It’s odd to read some of the complaints about Weldon emanating from certain quarters. NASA and the Bushies got us into this situation. You would think the criticism would be more directed at them. But, as with the delay in the Mars mission, some people are more comfortable spewing bile at third parties than holding those who are actually in charge responsible for their mistakes. (Not that the little elves in this administration ever actually take much responsibility for what they do. They usually deny access to anyone who points out their errors – which is often an effective deterrent.)

And on that note, I close by wishing a good night, a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year to everyone here on the good Earth.

That never happens.

The fact that Mr. Elifritz took the time in his busy schedule to perform a two year ESAS and put together and submit a 30 day COTS proposal, representative of a large fraction of the US Aerospace infrastructure and a broad Midwest space activist and research & development community, is a pretty good demonstration that he is very ‘well manned’.

But COTS only addresses ISS. If we care about other human space flight goals, especially exploration, there still needs to a solid analysis of alternatives to the ESAS lunar architecture, as it doesn’t even close.

Indeed, and it appears that Mr. Elifritz’s proposal is the smallest launch vehicle out of the vast hierarchy of heavy lift launch vehicles studied by his working group, in their two year quest for science and reason in launch vehicle architecture. There is no shortage of Frankenlaunchers, the problem rather, is how to make them sustainable and cost effective in the long run.

The particular architecture was chosen precisely because it does scale physically and technologically in a reasonable and straightforward manner.

That never happens.

I’m all for COTS, both restoring and boosting funding for it.

But COTS only addresses ISS. If we care about other human space flight goals, especially exploration, there still needs to a solid analysis of alternatives to the ESAS lunar architecture, as it doesn’t even close.

Of course, the next White House may (is even likely) not to care about human space exploration goals. But that’s another thread…

“I notice you did not submit.”

?

“TLE/Formation Inc.”

I detect an Elifritz, but hopefully a well-manned one this time around.

FWIW…

We just did. It was called NASA JSC-COTS-2. I notice you did not submit.

Just for the record, here is the lineup as far as I can see it, if Mr. Griffin’s quote of eight proposers is indeed correct :

1) SpaceDev – DreamChaser, EELV

United Launch Alliance (ULA).

2) SpaceHab – ARCTUS, EELV

Lockheed Martin, United Launch Alliance (ULA), Cimarron and Odyssey Space Research.

3) PlanetSpace – Modular Cargo Carrier, Proprietary ATK Booster

Lockheed Martin, Alliant Techsystems (ATK), Bank of Montreal, Space Florida, United Launch Alliance (ULA), Wyle Laboratories, Paragon Space, and MEHTA Engineering.

4) Loral – 1300/LEO Express, EELV

Space Systems/Loral, Constellation Services International (CSI), United Launch Alliance (ULA).

5) t/Space – CXV, Proprietary Air Launch, EELV

6) Andrews Space – Pressurized and Unpressurized Cargo Modules – Proprietary Hercules Launch Vehicle (kerosene core and upper stage?)

MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates (MDA), Alliant Techsystems (ATK), Reynolds Smith and Hills (RS&H), Draper Laboratory, Odyssey Space Research, Aerojet, Irvin Aerospace, and ILC Dover.

7) Orbital – Proprietary Taurus I/II Launch Vehicles

8) TLE/Formation Inc. – SSME SSTO core with Nose Cone Aero Shield Reentry Vehicle, launch assisted with SpaceX boosters only if necessary.

USA*, ULA*, Pratt and Whitney/Rocketdyne* (P&W*), Boeing*, Orbital Technologies* (Orbitec*), Orion Propulsion*, Space Exploration Technologies* (SpaceX*), Bigelow Aerospace*, Space Florida*, Wisconsin Aerospace Authority*.

* The terms ‘contractor’ and ‘partner’ are interchangeable in this proposal, and may change during the execution of the proposed contract. There will be no foreign participation in this proposal or contract.

* Contractors and partners listed in this proposal are for guidance only. No participation, partnerships, contracts or agreements of any kind are implied with any of the corporations or the individuals listed.

More to the point… when hasn’t ESAS, Constellation, and the Shuttle transition not been a political football?

ESAS compromised numerous figures and analysis — from EELV blackout periods to EELV costs to safety figures for Shuttle heritage systems — to make the case for an architecture that maximized Shuttle employment in certain Congressional districts and states. How is that not politicization of the design process?

The Bush II White House has failed to live up to its funding commitments in the VSE for Constellation. How are those political decisions about different budget priorities not affecting the development process?

Despite giving numerous plus-ups to other programs, the Democrat-controlled Congress flat-funded Constellation in the FY 2007 continuing resolution and cut Constellation in the pending FY 2008 omnibus bill. How are those political decisions about different budget priorities not affecting the development process?

And now Griffin’s poorly justified arguments about the “gap” are backfiring on him and various Congressmen, from Weldon to Nelson to Hutchison, are putting forth their own plans to extend Shuttle operations in order to keep the Shuttle workforce employed at Constellation’s expense. How do these new options for the “gap” not turn Constellation into a political football?

Anyone who thinks the ESAS and Constellation decision process hasn’t been heavily influenced by political decisions up to this point is fooling themselves. Anyone who continues empty cheerleading for Constellation/Ares I/Orion in the face of GAO reports and NASA documents showing just how compromised these designs have become because of these political considerations is whistling past the graveyard. It’s far past time to take the blinders off and start a serious, independent, and unpoliticized review of alternatives.

My 2 cents… FWIW.

‘Let’s make the various options a political football to kick around for the next few years.'”

Ugh… will you please stop putting words in other poster’s mouths… especially mine?

If you can’t argue the points a poster made without making up what they said, then please don’t bother responding. You’re debating yourself, not the other poster.

“It was a method that worked really well for the space station, after all, with politicians”

No one in this forum is a federal politician (at least to my knowledge).

“who thought they were aerospace engineers mandating design changes.”

ISS was never reduced to single-string avionics or missing one-third of its payload capacity.

FWIW…

Both ideas suck. Its like being told that you’re getting a $2000 christmas bonus, but you either have to burn the money, or throw it in the dumpster.

Further, I would argue that YOU know its not as simple as you claim, since your a staunch supporter of COTS. And this brings me to the larger point – it isn’t so much arguing the merits of Direct vs Orion vs EELV derivatives – its arguing that there is a different method, coming from the private sector, that will fundementally change how spaceflight happens, that needs to be talked about, and isn’t.

When people talk about the idea of “the gap”, the implication is that the only space vehicle flying from the US will be whatever particular craft Nasa has choosen (whatever that vehicle is – whether its Orion, or VentureStar, NASP, EELV, Direct – whatever). That is a false and bad assumption, and will put us on track for more of the same, even if Orion flies as well as you claim.

You talk about political interference in the station – interfernce from multiple corners has caused problems for spaceflight throughout history. It was political interference that forced the use of LOR for Apollo, which made it an unsustainable crash program, rather than an expanding sustainable program. Yet quite a lot got done

Or we can look at the shuttle, which got pressure from both the politicians, but just as well the military.

But for the first time, we have the oppurtunity for something different, instead of being forced down a path that only produces pork for select politicians.

So, yes, if you care about space, you should be presenting all these alternatives to papers like the Orlando Sentinel.

Translation:

“Let’s make the various options a political football to kick around for the next few years.”

It was a method that worked really well for the space station, after all, with politicians who thought they were aerospace engineers mandating design changes.