Republican presidential candidate John McCain is scheduled to speak in Florida’s Space Coast on Monday, with space policy likely to be among the topics he addresses. Among those looking forward to the speech are the editorial writers at Florida Today, who complain about “his deafening silence about the agency’s post-shuttle moon exploration plans” in an editorial Saturday. They note that McCain’s pledge to freeze non-defense discretionary spending “would slam NASA’s budget and cripple the Ares-Orion project to the point of possible death.” They conclude: “It’s time for McCain to dump his dead-end plan for NASA and go on the record supporting the next-generation of spaceflight.”
Those claims of “deafening silence” on space and not yet being on the record “supporting the next-generation of spaceflight” are puzzling, since just recently the campaign issued a more detailed space policy. Among the items the policy said McCain would do as president include ensuring that “space exploration is top priority” and “funding the NASA Constellation program to ensure it has the resources it needs to begin a new era of human space exploration.” Perhaps Florida Today’s editors weren’t aware of the policy?
There is, though, still a contradiction in McCain policy. In his space policy he talks about giving Constellation the resources its needs, as well as minimizing the Shuttle-Constellation. However, his economic policy still includes a pledge to “freeze non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending for a year and use those savings for deficit reduction”. It’s a bit like, for example, saying you support development of Ares and Orion while campaign documents still claim you would postpone Constellation by five years. And, perhaps, like Barack Obama, McCain will reconcile those inconsistencies on the Space Coast Monday.
The contradiction is built in: it’s pretty difficult to have a fiscally responsible policy while at the same time supporting Ares/Orion.
This is being a bit silly. NASA funding — in particular, NASA’s manned space programs and their extensions, such as Constellation — are down in the noise level of the Federal budget. Furthermore, NASA projects are innately short-lived things; funding a rocket development at say 3 billion dollars a year for five or six years is quite a different thing than funding a 300 billion dollar a year medical program from now until the end of time.
It’s quite conceivable, in other words, that McCain or Obama could procede to finance Constellation or other space-related projects while proclaiming that the budget has been “frozen.” Perhaps we should hold our paranoia back until real problems arise.
Jeff,
These issues are not necessarily conflicting.
A smart McCain-led NASA could
1) kill the Ares 1,
2) use the funding to finance 4-5 COTS projects, plus an EELV-escape system, to enable the EELV to safely launch the Orion,
3) pocket a few billion in savings, and
4) reduce the Shuttle-Constellation (with Constellation being defined as the program for human exploration beyond LEO) gap.
FWIW,
– Al
Al
That’s only if they decide they no longer want ot need heavy lift.
If heavy lift is still a requirement, barring a clean sheet design, a STS derivative of some kind will still be required. It can be done in concert with the EELV, but EELV only would completely change the outlook of the lunar and Mars efforts. The EELV Heavys can lift a lot of tonnage, but they couldn’t rightly be called heavy lift, not unless we change the definition. But hey, NASA has changed every definition that got in the way of Ares-I so far, so I guess they could do that too.
Chuck
If heavy lift is still a requirement, barring a clean sheet design, a STS derivative of some kind will still be required.
Heavy lift is not a requirement. Or to the degree that it is, it’s an arbitrary one.
Mike: “NASA’s manned space programs and their extensions, such as Constellation — are down in the noise level of the Federal budget. Furthermore, NASA projects are innately short-lived things; funding a rocket development at say 3 billion dollars a year for five or six years is quite a different thing than funding a 300 billion dollar a year medical program from now until the end of time.”
Contellation isn’t going to be $3B or so for 5 or 6 years. It needs to ramp up to absorb the Shuttle budget as well as what it has now, and what it’s already spent. It’s also going to take a decade and a half or more, if you want to count getting humans to the Moon. In NASA terms, it’s extremely expensive. Also, you also have to factor in the cost to operate the system once it’s built.
It’s true there are much bigger items in the Federal budget than Constellation. I think there’s a lot of room to trim in some of them, but I don’t think that attitude is shared much among voters. Note that McCain is suggesting freezing non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending. He’s not suggesting freezing the big budget items like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or Defense. Once you limit the universe of changes like that, Constellation starts to stand out a lot more. For example, look at the entire NOAA budget, space and other, or NSF. Look at the NASA budget itself, and Constellation looms.
This is why Constellation as it exists now (not in the leaner meaner redefined verion that Al proposes) has an inherent sustainability problem. It’s too big and expensive, has too little chance of technical, management, and budget success, has too few political supporters outside the program’s employees, has too long of a schedule to return lunar results, has opportunity costs that are too high, has too great a chance of disasterously being stopped once/if Ares 1/Orion are running (resulting in the U.S. government competing with U.S. commercial LEO transportation), and will return too few substantial results (because of high operating costs and low mission tempo) even if it succeeds.
It’s too big and expensive, has too little chance of technical, management, and budget success, has too few political supporters outside the program’s employees, has too long of a schedule to return lunar results, has opportunity costs that are too high, has too great a chance of disasterously being stopped once/if Ares 1/Orion are running (resulting in the U.S. government competing with U.S. commercial LEO transportation), and will return too few substantial results (because of high operating costs and low mission tempo) even if it succeeds.
Hey, but other than that, it’s great!
Heavy lift is not a requirement. Or to the degree that it is, it’s an arbitrary one.
It’ll be hard to get anyone to Mars without heavy-lift. I believe that estimates for Mars vehicles are in the vicinity of 500mT according to NASA. It’ll take a whole lot of EELVs or Ares I’s to get that much hardware into LEO. Yes, that makes heavy-lift formally unnecessary, but introduces a host of other challenges.
But Mars is going to be viewed as just a four letter word at NASA for a while, still.
Granted, lack of heavy-lift would slow down any lunar development as well, but since the baseline lunar requirement is, as far as anyone can tell, really just to get back there and hang around for a while, that too can be managed with a suite of smaller launchers.
It’ll be hard to get anyone to Mars without heavy-lift.
No, it will be expensive to get to Mars without low-cost lift. The notion that we will get to Mars with heavy lift is nonsensical. How big a launcher would it take to do a Mars mission in a single launch?
I wish the posters on this site would admit the the truth to themselves, VSE is dead no matter who gets elected. There will be no Apollo redux, no Ares 1, and no heavy lift launcher. The best you can hope for is american astronauts riding on a souyz to the ISS. At one time I thought the constellation might fly on a EELV. The capsule [ the capsule,what a laugh in 2008 to even be talking of capsules] is still in the mock up stage,how long has it been since VSE started? It’s been 5 years and the only thing thats on track is the shuttles phase out.
“No, it will be expensive to get to Mars without low-cost lift.”
There is no such thing as low-cost lift, and there never will be, until we develop anti gravity or some other such far-fetched propulsion means. Let’s face it; getting up earth’s deep gravity well is hard, really hard, and to do it with pop gun launchers is just a joke. If we are actually going to go to the moon, Mars and beyond (regardless of what one calls the effort) some type of heavy lift will be needed to make the move economically “reasonable”.
If, as NASA indicates, a Mars mission will cost around 500mT, we can do that with (5)x100mT launches, over about 18 months give or take, or we can do it with (20)x25mT EELV Heavy launches; all to get a single mission underway. I look at ISS for an example of the latter, and I am discouraged at how long it actually took to assemble that spacecraft (it is a spacecraft), and it’s STILL not completed – years. Heavy lift is not a nice-to-have, it is a necessity to actually do anything substantial with the vision.
There is no such thing as low-cost lift, and there never will be, until we develop anti gravity or some other such far-fetched propulsion means.
That is a myth. We will get low-cost lift when we start to do a lot of it, and we will do it with chemical combustion.
The notion that we will get to Mars with heavy lift is nonsensical. How big a launcher would it take to do a Mars mission in a single launch?
I never said anything about a single launch. That certainly could be considered nonsensical. (But you brought it up.) An HLV (Humungous Lift Vehicle)? Works for me.
It is likely to be cheaper to loft 500mT in pieces with 3-5 Ares V-like vehicles than with 25 Atlas Vs (or a similar number of Space Shuttles?), especially when you take into account assembly, and perhaps constellation management. What other solution did you have in mind?
Sure, if you come up with real cheap $/lb small vehicles, one can launch a flotilla of those, each one carrying a bolt or two. You’re going to throw all of those up to ISS and assemble them there?
Yes, there will be a heavy lift vehicle. It may not be Ares V, though, and it may not even be ours. Whoever owns that heavy lift vehicle will own Mars. Mike Griffin knows that, and that’s what drives him.
We will get low-cost lift when we start to do a lot of it
Dream on. The main illusion there is that there is any prospect of us doing “a lot of it.” “I can get you a GREAT deal on a car. You just need to buy a hundred of them!” What, are we talking Costco getting into COTS? Cotsco — I like that.
Chuck2200: “If, as NASA indicates, a Mars mission will cost around 500mT, we can do that with (5)x100mT launches, over about 18 months give or take, or we can do it with (20)x25mT EELV Heavy launches; all to get a single mission underway.”
Unfortunately, even if Ares V is built, it looks like the launches will be pretty expensive. I don’t have figures to quantify that (and I don’t think NASA does, either). It seems to me that those 5 Ares V launches, plus the Mars payload, would be too expensive to do anything other than a flag and footprints single-shot Mars mission, which I don’t think is worth it, considering the opportunity costs.
Anyway, the current goal is supposed to be ISS followed by the Moon. The Moon plan involves a long-term base. That will require its own series of ongoing launches to support, which would also be expensive using Ares 1 and 5. I doubt that both Moon and Mars could be paid for at the same time, and it would be kind of pointless to go to the trouble of setting up a Moon base just to abandon it. Thus a useful ongoing series of human Mars missions using the current Ares plan and the 500mT ton figure don’t seem to be realistic to me.
I’m not against big rockets, but they need to be economical. That’s probably a job to be figured out gradually after we figure out how to do smaller rockets economically.
It also seems to me that in-space refueling compatible with various types of rockets to deliver the fuel is a way to reduce the problem of assembling space structures with the Shuttle/ISS method, while also helping us solve the CATS problem. I think the difficulty with the ISS method was the Shuttle bottleneck, and the large number of unique elements of the ISS plan. Generic fuel delivered by generic rockets for much of the system mass would reduce these problems considerably, regardless of whether the vehicle structure is delivered by Ares V or smaller rockets. Unfortunately the Constellation approach avoids developing this useful capability.
In light of Barack Obama’s wonderful position paper on Nasa, science and exploration I hope McCain will match BO with his own position. Obama owned us specifics, and he delivered. Notice Direct fans that BO endorsed Constellation and Orion. In fact he said he’d work to minimize the dreaded gap while authorizing at least one more shuttle mission. Nowhere did he say he’d second guess Nasa or Griffin or re-evaluate competing paper designs. His message as I read it shows very strong support for what most of us value, an engaged engineering workforce; cutting edge science from the earth to the edges of the universe. He also said this
“Human exploration beyond low-earth orbit should be a long-term goal and investment for all space-faring countries, with America in the lead,”
Yeah baby!
The ball is now in McCain’s court, as a long term supporter($) of his, way back to 2000, I’m pretty sure he’ll return service to BO.
Well, it seems to me like the complaints about McCain’s potential opposition to Constellation are outdated. His space plan is positive, and he’s voiced support at least this summer for the VSE.
Of course, his plan’s nothing like the extensive, detailed, specific plan laid out by Obama, but as far as I can tell it’s been some time since he’s murmured about freezing domestic spending and/or that including the VSE. Just politically speaking, freezing NASA budget at a time where countires like China, as well as commercial efforts, will be making very public strides forward seems like bad PR, as a lot of this stuff could very well happen before the end of McCain’s term, and lord knows candidates are concerned about their legacy.
Obama’s plan: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28880
McCain’s: http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/issues/7366faf9-d504-4abc-a889-9c08d601d8ee.htm
-Nick, Moon Colonization and Integration blogger (luna-ci.blogspot.com)
Notice Direct fans that BO endorsed Constellation and Orion,/em>
Actually, neither of the words “Constellation” or “Orion” appear in the policy. Nor does “Ares.”
Not to burst your bubble, or anything…
And it makes me more of a fan of Obama.
Not enough so to actually vote for him, of course…
Jeff, could you fix the previous comment? It just needs to close the <em> tag…
“Notice Direct fans that BO endorsed Constellation and Orion. In fact he said he’d work to minimize the dreaded gap while authorizing at least one more shuttle mission. Nowhere did he say he’d second guess NASA or Griffin or re-evaluate competing paper designs.”
He spoke of supporting Shuttle’s “successor”, not of supporting Ares. We all noticed that he specifically avoided mentioning Ares. Obama is well aware of the difficulties with the Ares design, at a very high level, and he will not commit to that specific vehicle at this time. Pending timely resolution of the difficulties, or the demise of Ares, he will commit, however, to a “successor” as being very necessary. But Ares? In his mind, it’s a question mark. Beyond that he won’t go until he’s in office. He needs to get elected first.
Taking into account the fact that we, as a civilization havent even managed a sample return from Mars and we havent even sent a pair of mice or rhesus monkeys there , it may be a tad early commiting tens of billions for a launch vehicle designed solely around the hypothetical 500mT human martian sortie figure. Especially given the rate of technology evolving.
It would actually be interesting to ask a quote from Bigelow on a inflatable spaceship that would take a pair of monkeys to martian orbit.
“It would actually be interesting to ask a quote from Bigelow on a inflatable spaceship that would take a pair of monkeys to martian orbit.”
To what purpose? What’s to be gained by such an expensive stunt?
To what purpose? What’s to be gained by such an expensive stunt?
For starters, a couple of dead monkeys.
How can Obama shorten the gap, as he now claims he will do, unless he accelerates funding to the only contracted system, Orion and CLV? Canceling Orion, CLV in 2009 means a delay of a few years before the new program would get to CLV’s current manufacturing state. There would be lawsuits, large penalties paid, design evaluations, RFP’s drafted and competed. This would take years to do, just like the CLV/Orion did and would obviously add years to the gap. Of course added Congressional oversight due to a failed Nasa project, Constellation, would likely add time as well.
So unless Obama has some other magic scheme in mind, he has indeed endorsed CLV/Orion.
There are a few ways that come to mind that could be executed to shorten the gap. None of them are “magic†and none of them involve cancelling Orion. The Ares-I would die in all of them, but that will happen soon enough on its own anyway. In options A and B, both CLV’s would be operational before Orion is ready. Option A would have Orion ready sooner because mass constraints are removed, while Option B may take up to 1 year longer because there will still be mass concerns based on the CLV IMLEO performance capacity.
A) Authorize an architecture change from Ares to Jupiter.
Advantages:
1. Can be fully operational by 2012.
2. Removes all mass constraints on Orion that have kept it from moving forward. Orion could be ready for IOC in 2012.
3. Jupiter-120 is the foundation for the heavy lift Jupiter-232. So by fielding the Jupiter-120, the lunar and Mars programs put the heavy lift foundation on the launch pad right up front.
4. Protect the KSC and MAF workforce – a political hot potato.
Disadvantages:
1. Not the fastest launch vehicle alternative to deploy.
2. Still leaves a short gap.
B) Authorize a switch to an EELV as the CLV.
Advantages:
1. Reduces mass constraints on Orion. Orion could be ready for IOC in 2013. Still requires mass cuts however, as the EELV performance, while sufficient, is tight.
2. A man-rated EELV could be operational by 2011, faster than the Jupiter.
Disadvantages:
1. Still requires the heavy lift vehicle be separately developed
2. Does not protect the KSC and MAF workforce – a political hot potato.
3. Still leaves a short gap.
C) Extend Shuttle:
Advantages:
1. No gap in American access
Disadvantages:
1. Just delays the problem, not solves it, unless Congress pays for the shuttle operations separately from Constellation.
There are several scenarios under consideration that are various combinations of these 3, including a crash program to bring a COTS-D capsule to IOC by the time the exemption expires in 2011.
Mr. Obama is aware of all these options. None of them are magic. It just requires one to take off the “Mike Griffin Knows Everything†glasses and think outside the box. All of these work, all of them are viable, and all of them make sense in their own way.
The problem with your dates on option A or B is that they ignore electoral realities.
First if Obama is elected, he’ll spend most of 2009 getting his team in place. Nasa has rarely been a priority for getting someone in place, look at Dan Goldin in 2001. Figure a new Nasa team in place late 2009.
Obama isn’t so inexperienced to make a drastic change in direction without having Direct or anything else vetted by either outside experts or by Nasa. Figure most of 2010 for another AOA. The last thing Obama would want is to can the stick and embrace Direct only to find that it too has some flaws that comprise performance and schedule so he’ll be smart to vet it closely with his own team.
Then there is RFP and bidding. Figure this goes into 2011. Exactly how does this shorten the gap?
spectator: “How can Obama shorten the gap, as he now claims he will do, unless he accelerates funding to the only contracted system, Orion and CLV?”
The most-often cited ways to shorten the gap, extending the life of the Shuttle and shortening the currently planned Ares/Orion system’s schedule, would not be productive. Let’s say a couple billion dollars is found under some mattress, and somehow it’s dedicated to shortening the gap instead of any of numerous other priorities.
With that we might be able to get a couple more Shuttle missions up, and extend that program a few months. That’s irrelevant with a gap that’s about 5 years and growing about as fast as clock time goes by.
On the other end of the gap, with a couple billion dollars you might be able to shorten the Ares/Orion schedule by a few months, or at least slow down the growth in the gap by a few months. Again, that’s irrelevant with a 5 or so year gap that continues to grow.
The best chance to reduce the gap is to give private enterprise incentives to close the gap in a competitive environment where monetary rewards are tied to the degree that the gap is successfully reduced. Such high-profile challenges and lucrative rewards are great at motivating people to solve problems.
Nothing about such methods to solve the gap problem contradicts the Ares/Orion program. In fact, it takes schedule pressure off of Ares/Orion so that job, and in particular its contribution to the lunar mission, can be done well. It also solves one of the biggest flaws of the Shuttle and the current Ares/Orion plan – the fact that those systems have no backups.
The type of NASA incentive currently discussed to get private enterprise to solve the astronaut transportation problem is the COTS approach applied to crew transportation. With a couple billion dollars, NASA could fund an aggressive “COTS-D” competition to shrink the gap, in the process providing a backup to Ares/Orion after that system is operational, allowing Ares/Orion to concentrate on missions beyond LEO, and opening up a new commercial space industry. Numerous teams of companies could compete for the funds that would be rewarded only as milestones are reached: SpaceX, Orbital, EELV launch companies, NewSpace companies, and combinations with U.S. and foreign vehicles, if the program rules allow such combinations (presumably a significant U.S. industry presence would be required in each proposal since a central point of gap reduction is to have U.S. crew transportation instead of purely Russian transportation for ISS access).
There are several reasons such an approach has a better chance to solve the gap problem (defined as reducing, not eliminating, the gap):
1. The competitors would be focused on that problem, not the more difficult nested problems of ISS transport AND lunar transport AND commonality with an HLV.
2. The competitors would be contributing their own funds into the effort, and thus more funding would be available overall.
3. Multiple competitors could be funded, allowing more than 1 chance for a success.
4. The competitors would be motivated by the NASA rewards earned when milestones are achieved (unlike the cost-plus situation, which arguably might not be the best approach for a problem that’s been solve several times now – crew transportation).
5. The competitors could use the resulting system for additional business, so they would be doubly motivated to succeed.
6. The competitors would be free to choose what they saw as the best approach to solve the problem. They wouldn’t be constrained by the need to keep the Shuttle workforce employed – the Ares/Orion program is already addressing that problem as best as can be done. If an off-the-shelf system helps solve the problem, they could use it.
7. The requirement of having competitors add their own funds to the effort brings an inherent level of scrutiny to the efforts. Whether a private effort is funded through corporate funds, venture capitalists, or outside banks, the technical and business plan will be carefully examined for credibility by the funders. This kind of independent examination might not happen with a government effort, or if it does happen (by an organization like the GAO), the recommendations of the independent examiner might be ignored. This wouldn’t be possible if the independent funder’s money is needed by a team trying to build a COTS vehicle.
It also solves one of the biggest flaws of the Shuttle and the current Ares/Orion plan – the fact that those systems have no backups.
The biggest flaw of the Ares/Orion plan IS the Ares/Orion plan.
America – a failed state.
What’s to be gained by such an expensive stunt?
Proof that mammals can actually survive the 6-month trip given our current assumptions on radiation shielding requirements etc. If you were sending a next orbiter anyway, having mice as payloads would possibly be relatively sane incremental cost.
spectator;
You’re assuming that the only power center in this gap closure is the president. If that were true then your timeline would be correct, however that assumption is not correct. The Congress is far more concerned about the gap than either Obama or McCain are, and they have the power to do something about it; more power than the president does in fact. The options I outlined are all being studied in detail within the halls of Congress as we speak. It is the Congress which defines what specific direction NASA will take, not the President. The President defines the policy (he did – it’s the VSE), the Congress approves it (Authorization Act of 2005), and the Congress spells out what specifics it deems best for implimentation of that policy, leaving the details to the NASA Administrator. All the President has to do at this point is sign the Appropriations bill. And if he doesn’t, there is/will be enough Congressional support to override any veto. Space is not that important to most Americans, so if there is a 5-year gap it won’t cost the President his job. But a 5-year gap will cost some Congressional legislators their job, in as little as 2 years from now. Given both Obama’s and McCain’s support for closing the gap, I can’t imagine either one vetoing a Congressional Appropriations bill that closes the gap. Even if it takes a while for Mike Griffin to be replaced, he will do what the Congress tells him to do; he has no choice. All NASA activities are required to be in accordance with the Authorization bill from the House, as modified and/or funded by the Senate Appropriations bill. The President has no further authority in that effort. The Congress is currently defining how it wants to proceed and will then send legislation to the floor to instruct NASA on what it is to do.
So it’s not a matter of either McCain or Obama closing the gap – neither one can. It’s just a matter of having White House support for Congressional efforts to close the gap, which do not depend on the timeline you outlined. And both candidates have indicated that support.
Given both Obama’s and McCain’s support for closing the gap, I can’t imagine either one vetoing a Congressional Appropriations bill that closes the gap. Even if it takes a while for Mike Griffin to be replaced, he will do what the Congress tells him to do; he has no choice. All NASA activities are required to be in accordance with the Authorization bill from the House, as modified and/or funded by the Senate Appropriations bill. The President has no further authority in that effort. The Congress is currently defining how it wants to proceed and will then send legislation to the floor to instruct NASA on what it is to do.
I am reminded of the title of a book by Roger Launius:
Spaceflight and the MYTH of Presidential Leadership
“You’re assuming that the only power center in this gap closure is the president. If that were true then your timeline would be correct, however that assumption is not correct. The Congress is far more concerned about the gap than either Obama or McCain are, and they have the power to do something about it;”
Lets not forget, Congress has known about he Gap for at least 3 years, ever since Griffin started complaining about it. Its obvious the White House didn’t care about it, so where was Congress? They had the option to increase funding back in 2005 and 2006 when it could have done some good. No action. Increase funding for Cots, Ares, alternatives to Ares, EELV. Anything they wanted. They passed one CR which was a real cut to Nasa, waited a couple years after Katrina devastated Nasa’s budget to provide relief.
Congress has provided background music to the White House beat.
Congress has a shoddy track record in my opinion with Nasa so I don’t think they’ll do more than minimally fund Ares while mandating continuing Shuttle mission with maybe an extra billion/yr for Nasa’s trouble. Already Congress is heading down the path of mandating 1 more shuttle flight. Why not 2, 3, 5 spread out over 2010 to 2013? They are far more likely to do that than fund rockets that don’t exist (COTS), paper designs (Direct), manned rated EELV’s.
“Why not 2, 3, 5 spread out over 2010 to 2013?”
Because it’s overly complex and outdated (the shuttle, not the concept of a shuttle).
Because no one makes half the parts anymore.
Because several facilities already started winding down operations, which is expensive to reverse.
Because the plan is to refurbish the shuttle launch site to launch Constellation, meaning the uses are mutually exclusive.
Because it suffered serious scope creep on the drawing board resulting in a very low cost/benefit.
Because the last thing we need at this point is to once more pass up a replacement for the shuttle.
Because the design as it stands is demonstrably unsafe and fragile.
etc.
etc.
etc.
“They are far more likely to do that than fund rockets that don’t exist (COTS), paper designs (Direct), manned rated EELV’s.”
Falcon is a real rocket regardless of it’s early results. I don’t doubt Musk’s determination to get to orbit come hell or high water and I think they’re bleedingly close. I will agree that the likelihood congress will approve Direct or EELV’s is slim, but I don’t think they are so implausible as to be discounted entirely.
Bottom line, we need something, anything to replace the shuttle. We have for years. It was a success in that it worked, but as far as meeting any of the goals it was supposed to meet it is a miserable failure. Frankly it’s the albatross around our neck in the space arena. If we could find a way to launch the constellation from elsewhere without absurd startup costs and magically poof the funding necessary to complete them in parallel I’d be all for it. Hell, I’d like to see development of multiple systems so we finally can get some fall-back options. The funding reality, however, is not in any shape to do that.
Aremis: Falcon is a real rocket regardless of it’s early results. I don’t doubt Musk’s determination to get to orbit come hell or high water and I think they’re bleedingly close.
I agree. Recall all the failures OSC’s Pegasus endured after an upgrade (it already existed!). I don’t know whether SpaceX will succeed, but they’ve come amazingly close twice now. Mr. Musk is learning that it’s harder than he thought, not that it’s impossible.
You are, of course, entirely correct about the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle was a wonderful machine, but its time is past and we should not spend another avoidable penny on it.
Hell, I’d like to see development of multiple systems so we finally can get some fall-back options.
Isn’t this what COTS is all about? And, if Elon Musk succeeds, COTS succeeds and you get your wish, by definition!
— Donald
Mr Asling, you’ve given me a good education on why extending the shuttle flights isn’t practical. Congress has a real problem to solve. Thru every fault of their own, the USA is between a rock and a hard place. They have mandated that we can only get to the ISS on Russian lifts. But we won’t pay for it and we are increasingly hostile to those Russians.
The only American system that can be used between now and 2012, best case, is the STS. Most likely not until 2015 will anything be available. Congress is going to have a very hard time getting around that.
We have 2 launch pads for STS and 3 vehicles. With the right funding why couldn’t we use 1 pad for STS and the other for Constellation; then fly 1 STS/year with one vehicle using the other 2 as spares?
I agree the Shuttle is past its shelf life. I agree its dangerous. I agree its crazy expensive. But again, Congress has this problem with Russia to solve next year.
SPECTATOR: But again, Congress has this problem with Russia to solve next year.
Again, solving the gap is easy. There are many versions of the capsules, including (but not limited to) the Orion capsule, which can be launched on an EELV by 2012.
Lockheed can put a version of the Orion on an EELV.
Boeing bid a capsule on an EELV for COTS round 2.
Lockheed (now ULA) is doing study for Bigelow for a capsule based human transportation system on an EELV.
Orbital is studying a capsule-based system on the Taurus II.
Jeff Foust reported on a congressional hearing where some of this came up this Spring.
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/05/08/one-true-way/
Later, Robert Dickman, executive director of AIAA, offered another alternative to closing the gap involving EELV. “For less than the cost a single space shuttle mission, they could be human-qualified and… a relatively simple capsule to go to low Earth orbit could be built†for access to ISS, he suggested.
In addition, we many additional COTS-based solutions that can solve the problem.
The overall solution is quite simple to see (if you are not Mike Griffin.)
Cancel Ares 1, fund the real alternatives, and shut down the STS.
FWIW,
– Al
“Again, solving the gap is easy” Really? I am relived.
Orion in orbit on EELV by 2012? It takes Boeing/Lockmart that long to build a typical comm sat once they have the order. I do think integrating Orion to EELV will take alot longer than that! Funny how vendors make promising promises to Congress when big $$ are floating around. As for SpaceX, god bless them and all, but they can’t even get 1 pound in orbit let alone a manned rated booster with 9 engines with zero flight heritage. 2015 is probably about right for them for a manned capsule….if they can score the cash.
If all the US is worried about is the gap, then all we’ll end up with is a ISS taxi. We’ll have traded in the immensely capable STS for Gemini, 50 years later. LEO forever.
then fly 1 STS/year with one vehicle using the other 2 as spares?
If you’re going to fly at all, it’s crazy to only fly once a year. You should fly at the maximum possible rate, both to keep the workers on their toes and to minimize per-flight costs.
SPECTATOR: If all the US is worried about is the gap, then all we’ll end up with is a ISS taxi. We’ll have traded in the immensely capable STS for Gemini, 50 years later. LEO forever.
If you don’t like the idea of “LEO forever”, then you should be first in line to applaud Senator McCain when he says we should “TERMINATE the Space Shuttle flights.”
His words, not mine. See:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/7366faf9-d504-4abc-a889-9c08d601d8ee.htm
The Gehman Commission pointed out that we have been going in circles in LEO for the last 3 decades. The root cause was the Shuttle, and how much it cost.
FWIW,
– Al
If you don’t like the idea of “LEO foreverâ€, then you should be first in line to applaud Senator McCain when he says we should “TERMINATE the Space Shuttle flights.
Yes, then we can continue to go in circles around the sun, in a small capsule, with no safe refuge at all! Who needs spaceplanes and stations!
We’re Americans man! We can do better than that.
The Gehman Commission pointed out that we have been going in circles in LEO for the last 3 decades.
Americans can always count on a congressionally appointed committee to overturn and relegislate those inconvenient laws of physics. Why should the Earth continue to circle around the sun as it has for the last four and a half billion years, and why should the sun continue to circle around the milky way galaxy as it has for the last four and a half billion years. I’ve been getting up every day and going to work, and then returning home in a great circle for the last 30 years, and I for one, am getting sick and tired of it.
We need to change reality, and the president and congress can do it!
The root cause was the Shuttle, and how much it cost.
The root cause is the laws of physics as we have inherited them.
You idiots need to count your blessings.
Well, my guess is that the ISS will be the one area that still is maintained by the US and Russia during what is sure to be an ugly next few years. If the US pulls out after 2010, the Russians could run the ISS for awhile since our plan is to stock pile critical parts on the ISS before STS retirement. The Russians already provide propellant and navigation so for them, they could have quite the propaganda coup if the US can’t get to the station or even if they could, they don’t have Soyuz rights to descend. But would they really want to burn their bridges to the US? We would never partner with them again on any space activity. Europe would be reluctant as well. No doubt we would apply sanctions to all of their aerospace companies and forbid any US commerical relations with Russia.
Bottom line, I think the incentives are in place for the US and Russia to work out the ISS mess so both parties have full access while the US rebuilds its manned space program.
Spectator,
I agree that we are likely to work through the issues at ISS, continue our relationship. Russia sees the ISS partnership as a good thing for them; and it would be lose-lose if the partnership crumbled.
On top of this, the Russians are capitalists, are motivated by profit, and they will be happy to accept our money for services rendered. They do not want to lose us as a customer.
The issue here is U.S. politics — if Congress does not extend ISNA, we will literally be throwing our hat over the wall to creating a new human space access system on a much faster schedule.
Alternatively, we don’t extend ISNA until next year — but the manufacturing lead times will be shorter and the prices we will pay will be higher. In fact, since the U.S. Government likes to make rhetorical statements on principal — even when we can’t back it up and even when it costs us tens-to-hundreds of millions to make such a statement — so this should be considered to be an eminently possible outcome.
In fact, I make that prediction — seeing this as an election year, Congress will punt until after the election, in full knowledge that we will be forced to pay more money as a result of the delay.
– Al
The Ares I is an absolute waste of budget. Why on god’s green earth would you build the launch vehicle first. Orion/Ares 1 should never be going to the station. We have EELVs already for that. Heavy lift will be required for the moon. To assure the program goal of getting back to the moon with potential for Mars, they are banking on the fact that uncle sam will have budget for two launch vehicles. Why not budget for the one you need to have. Obviously the architecture here hasn’t been thought about thoroughly.