the budget and political realities that will come into force once this Administration leaves, and no attempt to address or thoughtfully reconsider the underlying safety issues in the Ares I design.
All this screams “full stop” to me before we end up overcommitting ourselves to another poorly justified, overly expensive, underbudgeted, and poorly engineered human space flight program that produces little in the way of actual returns (cough, cough… Space Shuttle… cough, cough… Space Station… cough, cough). As much as the space cadet in me wants to, I just can’t get behind this lack of, well, everything. I’m sorry… but if this is the best human space exploration program that NASA (or we) can produce, I’d rather see the money go towards Mars rovers, planet-hunting telescopes, nuclear missions to the outer moons, and x-vehicles and wait for Stephen Hawking’s successor to invent anti-gravity.
How pathetic… sheesh…
Al, I believe I addressed your plan in that other thread. No one seems to be interested in the political reality that, however bad Dr. Griffin’s plan may or may not be, it’s the only option on the table, so I have nothing further to add.
If we kill this plan, there is not likely to be another for the foreseeable future, so, by all means kill it if that is what you want. . . .
— Donald
If that’s what Dr. Griffin’s plan was, than I’d probably agree with you. But, one of the advantages of an expendable system is that it’s relatively easy to introduce different elements. To continue your example, need a refuelable lander or Earth Departure Stage? Create second generation vehicles that have that. Need a liquid first stage. Insert it under the stack.
Donald, just because certain things are expendable, doesn’t mean they allow for ease of element removal. In some cases, it can make it HARDER to remove it from the system. And exactly how much is expendable? I know that at least the capsule is reusable (at least, thats what i’ve read). As for the cLV, are they really gonna throw away the first stage after every flight, even though they’ve been reusing the shuttle boosters? I admit I dont’ know for certain, but i’d be surprized if they are gonna just toss it after every flight, since its been designed for some level of reuse. But the point Im making, is, you don’t address the issue of intergration and operation by saying “we are using expendables” We did that in the shuttle program, except we said reusables, and it didn’t work.
You deal with integration and operation by dealing with the issues that make up integration and operation. For example – concerning the EDS – are my valves permantly closed after I fill them the first time on earth? If so, then it doesn’t matter how great on-orbit refueling is- you can’t use it. Or in the case of the CEV – what are the various vibration tolerances that it can withstand? Ideally, you want it to be able to deal with a variety of tolerances, thus it can interact easily with differing rockets and differing EDS.
Sure, it would probably be smarter to design all that in from the beginning, but that would also require greater up-front funding. Dr. Griffin’s mandate was (presumably) to avoid up-front costs and keep the Shuttle workforce employed. These political requirements drive the design far more than technical requirements. And, if there is one lesson we should have drawn from the last thirty years, it is that there is not a thing you or I can do to change that.
Well, that last sentence I call a definate bullshit on – yes, changing the political dynamic in the country is hard, but there are things that can be done to do it – look at how much the political landscape has been changed by netroots. Look at how things have changed with Rutan’s flight of SpaceShipOne. Hell, you could go to ProSpace’s March Storm, or other direct lobbying methods.
Now, can this be done in such a way as to keep the current workforce employed while at the same time keeping up front costs low? Yes, I believe there is. For one, use the method he is of not putting everything up for development at once. I don’t like this particular aspect, partly because it leave things open to be changed in later administrations, and thus we end up with the what we had in the space station, and how that evolved, but the situation dictates that it will probably be needed to be used. So thats the first point. However, there are 2 things that must be developed now, that can’t wait – the crew ship itself (ie CEV), and a rocket to lift said ship (CLV). Now, realistically, the ship itself can’t something just boughten from a company – For one, none really exists (although that may change in a few years), and two, political realities are likely to make a USA designed, built and operated craft more palitable to the politicals (look at all the concern about the “gap” between CEV and shuttle, which ignores things like COTS, and some of the private crafts). However, the same cannot be said about the rocket it goes up on – there is at least 2 rockets that it could fly on (at least masswise) avaliable now, and 2 more coming in a short time. But as of right now, we are planning on only one of them getting the testing to see if CEV can fly on it (the CLV). Why not instead, find out what the operational envelopes are for CEV instead? Or make it so it can operate on 3 known rockets? Simliar things would need to be done with regaurds to the EDS, when the time comes. The point is, you design in things like opdrations and flexable integration into the system.
You and other critics have failed to tell me how you start over with a better design while keeping the current political momentum on line. How do you go to Congress and say, gee, we were wrong all along, we want to do it this way instead, which means writing off all the study money so far, starting from scratch, and spending another n billion dollars before we bend an ounce of metal?
First, concerning maintaining the political momentum – it hasn’t changed that much for a while now. Yea, Columbia did change it, but IMHO, its receeded to the point of where it has been traditionally.
As for spending money, well, 2 points here – one, not as much money has been spent yet, and 2 – Integration and operation will have to be paid for at somepoint. Whether you do this now, when you can change things, or do it later, when it costs a lot more after stuff has built, and you have to do retro-fits.
A clear example of this actually can be demonstrated from an eariler comment you made. You said
Besides, if Orion is successfully developed, we can live without the Ares-V. The latter’s payload — mostly fuel — could be split among multiple smaller payloads launched by, say, SpaceX or Kistler or one of the EELVs or Ariane-V. We can live without Ares-V if we have to but we need Orion or something comparable
If you don’t build flexablity into your design, doing this can’t happen. If your EDS and Lunar Lander are designed to be integrated on the ground, this option won’t be avaliable to you. If you design it so that the valves are permantly shut after launch, it won’t work
As I said, the point here is, operations and integration will be addressed somewhere. the question is, where is it gonna be addressed?
I don’t have definative answers I admit, but then I’ve heard NOTHING from anyone on the issue of operations and integration, except beyond the vague notion that CLV should be able to launch CEV. And thats part of the reason many are saying that VSE is the shuttle all over again.
DON: If we kill this plan, there is not likely to be another for the foreseeable future, so, by all means kill it if that is what you want. . . .
Don,
You keep repeating this assertion, but that does not mean it is true. In fact, it is a completely unsupported statement.
The last several decades of American history clearly demonstrates that our nation is committed to U.S. human spaceflight, and that BOTH political parties are committed to U.S. human spaceflight.
More specifically, do you remember many Members of Congress voted to endorse the VSE (HR 3070) last year? The vote was 383-15.
Your assertion is completely unsupported.
There WILL be another plan.
– Al
NASA Authorization Act of 2005 provides (in part):
The lunar program needs to facilitate Mars mission. It is a stepping-stone, after all. That means heavy lift.
And this:
Firing the entire shuttle workforce is a political non-starter. It is contrary to the current Authorization, the FIRST Congress has passed for NASA in many, many years.
An EELV only program using many small launchers to supply on orbit propellant depots as the linch-pin of the VSE will require a massive political re-alignment in Congress.
My quick political assessment (engineering aside)? Forget about it — not gonna happen. The NewSpace back-up plan? Get the Bigelow hotel up to LEO as soon as possible and let the new players service that.
Link to NASA Authorization Act of 2005:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18999
Link
Any Newspace Backup Plan will inevitably utilize EELVs or their equivalent (Falcon 9). Thus there isn’t a whole lot of difference between a Falcon 9 and an EELV, any operational gains would be incremental.
Therefore by default, the Newspace Plan is the EELV Plan. I also envision a plan where other ‘rational’ launch vehicles become involved, in particular, the Ariane V, and yet to be built Chinese, Japanese and Indian vehicles, plus anyone else with the capital necessary to get the job done. EELV class launch vehicles are easier than you think in the modern world, and humans are … expendable, as long as some paranoid government agency isn’t footing the bill.
http://cosmic.lifeform.org
the fact that this is one of the most controversial presidents (if not the worst [yea, I know, there will be more than one who disagrees with me – your wrong, its just that simple])
My what a compelling and persuasive argument…
Donald, the only reason that this is the “only plan on the table” is because Mike has chosen to allow it to be the only plan on the table. It is totally within his power to change that, and there are many politically acceptable ways by which it could be done.
Rand, I didn’t want to get into a presidential debate here. However, I do think most people would agree that Bush has been incredibaly controversial. But yes, I do think he has been the worst – I just don’t feel like arguing about this right now.
Is the cost study complete on Orion & Ares? I don’t think so they are still under design. Is there a target design & operational cost? Have they missed it?
From everything Dr. Griffin has said he believes in the ‘plan’ he has chosen. He takes responsibility for it. The question is does congress supports it? And if not what alternatives do they offer. They can force Dr. Griffin to follow this study or that study but in the end they need to rely on the person that they unanimously approved for the position. Or they can replace Dr. Griffin. Its Congress’ responsibility to oversee NASA not the President and this is true with any program or policy. The President can suggest but Congress must approve the pocket book.
It makes me wonder if Kerry should have a job if he can’t beat the ‘worse’ President of all time. Personally I don’t think he should have a job but than again I’m not from Massachusetts.
Just for the record, it was not I who said the following:
the fact that this is one of the most controversial presidents (if not the worst [yea, I know, there will be more than one who disagrees with me – your wrong, its just that simple])
My what a compelling and persuasive argument…
— Donald
John – running for president is very different than being president. You can have someone who can be a great programer, but is a lousy network administrator. Same applies in politics
Just for the record, it was not I who said the following…
Apologies, Donald. No intent to imply that you did. I was just handling two different posts in a single reply.
Ferris: But yes, I do think he has been the worst – I just don’t feel like arguing about this right now.
If you don’t feel like arguing about things that don’t really bear on the discussion, my humble suggestion as to the best way to avoid that would be to leave them unsaid. Simply making such a hyperbolic and irrelevant claim, and then saying there’s no point in arguing about it because you’re right, and we’re wrong, is pointlessly argumentative, and doesn’t advance the discussion.
JOHN: From everything Dr. Griffin has said he believes in the ‘plan’ he has chosen. He takes responsibility for it. The question is does congress supports it?
The only real test of this will be in the annual appropriations.
JOHN: And if not what alternatives do they offer.
Congress is not very good at offering alternatives.
Did they offer an alternative to the Shuttle, which even Griffin concedes was a mistake?
Did they offer an alternative to other major mistakes?
JOHN: They can force Dr. Griffin to follow this study or that study but in the end they need to rely on the person that they unanimously approved for the position.
Congress is not very good at FORCING NASA to do anything.
Barbara Mikulski is one of the most effective and most powerful appropriators overseeing NASA, but she could not force Sean O’Keefe to save the Hubble.
JOHN: Or they can replace Dr. Griffin.
Actually, Congress can not replace Griffin (short of the equivalent of impeachment). The President can though.
JOHN: Its Congress’ responsibility to oversee NASA not the President and this is true with any program or policy.
This is incorrect. NASA reports directly to the President, as it is part of the executive branch. Just like the DoD (via the Secretary of Defense) reports to the President. Ultimately, the President is responsible for what NASA does (although President’s generally don’t care that much about NASA.)
The bottom line is that it is highly unlikely that much will change at NASA until January 2009. The current President has better things to do than worry about NASA, and Griffin already has his mind made up. The next President will bring her/his own team, including her/his own choice for NASA Administrator.
– Al
Related to Architectures… Anyone at the 2nd Space Exploration conference know if they will be or have posted video of the presentations like they did last year?
Really? Wow that’s stupid, how can anyone expect the President to do oversight? No wonder the war on terror has gone so badly.
Maybe Congress should pass a law giving responsibility to Congress or a subcommittee.
Rand, I didn’t want to get into a presidential debate here. However, I do think most people would agree that Bush has been incredibaly controversial. But yes, I do think he has been the worst – I just don’t feel like arguing about this right now.
This is one of the most childish and disingenous statements I’ve ever had the misfortune to read on this forum.
If you want to criticize the president or anyone else – fine. But any words you post on a public forum are always up for debate, and you can’t undo that by following it up with “I just don’t feel like arguing about this”.
To follow up Rand’s advice, if you don’t want to argue about it, then don’t post it. Period. End of story. My advice to you is to re-read your drafts before posting them (preferably after you’ve had a chance to calm down and stop foaming at the mouth), and delete anything you don’t feel like arguing about later.
Rand
If you don’t feel like arguing about things that don’t really bear on the discussion, my humble suggestion as to the best way to avoid that would be to leave them unsaid. Simply making such a hyperbolic and irrelevant claim, and then saying there’s no point in arguing about it because you’re right, and we’re wrong, is pointlessly argumentative, and doesn’t advance the discussion.
Rand, 2 points here
1 – the first comment was a throw away comment – the fact that I had it in double parenthesis I had hoped people would see that it was a throw away comment.
2 – the second comment, you’ll note, I said “However, I do think most people would agree that Bush has been incredibaly controversial. But yes, I do think he has been the worst – I just don’t feel like arguing about this right now.” You’ll notice I said I think, meaning my opinion. Now, if your point is I shouldn’t state it as fact without evidece, I agree, but as I said, the original commment was intended as a throw away comment, and wasn’t meant totally serious.
This second post, the only fact I offered up was that he was very controversial – If you want backup for that, I’d point out all the protests, letters to the editor, editorials, newscasts, rise of differing groups, both for and against, to show that Bush is a controversial president.
The second line was an opinion, and as such, undoubtably we differ on it. Fine. But its an opinion, and debate I don’t feel like having, and I don’t feel I need to have since it is my opinion and I am not forcing anyone to agree with me on it.
Nemo,
I call bullshit here to your platitudes that it doesn’t belong here if its not up for debate – it was somethign of a throw away comment. As far as it being up for debate, well, not really – I didn’t claim it as fact but as an opinion (well, the original was written as fact, but the double parenthesis and the “Well, I am right and your wrong” atitude was intended for it to be something as a joke, and I had hoped people would get it, and realize that it should be treated as an opinion), and therefore, whether you think he is the greatest president or the worst, doesn’t matter – the only thing you have to agree with is that MY OPINOIN is that he is a crappy president. You can think Im wrong, and your welcome to it, or you can think im right and agree with me – it doesn’t matter because I haven’t claimed any fact.
And finally, if either of you want to actually argue against my opinion (and again, I am not forcing anyone to agree to it) feel free – the simple fact is, I don’t feel like discussing it, and so I probably won’t reply.
I call bullshit here to your platitudes that it doesn’t belong here if its not up for debate – it was somethign of a throw away comment.
I don’t care if it was a throwaway comment or a comment that is central to your case. If it’s written in a public forum it’s open for debate. If you don’t want to debate it, don’t write it. Once you gain some measure of maturity perhaps you will understand and accept this.
the only fact I offered up was that he was very controversial
And Bill Clinton wasn’t? Or any other president, in his own way? What’s your point?
Again, don’t include “throw-away comments” if you don’t want to defend them. All they do is waste the time of the other posters, and toss mud into the debate, as you’ve seen.
the only fact I offered up was that he was very controversial
And Bill Clinton wasn’t? Or any other president, in his own way?
You mean in a lie to the American people, trash the constitution, kill 3000 soldiers and 655,000 innocent civilians, bankrupt the nation, and destroy our space program, in a commit outright treason sort of way?
Yes, Bush and Cheney definitely excel in certain ways.
Go ahead, debate that here.
The troll Elifritz wrote:
Go ahead, debate that here.
This is not the place to debate that insanity (which was one of the points we were attempting to make to the juvenile Ferris).
I hope that you don’t feel a need to shut down this thread because of the trolls, Jeff. It’s an important one.
This is not the place to debate that insanity
Yes, it is a terrible and unthinkable insanity that anyone, let alone a space advocate, should question the president and his administration on anything, particularly science and space. That’s just Unamerican!
This free speech is bad news. Newt was right, there outta be a law.
Will you guys knock it off before this thread gets closed down as well?
I’ve got to say I’m underwhelmed by what has been presented. There’s nothing really to argue against, since I’ve argued for a South Pole site (for light access, everdark craters, proximity to far side, proximity to Aitken Basin, relatively constant ambient temperature, etc.), though in the context of an L-1 architecture. I didn’t get to see the presentation, but do have the slides. My comments are too manifold to put here.
I’ve got to say I’m underwhelmed by what has been presented. There’s nothing really to argue against, since I’ve argued for a South Pole site (for light access, everdark craters, proximity to far side, proximity to Aitken Basin, relatively constant ambient temperature, etc.), though in the context of an L-1 architecture.
Given that you’ve got nothing to argue against other than the non-L-1 architecture, what exactly is it about the plan that underwhelmed you?
I thought the level of detail presented was about right, given that we’re 14 years away from implementing it. A lot can (and will) happen between now and then. Providing too much detail at this early stage would be a joke, like those early 70’s shuttle manifests that not only showed 60 flights a year, but listed what each payload was.
Rand said – And Bill Clinton wasn’t? Or any other president, in his own way? What’s your point?
Actually Rand, that I will argue, because that wasn’t a throw away comment.
Well, actually, Clinton helps make my case in fact – my point was when you have a president who is so controversial, when either he is faced with a hostile congress, or his replacement is from the other party, there is usually an attempt to undo whatever has been done. A similiar thing happened with some of Clinton’s executive orders concerning public lands in the West – Bush overturned those. With reguards to VSE, that mean that when combine with a lack of political sale, I can see large parts of VSE getting cut when a new administration comes in. And I know there are a lot of people who think John McCain wouldn’t change anything, but given that its Dec 2006, not Dec 2008, and he hasn’t won even the nomination, I’d say its still to early to assume that all or even most of VSE survives into a second administration.
As for each president controversial in his own way, well, yes, every president has some level of controversy, but some are more controversial than other – Bush is one of the most I’d argue. For proof of that, I’d point out his popularity polls have changed vast amounts. Immediately after 9-11, he was polling at somehting like 70-80% approval rating – now adays, he’s polling in the 30s.
Nemo said – I don’t care if it was a throwaway comment or a comment that is central to your case. If it’s written in a public forum it’s open for debate. If you don’t want to debate it, don’t write it. Once you gain some measure of maturity perhaps you will understand and accept this.
Oh please, don’t get all huffy. This is not a formalized debate on the floor of the senate – this discussion will not set policy. Yes, anytime anyone says something to someone else, its open for discussion and debate, but that doesn’t mean we debate any and every joke that gets made, any off hand comment that gets thrown out there.
LET’S GET BACK TO THE SPACE POLICY SUBJECT, PLEASE!!!
NEMO: Given that you’ve got nothing to argue against other than the non-L-1 architecture, what exactly is it about the plan that underwhelmed you?
Thank you Nemo.
The more I look at it, the more questions I see that need to be answered before it becomes “real”.
At the press conference, NASA listed about a dozen different types of things that would need to be built in order to have a lunar base. But NASA is only committing to building the first 2 items — the lander and EVA capability.
I can’t find the charts online, but Keith Cowing has posted a transcript, reporting Shane Dale’s statement “As I mentioned, the United States is developing transportation capability as well as initial communications, navigation, and EVA capability, but having said that, the door is wide open in terms of participation by internationals, and that includes power, habitation, mobility, in situ resource utilization, robotics missions, logistics resupply, and other specific capabilities.”
So NASA is saying they are doing this to give the International Partners (IPs) and commercial industry an opportunity. I believe Shana Dale believes this. But I am not sure I believe that NASA, this institution, really means this.
What if NASA is doing this because they can’t afford to do anything else?
What if the lunar transportation system (which we have not seen a price quote from NASA for yet, but which is rumored to be $2.5 Billion per flight) is so hugely expensive that NASA can’t afford to build a lunar base, or do anything on the Moon?
If true, this means that NASA has a “plan” for a lunar base, but can not afford to build a lunar base. If true, and IF NASA can’t get the IPs or the commercial industry to pay for it, then NASA will be all bark and no bite. If true, until the IPs and commercial industry make real commitments, there really is no lunar base.
So, we clearly need more information about NASA’s plans, before we can have an informed opinion.
QUESTIONS that need to be answered include: Will the IPs bite? Will commercial industry bite?
ANSWER: Well, that really depends on NASA’s terms & conditions.
Is NASA going to charge commercial industry, or the IPs, the equivalent of $2.5 BILLION for each flight to the Moon?
If “yes”, then I don’t think we will see anybody commit to developing systems on the Moon. There will be no lunar base at these prices.
At the other end, is NASA going to give “free rides” or “hugely subsidized & lower price rides” to the IPs and U.S industry?
In such case, NASA opens themselves up to political attack … particularly for giving huge subsidies to the IPs, but they will probably even be attacked for giving huge subsidies to U.S. industry. What will Congress say about this?
NOTE: If the transportation price to the Moon for U.S. industry is zero, and NASA commits to that price for the long term, and industry believes that NASA really is going to pull this off, there will be companies that start investing in “lunar business plans” right now. However, the uncertainty that this will actually happen is quite high, and it so far off in the future, that even with a commitment to “free rides to the Moon”, the investment that industry will commit today will probably be quite small.
NASA needs to answer these questions. Until they do, from U.S. industry’s perspective NASA is not serious about the participation of U.S. industry. Until NASA answers these questions, the lunar base is not real.
Another issue — Unless and until NASA can answer these questions, it occurs to me that some will start suggesting that this is all part of Griffin’s plan. That Griffin only cares about building a Super-heavy-lift LV, so that he can go to Mars. As such, Griffin would be happy to “set it up” so that at some future date the entire plan to develop a permanent lunar base falls apart.
In that case, NASA will go to Mars.
BTW, this is what Bob Zubrin is praying for.
– Al
Another issue — Unless and until NASA can answer these questions, it occurs to me that some will start suggesting that this is all part of Griffin’s plan. That Griffin only cares about building a Super-heavy-lift LV, so that he can go to Mars. As such, Griffin would be happy to “set it up” so that at some future date the entire plan to develop a permanent lunar base falls apart.
Well, it seems to me that Doug Stanley has already admitted as much. Is no one in the White House paying attention? I guess they’re too distracted with other things.
Al, you’ve kinda hit what I was saying eariler – All of these tight integration and operation issues have long term consequences – specifically, how are you to get a lunar base without actually planning for some method of intergrating all the various parts
Ferris: A similar thing happened with some of Clinton’s executive orders concerning public lands in the West – Bush overturned those.
However, there is a key difference. Very large numbers of people on both sides care very passionately about public lands, and to a first approximation just about nobody cares passionately about establishing a spacefaring civilization. Both facts are represented in politics. Given that Congress is not going to withdraw from human spaceflight, the VSE is likely to be very low on Congress’ (and a new Administration’s) agenda — provided all is quiet on the “vertical front.”
Al: What if NASA is doing this because they can’t afford to do anything else?
Of course, that is true. So what? One of the advantages of the current program — and the reason it has a better chance of surviving than most alternatives — is that you don’t have to pay for everything at once. If you’ve got a lander and spacesuits, send a crew to explore the immediate vicinity. When you can afford it, add a rover and a shelter. And so on. By not trying to control everything, or develop everything at once, or plan the entire architecture in advance, NASA is doing the correct thing for a change.
then NASA will be all bark and no bite.
Not at all. You’ve got a transportation system flying to the moon whose cost can be reduced over time because there is a reason to develop the means to reduce those costs. Until you are flying, you have no motivation to lower costs, and it is a safe bet that NASA will continue screwing around with overly ambitious launchers that achieve nothing before they are canceled.
Ferris: how are you to get a lunar base without actually planning for some method of integrating all the various parts
This misses the point. A lunar base is not, or should not be, an aerospace vehicle that needs to be tightly integrated. It can be, and should be, and series of loosely connected projects paid for as you go. Rather than an airplane writ large, it’s a small town writ small. Again, for once, NASA is doing the right thing.
I would note that many in the aerospace community have fought for many of these changes for many years. Once NASA finally listens, we all turn on the spot and want to go back the old way of doing things — spend all your money on overly ambitious launch endeavors that have no market and trying to “high tech everything to death,” to quote someone I once new in the computer industry. A lunar base should be as simple as possible and deployed slowly over time and designed for the ages. It should not be an aerospace vehicle set on the surface.
All that said, I do agree that Dr. Griffin has “sabotaged” the lunar initiative in order to get to Mars. However, that was his marching orders. Again, rather than fighting a plan that has a rare political consensus, we need to work within the plan to try and get what we want out of it.
— Donald
AL SAID: What if NASA is doing this because they can’t afford to do anything else?
THEN DON SAID: Of course, that is true. So what? One of the advantages of the current program — and the reason it has a better chance of surviving than most alternatives — is that you don’t have to pay for everything at once. If you’ve got a lander and spacesuits, send a crew to explore the immediate vicinity. When you can afford it, add a rover and a shelter. And so on. By not trying to control everything, or develop everything at once, or plan the entire architecture in advance, NASA is doing the correct thing for a change.
Don,
OK, you keep changing your story. Specifically, you have been pounding on the argument that we need a destination to be established before it is justified for private industry to take over delivery of crew and cargo to that destination. I don’t agree with your argument that we MUST have a destination before we commit to the goal of Cheap Access to Space (via much larger incentives for commercial industry), but I acknowledge that it would be nice to have a base on the Moon as a destination.
Now, when it becomes clear that NASA’s proposed plans fall short of even establishing the base at the destination, as it appears that their transportation system is so hugely expensive that they can not afford to do anything else, you say “So what?”
Since a core part of your argument appears to be changing when confronted with some uncomfortable facts, it is hard for me to justify continuing this discussion until I figure out what you really believe in.
Before we continue, I would like to understand the fundamental unchanging parts of your position. I only ask you to do the following, because you are always quite thoughtful in your positions.
I suggest asking yourself the following questions (others here can do the same):
1) “At what point will you be willing to throw in the towel, and acknowledge that NASA’s plans should not be supported?”
2) (THE SAME QUESTION, just asked a different way): Are there any absolute “musts” that have to be in NASA’s plan, in your opinion? If so, what are they?
3) (IF YOU CAN’T COME UP WITH A REAL MUST): Is it your position that that we all need to blindly support whatever NASA proposes, because you fear that unless we do so we will not get anywhere?
DON SAID: All that said, I do agree that Dr. Griffin has “sabotaged” the lunar initiative in order to get to Mars. However, that was his marching orders.
Are you saying that “Griffin’s marching orders were to “sabotage” the lunar initiative in order to get to Mars?”
DON SAID: Again, rather than fighting a plan that has a rare political consensus, we need to work within the plan to try and get what we want out of it.
This is factually incorrect.
There is a clear political consensus in support of the VSE, as proposed by the President. However, there is not a clear political consensus in support of NASA’s current implementation plan.
Congress voted on HR 3070, the “NASA Authorization Act of 2005″, by a vote of 383-15 on July 26, 2005.
Griffin had only been Adminstrator for a few months at that time. NASA did not publish its ESAS plan until November of 2005.
DON SAID: One of the advantages of the current program — and the reason it has a better chance of surviving than most alternatives — is that you don’t have to pay for everything at once
That is a necessary, but not sufficient criteria. There many many MANY ways we can do a “go as you pay plan”.
– Al
Al, you’re also missing another key part of my argument. That is, given realistic funding and political support, things will take longer, and probably a lot longer, than any of us wish or now expect. So, in total, given realistic political and financial conditions, 1) there should be a destination before anybody is likely to finance cheaper transportation at a dollar level required for a reasonable likelihood of success; 2) up-front costs must be kept to an absolute minimum; 3) achieving measurable flight results ASAP is more politically important than low long-term costs, a problem that can be fixed later (the nation will no longer continue to fund projects that may be optimum in the long-term but achieve nothing in the short-term; 4) if we want this to happen in finite time in the current political and financial environment, that plan should be some modest variation on the current plan; 5) since the long-term costs are high, the base will have to be established incrementally over time. I guess you could say that my trade is to push the development time and cost out in return for what I believe is the political requirement of near-term flight results.
I may well be wrong (though, obviously, I don’t think so), but this is a coherent argument and I have a right to defend it. There’s been no change in my story since the loss of Columbia. Obviously, I would like to have the base faster, but I don’t believe that’s a realistic political objective.
In response to your specific questions:
1) “At what point will you be willing to throw in the towel, and acknowledge that NASA’s plans should not be supported?”
At the point there is some clear technical fault that makes the plan unrecoverable. Since I believe that further political indecision is far more damaging than any likely technical issues, I will be very reluctant to advocate major changes in the current plan as long as it appears technically achievable. I have seen nothing yet that I consider a convincing argument that we have reached that point: most of what I’m hearing appears to be carping from those who wish their plan had been chosen.
2) (THE SAME QUESTION, just asked a different way): Are there any absolute “musts” that have to be in NASA’s plan, in your opinion? If so, what are they?
Most of my absolute musts are economic and political, not technical. The end result must be one or more bases that could support political and technical “markets” for better transportation — the same role the Space Station is currently filling. Must two is flight results ASAP, preferably within Mr. Bush’s Administration; since the latter is no longer achievable (for which I also fault Dr. Griffin), measurable results as early as possible in the next one. Must three is the lowest possible up-front costs before flight results are achieved. Must four is that the whole thing stay within the half of NASA’s budget currently devoted to human spaceflight, while not violating any of the prior musts. Must five is that the project stay “quiet” — a minimum of re-planning, negative headlines, or failures to execute — until we are well on the way to landing the first crew.
Probably my only technical must is that NASA do as much as possible to develop “living off the land” skills. If the end goal is a truly spacefaring civilization in our children’s lifetimes, I think living off the land to the degree possible is more important than low transportation costs.
Is it your position that that we all need to blindly support whatever NASA proposes, because you fear that unless we do so we will not get anywhere
Well, yes and no. I vocally opposed many of Dr. Griffin’s decisions, but there is a point one has to give up and support the wider plan, which I still believe is the correct one, and hope that the technical decisions that were made do not prove fatal. Opposing an achievable plan because some of the technical decisions were wrong is the political equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.
Is there a better way to do this? Yes. Should we go back and start from scratch in order to do it that way — opening the whole project to another squabble over which way to go forward and quite possibly ending up with something far worse? No, or at least not yet, especially since I think most of the problems can be fixed later on (and are more likely to be fixed later when there is a destination and market).
Are you saying that “Griffin’s marching orders were to “sabotage” the lunar initiative in order to get to Mars?”
No, Dr. Griffin’s orders were to go to the moon while laying the groundwork for Mars. He is trying — with mixed results — to do that within the constraints he finds himself in.
there is not a clear political consensus in support of NASA’s current implementation plan.
While technically I accept this as the case, Congress did not vote for continued indecision on the part of the space community. If there is a lot of evidence for indecision on how to go forward, I think the political coalition could easily unravel. While human spaceflight is unlikely to be cancelled altogether, it could easily get focused back onto LEO, which is not where NASA (as opposed to commercial space transportation at this point in time) should be focused.
There many many MANY ways we can do a “go as you pay plan”.
That is exactly the problem. You open that can of worms again, and we may well choose one of those alternative plans. Then, everyone whose plan was not chosen (probably, on statistical grounds, including yours!) will be back tearing the new plan apart in favor of theirs, ad nauseam. I do believe that with a Presidential race on the horizon, unprecedented budgetary problems, and the baby boomers starting to retire soon, Congress (rightly) will not tolerate much of that.
I hope I have made clearer my thinking. I know my ideas are not popular in the aerospace community, who are used to building tightly integrated aerospace vehicles rather than building the seeds for future “towns.” My observations are based on my archaeological perspective and, while they may well be wrong, I do believe they represent the input of outside ideas into a community that looks far too often to itself for answers, and they should be taken seriously.
— Donald
I agree with Mr. Murphy’s post that Monday’s lunar announcement was, to put it lightly, “underwhelming”.
To steal a response to Mr. Murphy’s post, Nemo said:
“what exactly is it about the plan that underwhelmed you?”
Part of the problem is that it’s not a plan. Other than restating a few facts that were obvious a couple years ago (we’re doing a solar-powered polar base), there’s no substance.
According to the press release, NASA has had two, very large groups (one of which included potential foreign and commercial partners) working on this for three-quarters of a year now. And all they have to show for that effort is a decision to build a base (well no duh, Bush mandated a permanent return), put it at a pole (another no-brainer given the combination of resource and scientific interest), and make it solar-powered (well of course, because we can no longer afford nukes thanks to the expensive ESAS architecture).
I’m sorry, but it should not take scores of NASA employees and hundreds of non-NASA participants working for 9-odd months to restate the obvious. Paying the salaries of all of these government workers for that length of time to come up with such a non-result is a huge waste of taxpayer money and bodes very ill for the tempo and expense of the real effort going forward.
“I thought the level of detail presented was about right, given that we’re 14 years away from implementing it.”
The problem is that we’re several years into planning and implementing the lunar return effort and all that we have to show for it is:
— A lunar mapping mission in 2008 (whoppee).
— Plans for a crew LV that benefits only NASA astronauts and stands a decent chance of putting them into a dangerous orbit or breaking apart in flight, by all reports.
— A heavy lift vehicle that benefits only NASA missions and is so expensive that no NASA will not be able to afford any significant lunar infrastructure for experiments, observations, mobility, technology testing, Mars campaign analogs, etc.
— A redo of the first Apollo landing that will take five-odd years longer to complete than the first lunar landing (assuming the budget and schedule holds).
— The first hints of an actual base and extended lunar stays around the time my _grandchildren_ will be entering kindergarten. (Again, assuming the budget and schedule holds.)
This ain’t Apollo on steroids. This is Apollo in slow motion and with chronic obesity.
I have nothing against a rationale and effective human space flight program that achieves actual results in reasonable timeframes and leaves enough dollars on the table to do something interesting and useful with the infrastructure.
I also have nothing personal against Ares I/V and no dog in the architecture fight. But there has to be a better way to reinvigorate the human space flight program that does not take two decades to establish minimal lunar infrastructure and that doesn’t involve NASA-unique launchers sucking up all the available dollars. I don’t know if it’s a smaller crew, making greater use of existing commerical vehicles (EELVs), making quicker and more efficient use of Shuttle infrastructure (Direct), something exotic like RLVs and refueling in orbit, or just killing ISS and STS sooner.
But there has got to be a better way. I’m true-blue believing space cadet, and I don’t like my tax dollars going to this pathetic lunar effort. I can’t imagine that the next Administration is going to let Ares V or any other part of the remaining ESAS architecture go forward when they’ll be facing much better places to put their R&D dollars (nanotech, biotech, infotech), ongoing costs from Iraq/Afghanistan, and surging Medicare and Social Security costs from the baby boomer retirement. It would be insane for the next President to put limited Treasury dollars behind this effort when it won’t pay-off until the end of the second term of his _successor_!
“Providing too much detail at this early stage would be a joke,”
But the utter lack of detail beyond Ares I/V is causing NASA’s efforts to be treated like a joke. Most of the jokes on the late-night shows last night were along the lines of: “NASA wants to build a base on the Moon but they don’t know how much it’s going to cost, how long it will take, what it’s going to achieve, or when it will be over… NASA, meet Donald Rumsfeld.”
Any space effort begs jokes on late-night TV, but the last thing we want the lunar planning effort being compared to is the planning that went into the Iraq War. But that’s what’s happening and it’s incredibly alarming and speaks volumes about the quality and quantity of what NASA has achieved (or failed to achieve) in planning and actual results since Bush gave them their charge several years ago.
“like those early 70’s shuttle manifests that not only showed 60 flights a year, but listed what each payload was.”
I agree. But there’s lots of things NASA could be making reliable decisions on and demonstrating progress towards without pinning themselves down to unrealistic expectations regarding efforts two decades from now.
NASA shouldn’t provide a blueprint of the future base, but they should have a list of likely sites, targets for future mapping orbiters and robotic landers. Where’s the list?
NASA shouldn’t have signed agreements with commercial and foreign partners, but they should have some concrete examples of potential partnerships, or at least an indication of ongoing talks with specific partners. Why aren’t any potential partners stepping up, even a little? (Again, the silence from potential partners speaks volumes about the ESAS plan.)
NASA shouldn’t have the buildup sequence for the lunar base planned, but they should have the sequence of robotic missions that will precede the human missions fully mapped out by now (as the robotic Mars program has done for years now). Aside from LRO, where’s the robotic lunar mission architecture? Do NASA even have a clue as to what the next mission after LRO is?
NASA shouldn’t have the service module or human lander designed yet, but there should be a clear technology program in place tackling the long-poles and resolving different technology options. Aside from a generic list of technologies in the back of the ESAS report, where’s that technology development plan?
I could go on and on, but I think the point is clear.
I hate to say it as a believer in human space exploration and eventual settlement, but the Mars findings announced today were a magnitude more interesting and promising than anything contained in the lunar base announcement. Real space resources, real potential for groundbreaking science, with exciting follow-up missions coming soon.
Why can’t we have that at the Moon (or in human space flight in general) sometime before 2024?
No offense intended towards Nemo (just using his post to structure my response) and maybe my expectations are too high, but I expect better for my taxpayer dollar.
Regarding Mr. Robertson’s stay-the-course posts and various bring-everything-to-a-full-stop responses, there’s nothing that prevents the White House, Congress, or NASA itself from commissioning an independent study of alternatives while implementation of the existing ESAS plan goes ahead “full-speed” (a term I use charitably).
I’m in the bring-everything-to-a-full-stop camp, but as a compromise, it would be incredibly useful to have a truly independent and expert organization (the Aerospace Corporation?) examine requirements sets never considered by ESAS (such as the smaller requirements behind Jon Goff’s lunar-sooner approach); architectures never considered by ESAS (such as Direct); and sensitivities never considered by ESAS (such as backing off on a minor safety consideration that could allow existing LVs to be used and save $X billion and Y years of time).
Doing a parallel, independent study outside NASA should not slow down ESAS implementation at all. At worst, such a study will confirm that ESAS has it right and there is no good alternative to the existing plan. But hopefully it would raise better alternatives and give decisionmakers, especially when Congress and/or the Administration turn over, more desirable options than outright cancellation of lunar return and the rest of VSE — which is what I think we’ll eventually face given the lengthy and low returns of the ESAS approach and other demands on the Treasury’s dollar.
Anonymous: the White House, Congress, or NASA itself from commissioning an independent study of alternatives while implementation of the existing ESAS plan goes ahead “full-speed”
I would not be opposed to this.
— Donald
DON SAID: I guess you could say that my trade is to push the development time and cost out in return for what I believe is the political requirement of near-term flight results.
Don,
On the surface, that appears to be reasonable logic.
That is, until you study history. Please consider that your proposed trade was the same logic used by the program managers who designed/built the Space Shuttle, and the Space Station. In both cases, they decided to shorten development as much as possible, and get to near-term flight results as soon as possible.
In both cases, they eliminated investments in key technologies and systems, and ignored the system-level recurring costs (which would only hit NASA in the far future) in order to minimize the development costs and to acquire near-term flight results.
We know what happened.
Quoting Yogi, your proposed trade is “Deja vu all over again.”
Another relevant quote is “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me”.
AL SAID: 1) “At what point will you be willing to throw in the towel, and acknowledge that NASA’s plans should not be supported?”
THEN DON SAID: At the point there is some clear technical fault that makes the plan unrecoverable.
In reality, there is no technical issue that cannot be solved given enough time and money. The Ares 1/5 will have technical problems, leading to delays and and schedule slips. But with enough time, and with a big enough check from Uncle Sugar Daddy, all of the technical barriers can be solved.
If this is your position, I can only conclude that you will never be willing to take a stand against what NASA is doing, based on principal.
– Al
Regarding the Shuttle, we do know what happened. It got built. It almost certainly would not have been if those political compromises had not been made. More importantly, the Shuttle was attempting to break dramatically new technological ground; Orion isn’t. Avoiding up front investment to keep things simple is much more applicable to the Orion model.
No, I will never be willing to take a stand against NASA on prinicipal alone. (After all, I am willing to support a plan proposed by a President I consider an unmittegated disaster in almost every other respect, and a clear threat to the division of powers upon which our Republic is based.) My goal is to create the foundations a spacefaring civilization for our children. Within reason, I am willing to support what I need to in order to make that happen. Right now, I think that requires a more-or-less unbroken chain of increasingly deep space human spaceflight endeavors, ultimately leading to bases ever farther from the home world. (Among other things, including the continued survival of the Space Station — even more important than the VSE, COTS, and commercial suborbital and orbital tourism.)
Given the political and financial realities we find ourselves in, I believe that requires using the skills and technologies we have to move forward, which means adapting existing rockets to our needs. I don’t really care whether it is the right plan, only that politicians will support it and that it has some chance of long-term success.
Is this ideal? Of course not. But it is the world we live in.
— Donald
Regarding the Shuttle, we do know what happened. It got built. It almost certainly would not have been if those political compromises had not been made.
You write that as though it would have been a bad thing.
DON SAID: Regarding the Shuttle, we do know what happened. It got built. It almost certainly would not have been if those political compromises had not been made.
Don,
Even Mike Griffin thinks the decision to build the Shuttle was a “mistake”.
Griffin goes even further saying “”It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path”.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-09-27-nasa-griffin-interview_x.htm
“NASA administrator says space shuttle was a mistake”
Reading this, it appears that Griffin, based on principal, would oppose NASA’s plans for the Shuttle and Space Station if he was on the outside. At least Griffin has the courage of his convictions. He has publicly testified to Congress about his disagreements with NASA decisions, and published positions that disagreed with NASA orthodoxy.
Since you now appear to agree that your current “logic” produced the Shuttle, which is (according to Griffin) “commonly accepted as a mistake”, I suggest you re-think your logic. You have painted yourself into a dead corner.
– Al
No, Al, this is all consistent with what I consider the political realities. (Let’s step back for a second and recall that Jeff’s site here is a political forum.)
I agree with all of you that the Shuttle (at least as it was executed) was a technical mistake, but was it a political mistake? First, it was the offer on the table from the Nixon Administration. NASA could take it, or say no, and almost certainly end human spaceflight (at least by the government, and probably, at least in the short term, all human spaceflight by the United States).
Yes, NASA argued for the Shuttle, but it had become clear that deep space missions (which is what should have happened) were not on the table.
Developing and flying the Shuttle has resulted in a more-or-less unbroken chain of human spaceflight successes over multiple decades. That, in turn, has created political support. For most politicians today, human spaceflight is part of the background noise — they no more consider withdrawing from it than they consider withdrawing from building aircraft carriers. If you support government human spaceflight of any kind, that political background is critical, and the Space Shuttle project created it.
However, all of that is dwarfed into insignificance by the successful (so far) deployment of the Space Station — which is the market that is enabling COTS, the only politically realistic chance of a long-term dramatic reduction of the cost of reaching LEO — which is, lest we forget, “half way to anywhere.” It was done grossly inefficiently, but the political gears did spit out what we need.
In politics, like sausage, you never want to look at the details. You want to create the conditions that, however messily, will ultimately create the result you are looking for. That is what worked for the station and it is what I’m arguing for with the VSE. Perfection is not on the table, but “good enough” just may be, and killing what just might be good enough to try for perfection guarantees you get nothing.
If we are to succeed in creating a spacefaring civilization that involves Americans, I believe that all of you need to stop thinking like engineers and start thinking like politicians, however distasteful you may find the political process.
— Donald
Perfection is not on the table, but “good enough” just may be, and killing what just might be good enough to try for perfection guarantees you get nothing.
The problem is that it also may not be (in fact, almost certainly isn’t) good enough.
Rand, yes it may not be. There are no guarantees in the real world. However, I have seen nothing that convinces me that the chances of (technical) success are as low for the current architecture as you and others have suggested.
— Donald
We’re talking about economic and political success, Donald, not technical success. NASA has shown that they can make the craziest ideas work, technically, as witness Shuttle and ISS.
NASA has shown that they can make the craziest ideas work, technically, as witness Shuttle and ISS.
I know, reusable hydrogen powered launch vehicles and space ships. That’s just insane. What is wrong with these Americans?
At what point was fielding a vehicle with $5B a year in fixed costs that can only fly six times a year sane?
At what point was fielding a vehicle with $5B a year in fixed costs that can only fly six times a year sane?
At the point where we didn’t have anything else to fly. We now have two alternative vehicles to fly, the Delta IV Medium and the Atlas V.
However, NASA refuses to fly them, continues to fly the shuttle, and then comes up with a 20 billion dollar development cost for a vehicle that has five billion dollars a years fixed costs, and won’t fly for 10 years, and then will only fly twice a year, to the space station.
My how far we have come. The only way we will recoup shuttle costs is by learning from our mistakes. We can fly the EELVs, retain SSME production, we can figure out a way to get rid of the foam insulation and make the cores reusable. Really, honestly, it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out these fundamental truths.
The space shuttle, since we continue to fly it, is the absolute best way to reduce future launch vehicle development costs. We should be keeping it around for that reason alone.
Krafft Ehricke would be screaming bloody murder by now. Since we can’t even build a reasonably sustainable space station, then we should immediately be embarking on a lunar station. It appears that NASA has totally abandoned science and logic for politics.
That’s why they call it an administration.
jonny323