Congress, NASA

House appropriators call a “time-out” on exploration spending

The Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee held a markup of their fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill on Thursday morning. (Because of a typo it originally appeared on their web site that they would be meeting at 9 pm, rather than 9 am; in any case the markup session wasn’t webcast.) The top level figures for NASA’s main accounts that came out of the markup are as follows:

Account FY09 FY10 Request FY10 Markup
Science 4,503.0 4,477.2 4,496.1
Aeronautics 500.0 507.0 501.0
Exploration 3,505.5 3,963.1 3,293.2
Space operations 5,764.7 6,175.6 6,097.3
Education 169.2 126.1 175.0
Cross agency support 3,306.4 3,400.6 3,164.0
Construction and environmental compliance 0.0 0.0 441.7
Office of Inspector General 33.6 36.4 35.0
TOTAL 17,782.4 18,686.0 18,203.3

[Source document. All values in millions of dollars.]

The biggest change is that Exploration is cut significantly, from $3.96 billion in the President’s request to $3.29 billion in the markup. In an accompanying statement, subcommittee chairman Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) says that uncertainty about NASA’s future exploration direction is the reason for this temporary “time-out” in spending:

For NASA, the bill provides a total of $18.2 billion, an increase of $421 million over last year’s level. Investments have been made in Earth science to further the decadal surveys. The recommendation, however, acknowledges that the Administration has established a blue ribbon panel, led by Dr. Norm Augustine, to review the current vision for human space flight. Funds are provided in the bill to continue investments in human space flight at the same level as provided in fiscal year 2009. Reductions from the budget request should not be viewed as a diminution of my support or that of the Subcommittee in NASA’s human space flight activities. Rather, the deferral is taken without prejudice; it is a pause, a time-out, to allow the President to establish his vision for human space exploration and to commit to realistic future funding levels to realize this vision.

The Subcommittee looks forward to receiving the findings of Dr. Augustine’s panel and the recommendation of the Administration on the way forward. I do believe, however, in order to avoid continuing cost increases and further delays in the initial operating capability of our Nation’s next generation of human space flight architecture to follow the Shuttle’s successful and impressive run, it is imperative that the Administration and Congress provide the necessary resources to meet that policy directive – in the annual President’s budget and the annual Congressional budget process. When President Kennedy said we would put a man on the moon, the Nation followed – in spirit and with the resources to get the job done. We collectively should do no differently today.

The other major change is the creation of a new line item, “Construction and environmental compliance”, with over $440 million in FY10, nearly as much as aeronautics. No explanation is included in Mollohan’s statement about the funding.

70 comments to House appropriators call a “time-out” on exploration spending

  • Mark R. Whittington

    I blame Mike Griffin.

    Seriously, unless Congress means to add money back in after the Augustine Commission issues its findings, the excuse doesn’t make any sense.

  • Major Tom

    “… the excuse doesn’t make any sense.”

    NASA has no idea how much Constellation is going to cost, when it’s going to deliver, or what it’s going to deliver.

    Just today, the Orlando Sentinel reported that NASA’s own estimates just for Ares I development have gone from $28 billion to $40 billion. That’s $12 billion worth of cost growth, a 43% increase, on just to build an intermediate-lift launch vehicle. Forget a human capsule, heavy-lift vehicle, injection stage, lander, etc. (By comparison, both EELVs were developed for a cost to the government that is less than half the cost growth on Ares I development alone.)

    The Sentinel also reports that the Ares I-X test has slipped from April to July to August and likely now September, according to KSC Director Bob Cabana. A review of a potential solution to Ares I thrust oscillation issue has slipped from September to December. Orion launch escape system tests have slipped by a year. Beyond the Sentinel article, we know that Ares I/Orion is now down to zero percent confidence for meeting a 2015 IOC, won’t actually start delivering crews to ISS until 2016 at the earliest, and has only 65 percent confidence (and slipping) for meeting a 2017 IOC.

    And we also know from a few weeks ago that the crew complement for the ISS Orion has dropped from six to four astronauts.

    See:

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-nasa-rocket-troubles-060409,0,2918308.story

    Would you keep making payments on a car if the dealer couldn’t tell you what the car was ultimately going to cost you? Would you keep making payments to a home builder if they were years behind schedule and slipping? Would you keep making tuition payments if a college could only promise your child two-thirds of a degree?

    It’s too bad that this means that there will be slightly less funding available for whatever the Augustine review recommends to replace Constellation. But the subcommittee is arguably being a good steward of the taxpayer’s dollars with this reduction. (In fact, if they were really trying to be fiscally conservative, the subcommittee should have cut a lot more from the program’s budget and put Constellation on a bare minimum of life support.) As a space cadet, it pains me to say this, but that money is better used elsewhere until NASA can get a handle on its human space flight development programs. It’s doubtful given the current state of affairs, but hopefully the Augustine review will finally enable the agency to do so.

    FWIW…

  • Mark R. Whittington

    “Would you keep making payments on a car if the dealer couldn’t tell you what the car was ultimately going to cost you? Would you keep making payments to a home builder if they were years behind schedule and slipping? Would you keep making tuition payments if a college could only promise your child two-thirds of a degree?”

    That is the silliest analogy I have ever seen. Prices of cars, homes, and colleges are well known and can be checked. Also a lot of people are offering them. Humans have only built a moon ship once in all of history and that was forty odd years ago.

    There is one iron rule I have noticed in new development projects, especially space projects. They always have unexpected problems, they always take longer and they always cost more. The applies to some private rocket projects that somehow don’t get dumped on.

    One suspects that the Augustine Commission realizes that more than mysterious people who like to leave snarky comments on other peoples’ blogs and will do their analysis accordingly.

  • John Malkin

    I agree with Mark and a very large number of development projects go over budget and time especially more risky undertakings. The reason is so many assumptions must be made during the initial budget cycle when you are selecting internal resources or bidding external resources or both. Even for simple software applications there can be a lot of assumptions. Spaceflight requires new technologies on top of your basic development assumptions.

    I don’t think you can begin to claim failure until NASA waves bye bye to the 2017 date. You can make a mess as long as you clean it up before the next person.

    I don’t expect congress to allocate NASA’s entire FY10 budget within the federal FY10 budget, they will tag onto it like they have done in the past like our current wars. It’s all done with mirrors and the sleight of hand.

  • common sense

    This is why there is a termination rule in any of those plans. It looks to me that Ares is beyond that point.

    The whole point was it was supposed to be inexpensive and easy. It ain’t. Hence the Augustine panel. Major Tom is closer to reality than either Mark or John. Sorry guys.

    We’ll soon know I suppose.

  • Major Tom

    “That is the silliest analogy I have ever seen. Prices of cars, homes, and colleges are well known and can be checked. Also a lot of people are offering them.”

    It’s a very accurate analogy. Ares I is an intermediate-lift launch vehicle, and “a lot of people are offering them” today, both here in the U.S. and overseas with prices that “are well known and can be checked”. There are two operational examples in the U.S. alone (Atlas V and Delta IV). There are three operational examples overseas (Ariane V, Long March, and Proton). Counting India and Japan, there are at least another two under development.

    “Humans have only built a moon ship once in all of history and that was forty odd years ago.”

    NASA is not building a “moon ship” (whatever that is). The only things Constellation is building today are an intermediate-lift launch vehicle (Ares I) and a human capsule (Orion) to shuttle astronauts from the Earth’s surface to ISS and back. Even if Constellation survives the Augustine review intact, development of the Ares V heavy lift launch vehicle and the LSAM lunar lander (the actual “moon ships”) won’t start for another half-decade or more.

    “There is one iron rule I have noticed in new development projects, especially space projects. They always have unexpected problems, they always take longer and they always cost more.”

    Totally wrong. There are many examples of space development projects that have come in under budget. Just off the top of my head:

    “The so-called NEAR Shoemaker craft came in $8 million under budget, leaving more money for the mission’s research.”

    See:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0214/p2s2.html.

    “Under the stringent cost-caps of the Discovery Program, the STARDUST development was completed on time with nearly $2M remaining reserves to reprogramming into the flight phase.”

    See:

    http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ylB0OM1WY14J:www.nasa.gov/pdf/47148main_stardust.pdf+stardust+under+budget&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    There are many more space development projects that come in on or near budget. For example, NASA estimated Apollo’s costs at nearly $23 billion, and the program came in no higher than $25 billion (less depending on how certain items are accounted for). That’s nine percent ($2 billion in 1969 dollars) cost growth.

    Compare that to the 43 percent ($12 billion) cost growth on Ares I referenced in the Orlando Sentinel article mentioned earlier.

    Or compare it to total Constellation costs through first lunar landing, the which have risen from $57 billion to $92 billion according to NASA’s own estimates. See pages 16-17 in this recent report:

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10051/04-15-NASA.pdf

    That’s 61 percent ($35 billion) cost growth.

    There’s no reason 40 years after Apollo for a human lunar program to experience 60-plus percent cost growth requiring tens of billions of dollars of additional taxpayer funding. Apollo didn’t.

    And there’s certainly no reason for a lousy intermediate-lift launch vehicle, which military and foreign space programs around the world build left and right, to experience near 50-percent cost growth requiring billions of dollars of additional taxpayer funding.

    “The applies to some private rocket projects that somehow don’t get dumped on.”

    Evidence? Which companies have shared their internal R&D budgets with you?

    “One suspects that the Augustine Commission realizes that more than mysterious people who like to leave snarky comments on other peoples’ blogs and will do their analysis accordingly.”

    The Augustine Commission realizes what about “mysterious people”? This isn’t even a complete sentence.

    FWIW…

  • John Malkin

    I think we gave up inexpensive and easy when it took 20 years to fund a replacement for Shuttle. I think the current goals are sustainable and safe which has nothing to do with cardboard box cheap. Otherwise we could have had Estes develop it.

    Where should we invest our tax dollars to get the miracle inexpensive and easy LEO “human” rated spacecraft by 2017 or even 2020? Do we abandon our ISS partners? I thought we were trying to heal our international relationships. Keep Shuttle running? (that’s cheap) Everything to COTSx?

    I look forward to the results of the Augustine panel and as long as it makes sense to replace Ares, I’m behind it 100%. But I’m for sure Augustine will come back and say fund Human spaceflight at the correct level or forget it. We talk about NASA not learning from their mistakes but how about Congress. CAIB said the same thing set a goal and fund it and not annually but the entire project. Remember Endeavour
    was funded with a lump sum and it came under budget. I know it was a small amount but it can happen.

  • common sense

    @ John Malkin:

    We are in a bad fix, aren’t we?

    I will not say ahead of time I am 100% behind Augustine’s panel. We’ll see. I just think it could be a lot worse.

    I hope/suspect this:
    – short term:
    . If Ares viable then be it, but possibly/likely replaced with EELVs. It will require intense scrutiny though.
    . Funding for COTS go up as/if necessary.
    . COTS-D opens with adequate funding.
    . Shuttle ends as planned.
    – less-short term:
    . A COTS like program to the Moon if COTS-D can make it within TBD years.
    . Mars and/or NEOs becomes focus for NASA.
    . NASA adopts COTS approach to exploration even for Ares/Orion where contractors are paid for performance. It may not be possible at this stage though. So we’ll see.

    Something along the lines above. I would love more but I would even take that.

  • Here are my predictions.

    1. Ares

    Dead. No money either in the near term or in the out years, thus ESAS passes into history.

    2. COTS-D

    Dead. This administration has no interest in enabling private enterprise, quite the opposite.

    3. Exploration

    Will go on but with another architecture that preserves government jobs, aka Shuttle derived (Ares was Shuttle flavored, not shuttle derived) and supports the station.

  • Major Tom

    “But I’m for sure Augustine will come back and say fund Human spaceflight at the correct level or forget it.”

    One of the four objectives of the Augustine review, as set by the White House, is “d) fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities.” See:

    http://rescommunis.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/federal-register-notice-of-establishment-of-a-nasa-advisory-committee-pursuant-to-the-federal-advisory-committee-act-5-u-s-c-app/

    The panel may come up with options above the budget runout, but they’ll have to recommend at least one option that fits within the $10 billion per year that the nation spends on NASA’s human space flight programs. And that will be the option that is carried forward by the White House.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “2. COTS-D

    Dead. This administration has no interest in enabling private enterprise, quite the opposite.”

    Not true, at least in human space flight. One of the four objectives of the Augustine review, as set by the White House, is “(c) stimulating commercial space flight capability”. See:

    http://rescommunis.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/federal-register-notice-of-establishment-of-a-nasa-advisory-committee-pursuant-to-the-federal-advisory-committee-act-5-u-s-c-app/

    FWIW…

  • When we talk about EELVs, we are essentially talking about the Atlas V and the Delta IV of Lockheed Martin and Boeing(formerly McDonnell Douglas) respectively. These EELVs have been operated for the last 7 – 10 years and their development began in the early 1990’s with the help of the USAF . Yet, not once in the last decade and a half have Lockheed Martin, Boeing, or their joint venture United Launch Alliance attempted to developed a human rated launch system capable of achieving at least LEO. Why not?

    Big aerospace corporations with substantial amount of capital to invest in advanced launch systems should have been able to predict that there would eventually be a market for human rated spacelaunchers. Even as early as 2001, it was becoming obvious that the space shuttle would need to be retired eventually. The Columbia incident certainly brought that reality home just two years later. If LEO access was potentially profitable, why would it be necessary for NASA or the USAF to fund the development of such a launcher for either aerospace corporation? Afterall, SpaceX wasn’t even founded until 2002, the same year that Atlas V launched on its maiden flight. SpaceX took 7 years to develop the Falcon 1 and 9 from scratch receiving COTS funding only late in the game. Surely, two major aerospace companies with already well-developed EELV launchers could have come with something in those 7 years. Yet, nada.

    So now at the suggestion of some, NASA should start funding development of human rated EELV launchers by these two aerospace corporation? That it would take no time at all? That such development would be profitable and more cost effective? Huh? Given the history of cost overruns on numerous programs that both of these aerospace companies have been involved in, not only NASA but major defense programs, the suggestion seem hardly credible or realistic. In fact, the claim is just downright ridiculous.

  • Not true, at least in human space flight. One of the four objectives of the Augustine review, as set by the White House, is “(c) stimulating commercial space flight capability”. See:

    Don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do. You will see that Mr. Predictor has a basis for his predictions.

  • Annon

    I have a bad feeling about the Augustine Commission…

    One is able to tell much of the expected outcome of a commission by its members and this commission sounds more and more like part of the perfect opportunity to kill man spaceflight at NASA.

    Based on this membership the big worry is if this panel does come back with a finding that its cheaper to buy manned spaceflight missions from commercial industry then have NASA do it. This will provide Obama with the cover he needs to immediately eliminate billions from the human spaceflight budget at NASA by killing Constellation and replacing it with a few hundred million for COTS-D. Perhaps this $500 million is only the start of things to come in this regard And as this budget shows the money saved won’t go to science or robots, it will go to education and/or welfare just like the money saved by killing the last Apollo missions.

    If the Augustine Commission does recommend going the COTS-D only route NASA will then become just an agency for robotic missions with the handful of surviving astronauts hitching rides on whatever is going their way at the moment. And Obama will have fulfilled his original educational policy statement about cutting $5 billion from NASA to fund his birth to grave federal education program.

    Then if/when the new space industry fails to fill the gap because their promises failed to match their ability to deliver Obama just shrugs his shoulders and says its not his fault that for-profit capitalists couldn’t do it. By then the memory of NASA astronauts proudly flying into space on NASA spacecraft is ancient history, Kennedy is a ghost town and anyone who cared has left the industry or become completely disillusioned with it. Like the auto industry it will be seen as another sign of the bankruptcy of American capitalism.

    Imagine. Obama gets to kill American spaceflight and shift the money to education, but he is not associated with the deed by the American public because he used the new space advocates as his cover to kill it. And he gets a bonus if new space fails. He gets to point his finger at yet another failure of capitalism and free markets.

    What a way to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Apollo….

    Note I am not advocating Ares I – its a stupid design. But I hope the Augustine Commission will at least call for Orion to fly on the EELVs as a NASA project instead of putting all of the nation’s eggs in the new space basket. And just keep COTS-D as a backup option.

  • kert

    It seems like Constellation program should follow suit of GM and Chrysler and file for C11. Maybe entire NASA HSF should do that.
    They’ll get a honest bailout and will be dumped billions upon. Plus, they’ll be 60% government owned after that .. wait .. um oh, ok.

  • Martijn Meijering

    > So now at the suggestion of some, NASA should start funding development of human rated EELV launchers by these two aerospace corporation?

    Not developing new launchers, man-rating the existing ones.

    > That it would take no time at all? That such development would be profitable and more cost effective? Huh? Given the history of cost overruns on numerous programs that both of these aerospace companies have been involved in, not only NASA but major defense programs, the suggestion seem hardly credible or realistic.

    Much less work and much less risk than building a new launcher, let alone two the way Constellation is doing.

    > In fact, the claim is just downright ridiculous.

    No, what is ridiculous is to have an in-house NASA team, which has no experience building launch vehicles, build a new one from scratch at taxpayers’ expense. If you have to have manned launchers then 1) start from an existing design and 2) hire the experts.

  • Yet, not once in the last decade and a half have Lockheed Martin, Boeing, or their joint venture United Launch Alliance attempted to developed a human rated launch system capable of achieving at least LEO. Why not?

    With their own money? You’re joking, right?

    If LEO access was potentially profitable, why would it be necessary for NASA or the USAF to fund the development of such a launcher for either aerospace corporation? Afterall, SpaceX wasn’t even founded until 2002, the same year that Atlas V launched on its maiden flight. SpaceX took 7 years to develop the Falcon 1 and 9 from scratch receiving COTS funding only late in the game. Surely, two major aerospace companies with already well-developed EELV launchers could have come with something in those 7 years. Yet, nada.

    Because neither company is an entrepreneur, at least on that scale. When it comes to launch systems, they are in the business of taking government cost-plus contracts, with minimal risk to shareholders. The “potential” profit is nowhere near enough to justify the market risk when many of their shareholders are pension plans and the like. They all remember what happened to Northrop with the Tigershark, and they remember the Industrial Space Facility. They know that NASA can be much more effective and vicious at sabotage of an entrepreneur than even the Air Force when it perceives that a private company is in competition with them.

  • I should also point out that Lockheed Martin did spend some small amount of its own money with Bigelow to investigate putting a capsule on the Atlas V. They got some very nasty calls from NASA HQ over it (perhaps even with threats to take away the Orion contract, though I don’t know if that was explicit).

  • Mr Predictor

    Don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do. You will see that Mr. Predictor has a basis for his predictions.

    Gladly. Lets start with the fact that there are multiple people, inclduing the deputy administrator designate, who have a history of supporting private spaceflight. And while we are at it, lets also look at the fact that the stim budget included money specifically for COTS

    If that basis has any reality in fact, as of right now I can’t see it.

    Annon – why the assumption that EELV & COTSD can’t have an overlap?

  • @Martin Meijering

    Not developing new launchers, man-rating the existing ones.

    Much less work and much less risk than building a new launcher, let alone two the way Constellation is doing.

    Apparently, you did not read my comment very closely. My point was that these companies already had developed EELVs and had not taken the time to man-rate them though they had plenty of opportunity to do so in the last 10 years. But, OTOH, even to meet the lowered human rating requirement of NASA, ULA will still have to do some redevelopment of their EELVs, epecially if that involves launching the Orion which none of the EELV are design to do at this point. So yes ULA will have to develop human rated EELV and that will not be cheap or quick. And Rand Simberg just proves my point in his later post even though that was not his intent.

    @Rand Simberg

    With their own money? You’re joking, right?

    Because neither company is an entrepreneur, at least on that scale. When it comes to launch systems, they are in the business of taking government cost-plus contracts, with minimal risk to shareholders.

    Yes, with their own capital Rand. That is what being an entreprenuer is about, taking risks. You just proved my point exactly. Lockheed, Boeing, and ULA are risk adverse and noncompetitive. They have a long history of numerous government programs with cost overruns. These companies have at several points been charged by the fed with price fixing and fraud and paid huge fines. They had an already existing, proven EELV and could not be induced to redeveloping those launchers to meet human rating requirements that have been lowered by NASA several times while at the same time a New Space company was developing a launcher from scratch with it own money. Hell, they can’t even compete in the satellite launch business without goevernment subsidy. And ITAR is not the sole blame for that. These are the companies that NASA should turn to for launching the Orion? NASA should continue to do business with them as they have in the last 30 years? Really? Sounds more like the status quo to me.

  • Monte Davis

    …it will go to education and/or welfare just like the money saved by killing the last Apollo missions.

    Just out of curiosity, how do you know the Apollo savings went to education (eeeyew) or welfare (yuck) instead of, e.g., the war in SE Asia, which was costing about an entire Apollo program per year at that point? Did the dollars have little colored tags on them for tracking purposes?

  • Blue

    What does it mean to “man rate” something? And how could those costs possibly compare to the costs of developing something from the ground up that must itself be “man rated”?

    I don’t think Obama can kill manned spaceflight dead (although I think he and OMB would do so if they could) because of ISS. NASA will be permitted to develop a minimal capacity to access the Station. Science people will be shocked to fund that the cuts in the manned spaceflight budget do not directly flow to them. The entire space science community will be stunned to find their projects delayed or put on hold for Earth sensing projects.

    ISS will perform one key role, at least–it will keep a wisp of manned spaceflight alive through a hostile administration.

  • richardb

    I know that Obama has leveraged the federal treasury and the American economy to the hilt for decades to come if he can convince Congress to pass his budget plans. I know that the vast majority of his new funding is going for entitlement programs, ie what passes for “permanent” spending in DC. I know that he can’t deficit finance at the level he wants without a collapse of the dollar, persistent high inflation and that means massive job losses and social upheaval. I think that Obama knows all of this as well.

    So what gives?

    Discretionary spending in general.
    Defense spending specifically.
    Nasa spending….see what the House did yesterday.

    I take it for granted that the Augustine Commission was created by Obama to reduce the scope of Nasa’s activities, reduce the cost of Nasa by closing facilities and kill the VSE. Nasa’s mission statement after all of this is the mystery for me. Obama has a fighting chance with Democrats in control of Congress, most likely thru 2016.

  • Martijn Meijering

    > My point was that these companies already had developed EELVs and had not taken the time to man-rate them though they had plenty of opportunity to do so in the last 10 years.

    Why is that relevant? The US government wants launchers to launch people to LEO. Are you saying that because commercial players haven’t developed man-rated launchers yet NASA engineers should get right of first refusal? Why not have companies bid competitively on this? After all, it’s not NASA’s money, it’s the taxpayers’ money. How is awarding this work to NASA engineers anything else than favoritism?

    > But, OTOH, even to meet the lowered human rating requirement of NASA, ULA will still have to do some redevelopment of their EELVs, epecially if that involves launching the Orion which none of the EELV are design to do at this point. So yes ULA will have to develop human rated EELV and that will not be cheap or quick. And Rand Simberg just proves my point in his later post even though that was not his intent.

    I’ve heard knowledgeable people say it would in fact be relatively cheap and relatively quick. Much cheaper than building one or even two new systems from scratch. How could it not be?

  • Annon

    Ferris

    That is my hope, that EELV will be the prime and COTS-D the backup.

    But Obama is looking for money to pay for his vision of a “new” Amerika and NASA was first on his list for cutting before he realized he needed votes in Florida

    Monte

    Because the opponents of space spending also were against the war as well. They were for using it on welfare.

    But yes, dollars like salmon aren’t tagged so you will never be able to “prove” the money Obama cuts from NASA will go to education, other then his original statements on NASA in 2007.

  • Annon – first, I reject the notion that his final space policy was some sort of attempt to win florida voters – if that were the case, why not simply endorse a minor variation of the current plan? His space policy white paper discussed a number of things, related to aeronautics, to space debris mitigation, to inter-agency cooperation, to engaging the private sector – it was 6+ pages. If it was just about winning votes, a 1 page would’ve more than sufficed. Thats not simply about winning votes

    Further, look at who he has brought in – Lori Garver, George Whitesides, Charles Miller – Jeff Greason, president of XCOR, is a part of the Augustine commission.

    You don’t like Obama, fine, I get that. But don’t use broad brushes to paint him. Hell, Jim Muncy, a well known conservative space policy activist, has backed the Augustine Commission.

  • Vladislaw

    The first launchers for human spaceflight were missles, they had to add more reduncy and safety features for turning a missle into a human launcher

    Human-rating certification

    “Human-rated or man-rated are terms used to describe the certification of a spacecraft, launch vehicle or airplane as worthy of transporting humans. NASA and the U.S. GAO now uses “Human-rating” when describing requirements for these systems. The terms “man-rated” and “human-rated” are mostly used interchangeably.

    In spaceflight, a human-rating certification is an assurance that the engineering, health and safety features of a spacecraft will prevent fatal or permanently disabling injuries to passengers and crewmembers. In the United States, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has published NASA Procedural Requirement 8705.2 – Human Rating Requirements for Space Systems, describing a certification process to “protect the health and safety of humans involved in or exposed to space activities.”[1]

    There is a widespread belief that designing and operating a human-rated rocket is substantially more difficult than doing so for a rocket which carries only cargo.[who?] It is noteworthy that the space shuttle pre-dates the existing NASA criteria (NPR 8705.28, dated Feb. 2005) for human-rating. After the Challenger and Columbia accidents, the criteria used by NASA for human-rating spacecraft have been made more stringent.

    An airplane or rocket is considered as a man-rated vehicle if it satisfies a certain threshold of safety for its human occupants. This may include redundancy of certain components and certification by regulatory agencies.”

  • Jim Muncy

    Since my friend has invoked my name, I will have to enter this discussion.

    First of all, as someone with the letter R branded onto his forehead, could you people PLEASE stop using spacepolitics.com to bash Obama, Bush, or any partisan officials with attacks out of your standard partisan playbook.

    I did not vote for Mr. Obama. But I am more committed to opening the space frontier to all humanity than I am to attacking our President.

    17 years ago I was attacked as an enemy of human spaceflight because I had pointed out that Space Station Freedom was screwed up. I was proved right when it had to be restructured a year later (in 1993), but the fact was that I was always more committed to human spaceflight than I was to NASA’s human spaceflight programs. Some of you clearly don’t even know there’s a difference.

    Very few people on this blog really know why the Augustine panel exists. Well, I can tell you it doesn’t exist to kill human spaceflight at NASA or in the private sector. It doesn’t exist to transfer human spaceflight from NASA to the private sector. It exists for one simple reason: based on data obtained between the election and the inauguration by the Obama Transition team, it definitely appears that the current plan for human space exploration by NASA after Shuttle retirement is at a minimum not affordable under likely funding projections, and at a maximum not workable/sustainable at all. Because the Administration *is* actually committed to there being a NASA program of human space exploration, they need advice on what *will work* and *is affordable*.

    The four objectives before the Augustine panel could not be more clear. Find a path that quickly supports ISS, enables real exploration, empowers the commercial sector, AND IS AFFORDABLE.

    Ignoring those words just to score rhetorical points is pointless. Take it to Daily Kos or Ace of Spades.

    End of rant.

  • Jim Muncy says: “The four objectives before the Augustine panel could not be more clear. Find a path that quickly supports ISS, enables real exploration, empowers the commercial sector, AND IS AFFORDABLE.”

    Sounds to me like a window of opportunity for those “renegade engineers” behind DIRECT: http://www.directlauncher.com

  • @Jim Muncy

    Good rant. I agree that the Augustine panel is primarily focused on what is the best path to achieving human spaceflight from NASA’s perspective and commercial perspective. I have supported both funding COTS and hopefully eventually COTS D to develop commercial cargo and crew LEO launch systems. I also fully support New Space companies like Virgin Galactic/Scaled Composites and XCOR in developing suborbital flights because I believe they pursuing the path that will most likely lead to a resuable low cost launch system. In the end, I support commercial development of LEO transportation systems with R&D and funding support from NASA.

    However, NASA’s other main mission is extending human space exploration beyond LEO. A number of people have argued that EELVs would be able to support NASA’s human exploration goals. However, the only existing EELVs today are manufactured by Lockheed Martin and Boeing. As Rand Simberg (perhaps unintentionally) pointed out in his post these companies have become risk adverse and noncompetitive. These corporations had ample opportunity to develop human rated EELVs over the last decade by modifying their existing launchers and have failed to do so. Given their history of huge cost overruns at both NASA and DOD, why should we expect them to develop affordable EELV options now?

    Which brings me to my question. What, in your opinion, is AFFORDABLE? How do you define it? Because as has been argued by Michael Griffin and many other human spaceflight advocates, NASA’s budget has been essentially flatlined for many years and certainly has not risen to meet the rising costs of inflation. Because of this week budget, NASA has had to run a bare bones operation which is simply unreasonable given its mandate. A budget of $21 – $23 billion is closer to a reasonable and affordable budget which is just barely above 1% of federal budget. What is more, that liberal, progressive website you mentioned, Daily Kos, runs a weekly poll on NASA funding levels. You may be surpised to know that there is over the last 6 months consistently 65 – 70% support for a NASA budget of 2% of federal budget. Now is the time for people with political influence and political will to step forward and convince Congress that increasing NASA’s budget to 1% is a step in the right direction and will have positive economic and political consequences.

  • kert

    Because the Administration *is* actually committed to there being a NASA program of human space exploration, they need advice on what *will work* and *is affordable*.
    I’d really like a clearly worded answer from this committee on this: is it in NASA’s charter to design and especially operate launch vehicles, or not ?
    Once they answer that, a lot of other answers will logically follow without much analysis.

  • kert

    I forgot to clarify that not operating a launch vehicle doesnt imply lack of NASA human spaceflight program, of course.

  • richardb

    @Jim Muncy, you write as if we’re in a reasonable world where reasonable suggestions will be deliberated. We’re entering a world where federal spending can’t be sustained and discretionary spending will have to be cut substantially. Nasa wants more money than Obama can spare, regardless of booster it uses. Augustine Commission offers a way to recognize the coming austerity and apply it to a revamped NASA.

    I see no reason for anyone to hold back their feelings about Obama or Bush or Griffin as they made space policy decisions that people on similar boards have passionate feelings about.

  • A. Nonymous

    They all remember what happened to Northrop with the Tigershark,

    I’m glad someone else remembers that one. For you youngsters out there, what happened is that the government promised Northrop (just Northrop, Grumman was still an independent company back then) that if they would develop the F-5 into a modern fighter, then the government would help them with foreign sales. A key part of the marketing promise was that they wouldn’t sell the F-16 to foreign governments. Northrop spent $1 billion (at a time when that was serious money) turning the F-5 into the F-20, a low cost, maintainable fighter. The government then stabbed them in the back by selling the F-16 to everyone.

    The reasons were many, but the lesson is clear: no matter what the government promises you, always make them show you the money. I lament that LockIngRup doesn’t act entrepreneurial, but I sure understand why they aren’t.

  • Annon

    Ferris,

    History will show if Obama’s first view of NASA as a piggy bank for education, or his “foxhole” election conversion is now his true view. History will show if his space supporters were deceived. But the problem is by the time We Know American spaceflight will be history.

    So the time to speak out to save NASA is now, not when its history. WHich is just what I plan to do.

    If Obama has trillions to bail out Wall Street the money is there to preserve American spaceflight. If Obama believes in American spaceflight as you believe he does Ferris then he needs to speak out now against Congress cutting his NASA Budget. And to make it clear he won’t tolerate it ending American spaceflight. But all I hear from the White House is silence. And yet another commission to cover what other commissions have covered before…

  • common sense

    @Jim Muncy:

    In a word: Thank you, okay 2 words, hmm 8 words… ;)

  • I’m beginning to think we elect little children to congress who like playing little games. Yes, lets play this little budget game, put this program in even more trouble. And just make fools of us in the eyes of the rest of the planet.

    What kind of morons do we put on these committees. Harsh works, yes, but I”m tired of hearing this garbage.

  • As Rand Simberg (perhaps unintentionally) pointed out in his post these companies have become risk adverse and noncompetitive.

    I didn’t point out that they have “become risk adverse [sic] and uncompetitive.” What I pointed out was that they have never been other than risk averse, when it comes to space. They view R&D as a profit center, not as a cost of doing business.

    And my point was entirely intentional. I have no idea why you would fantasize that it might be otherwise. I find these fantasies about my point, or my intentions about it, quite annoying.

  • @Annon sez: “So the time to speak out to save NASA is now, not when its history. WHich is just what I plan to do.”

    And here’s your opportunity and at least one venue (as of today) in which to do it in:

    June 5, 2009

    Doc Mirelson
    Headquarters, Washington
    202-358-4495
    doc.mirelson@nasa.gov

    MEDIA ADVISORY: M09-126

    NASA LAUNCHES HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT REVIEW WEB SITE FOR PUBLIC USE

    WASHINGTON — NASA is inviting the public to make its voice heard as a panel of experts undertakes an independent review of planned U.S.
    human space flight activities.

    NASA has created a Web site for the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee to facilitate a two-way conversation with the public about the future direction of the agency’s space flight programs. In addition to providing documents and information, the site will allow the public to track committee activities, receive regular updates and provide input through Web 2.0 tools such as Twitter, Flickr, user-submitted questions, polls and RSS feeds. Additional features and content may be added as the committee’s activities continue.

    “The human space flight program belongs to everyone,” committee chairman Norman Augustine said. “Our committee would hope to benefit from the views of all who would care to contact us.”

    Anyone may use the Web site to submit questions, upload documents or comment about topics relevant to the committee’s operations. The committee will conduct public meetings during the course of the review. The first will be held June 17 in Washington, D.C. An agenda for this meeting will be announced soon. Time will be set aside for public questions and comments to the committee members. No registration is required to attend.

    To learn more, visit the committee’s Web site at: http://hsf.nasa.gov

    For information about NASA and agency activities, visit: http://www.nasa.gov

    -end-

  • Annonn – can you name another commission that considered the ESAS, and the 4 specific objectives given to them?

    And remember – how much money was put into exploration in the stim? Remember, the stimulus originally came out of the Obama whitehouse. (Although as of right now, NASA cannot spend any of its stimulus funds – http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/agency-summary&agency_code=80 – thanks Congress )

    Again, look at what Obama has done so far. You are willing to ignore the points I raised, and go back to the original piece in a document that is almost 2 years old, about education.

    If you want to prove that the Augustine panel is going to somehow give Obama political cover to kill human spaceflight, you’ll have to explain why people like Gen Lester Lyles, Dr. Chiao, Dr. Ride, Norm Augustine, Jeff Greason – how they want to kill all NASA human spaceflight. And if you want to prove that Obama is trying to kill human spaceflight, you’ll have to explain away people like George Whitesides, Alan Ladwig, Lori Garver, Charles Miller, and Gen. Bolden agreeing to work for him. And you’ll have to explain why Obama put money into the stimulus package for exploration. As for “speaking out against congress” – this has been out for exactly 1 day (ok, closer to 2) – do you expect the president, any president, to drop whatever they are doing, and start screaming about congress cutting space? Lets be a little bit realistic.

    Now, the reality is that NASA human spaceflight is facing an uncertain future, and is very much in flux. And the response from the House approps committee is troubling, I agree. That said, NASA has not exactly been the best steward of governmental programs and human spaceflight. Lets remember, NASA has been on either OMB or GAO’s Extreme watch list (or high risk list) as it relates to costing.

    Jim made excellent points about the Augustine commission, and you are free to re-read them at your leasiure. He said them better than I could.

    Beyond that, I don’t have anything more to add. If you are more interested in going after a president, rather than looking at the data, then there isn’t much to discuss.

  • Al Fansome

    SIMBERG: What I pointed out was that they have never been other than risk averse, when it comes to space. They view R&D as a profit center, not as a cost of doing business.

    Rand,

    The big guys do stick their toes into the water of “risky space investments” every now and then, and then (after losing their shirts) go back to their risk averse ways.

    Recent examples are A) Boeing’s investments in Sea Launch, where Boeing reportedly had to write off nearly a billion dollars that they will never get back (let alone an adequate ROI), and B) both Boeing and Lockheed’s investments in the Delta IV and Atlas V (again, they will never get an adequate ROI).

    The big guys have tried to, on occasion, invest private corporate dollars, but they are not that good at it.

    Meanwhile, they are good at “cost plus”.

    There approach is seen to be quite rational, once you walk a mile in their shoes.

    FWIW,

    – Al

  • @ Rand Simberg

    Sometome I wonder if you argue just for the sake of arguing. I was discussing Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and their joint venture ULA, specifically their EELV launch systems business which doesn’t exactly fall under R&D. You responded to my original comment with what appeared to be different viewpoint, but you emphasized my point on why NASA should not be relying on these corporations to develop human rated EELVs. They are risk adverse and noncompetitive. Not uncompetitive. But your point was about their unwillingness to invest their own money into NASA ventures, that they prefer cost-plus contracts in order minimize risk to their investors. Thus, why I said you perhaps unintentionally proved my point. Why you imagined that was insult or that you felt the need to insult me is beyond me.

    Some other questions. Do you honestly think that NASA has any ability to control Lockheed Martin or Boeing? NASA burn Boeing? USAF burn Lockheed Martin? How many times have these companies run up huge bills on NASA and DOD contracts? Both of these major corporations have gross revenues that dwarf NASA’s budget. They have one of the highest number of lobbyists in Washington of any major manufacturer. Many observers have frequently criticized NASA for being a proxy of these two companies. In fact there was even a book written about it. How in the world can you expect these two corporations to give NASA a good deal on EELVs?

  • There approach is seen to be quite rational, once you walk a mile in their shoes.

    Al, that was exactly my point. I wasn’t criticizing them — I was just decribing reality and the business environment in which they exist. I didn’t quit them because they were evil; I only did so because it wasn’t what I wanted to do any more.

  • Annon

    Ferris,

    Could you name another President who started out his election by saying he would take $5 billion for NASA for education. Then flipped when resistance appeared?

    As for the members of the committee. Just read my original post carefully. All they have to do is say Ares I is bad, NASA needs to be out of the human spaceflight business, and the government could save the money by letting new space do it instead with COTS-D.

    Do you honestly think those findings are out of the realm of possibility even if the members of the commission are pro-manned spaceflight?

    Bottom line.
    NASA human spaceflight budget is reduced to COTS-D and rides on Soyuz. Human Spaceflight is effectively ended at NASA. Obama is free to cut billions from the NASA budget since COTS-D saves so much money. Then you only need to have new space fail to succeed with COTS-D because the challenge of raising money was underestimated. As it was with VentureStar. As it was with Kistler.

    Result – the end of manned spaceflight.

    Obama has a plausible denial. And all the Commission members have to do is make the mistake of believing that new space could do NASA what NASA has failed to do. Develop a Shuttle replacement.

    The only hope I see is if the commission calls for NASA funding of Orion on EELV. COTS-D could be a backup, but not on the critical path.

    But we will see. Now I need to write letters in support of the desired finding. Go on with your Obama delusion. Just remember this famous quote.

    “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
    -Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

  • Annon

    Jim,

    Thanks for the link. I will post it on my Blog.

  • Ok, first, he didn’t “start out his election” that way – Months into the campaign, he released a statement about education, that offered 1 part of a payment plan was to pull money from NASA. And, believe it or not, more than a few people took him to task for that (myself included).

    Second, as for as “flipping when resistance appeared”
    1 – I disagree that he flipped over night – if you review his public comments, and his first space policy white paper, and compare it with both the final paper, and that first comment, you see the position evolving. I spent a good part of 2008 watching for, and tracing, every comment or hint about Obama and space.
    2 – That being the case, what it shows is that he recieved new information about space (which isn’t totally surprising since I suspect he hadn’t spent much time on space – it is, at best, usually a 3rd tier issue)
    3 – Even if part of it was a reaction to public pressure, I personally think that a president who can be responsive, somewhat, to public opinions, is not necessarily a bad thing, all the time.

    I really want to know what is your proof that the only reason he flipped was because of political pressure.

    As to the members of the committee – I know what you said, and I think what you said doesn’t reflect at all the positions of the committee members. And unless you can justify your comments, (which I suspect you can’t) your arguement has no basis in reality. Show me where Sally Ride is a die-hard supporter of NewSpace

    Do you honestly think those findings are out of the realm of possibility even if the members of the commission are pro-manned spaceflight?

    I think that the hole in your logic has already been pointed out. Go read my earlier posts again

    BTw, your quote – remember what actually happened.

  • InTheKnow

    @GaryMiles wrote:
    “Yet, not once in the last decade and a half have Lockheed Martin, Boeing, or their joint venture United Launch Alliance attempted to developed a human rated launch system capable of achieving at least LEO.”

    Your post is idiotic on so many levels, it’s hard to know where to start.

    1) There was this NASA program called Orbital Space Plan that baselined Atlas and Delta as their launch vehicles. LM and Boeing were primes. The Program ended when Griffin came in. I think that debunks your statement. Strike 1 for Gary.

    2) Boeing and Lockheed competed for Orion. LM won and is building it. It’s gonna fly on an Ares 1. Strike 2 for Gary.

    3) Griffin would NEVER allow Orion to fly on an EELV. Don’t quote the BS that EELV can’t do the mission. You are WRONG. Strike 3 for Gary.

    Good try Gary. But let’s look at some more facts.

    4) Do you know how many companies bidding on COTS Capability D proposed Atlas? A lot of companies out there believe that EELVs can be human rated. So much so that they proposed it to NASA. Why didn’t they win? Griffin wouldn’t allow it.

    5) Any time ULA tried to talk about a commercial human rated Atlas, they received threatening phone calls from Griffin. Whether you chose to believe it or not is immaterial. It happened. I know.

    6) Existing Atlas and Delta EXCEED the current 8705.2B Human Rating requirements. They are more compliant than Ares 1. Just wait and see what they provide the Augustine Panel. Finally, the truth will be told.

    7) You don’t have any idea what ULA is doing to prepare their vehicles for commercial human spaceflight. Considerable progress has been made. Just because Gary Miles doesn’t know anything about it doesn’t mean that it’s not happening. You’d be amazed if you knew.

    Get a grip Miles and do some critical thinking and look at the facts before you post such drivel.

  • Martijn Meijering

    @InTheKnow:

    As you probably know, a couple of years ago Boeing published a paper on growth options for the Delta-IV:

    Delta IV launch vehicle growth options to support NASA’s space exploration vision.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V1N-4G98DYB-F&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6108ed31be40cd94d39b8e91ec010acb

    It describes a whole range of improvements that together could double the payload of Delta-IV-H. I’m curious about the impact on D-IV-M. The paper doesn’t specify by how much the Medium’s capacity could be improved. RS-68A, densified propellants, Al-Li structures, MB-60 or dual RL-10 could all apply to the Medium as well as the Heavy and the article does speak of fleet-wide improvements. And if you include things like ACES, you could perhaps go even further.

    Is there any possibility of an Orion with offloaded propellant fitting on an upgraded Delta-IV-M instead of a Delta IV-H? Could it be that optimising Delta-IV Medium for manned spaceflight in LEO is a more promising angle than optimising the Heavy for exploration? The Medium should be a lot cheaper than the Heavy.

    Another approach to consider would be to down-size Orion. The Augustine commission’s statement of task hints at that possibility.

  • kert

    It seems that the “workforce” question appears in Augustine commission topics as well. In case of General Motors C11, people calculated that to “save the workforce” government dumped about half a million per person into GM. Woulda been simpler to simply give it to them directly.

    So whats the size of the STS workforce affected ? 10 000 ? For five billion already spent on the Stick, each of them would have gotten a nice half million $ compensation package too.

  • @InTheKnow

    First, your blog name is rather presumptuous. Second, if you want to be tough guy then have the balls to use your real name. Third, quit talking like this is a baseball game.

    The Orbital Space Plane was a project funded by NASA. Both Lockheed Martin and Boeing served as contractors on the project. They did not fund the project with their own capital and the plan certainly did not originate from them. EELVs were proposed to launch OSP. Those proposals were made back in 2002 – 2003. The OSP was a limited LEO vehicle that would only service the ISS and really had no other purpose. Then the Columbia accident occurred. NASA decided to retire the shuttle fleet and scrapped the OSP plans. This occurred on Sean O’Keefe’s watch, not Michael Griffin who wasn’t confirmed until April 2005.

    The Delta IV and Atlas V heavy are not human rated and do not meet current NASA guidelines crew launches. Even United Launch Alliance acknowledged that. In the last year, they gave several budget estimates of what they thought it would take to upgrade their vehicles to meet those requirements. Those budget estimates, $400 million for Delta IV and $200 million for Atlas V H, have been widely disputed and not just by NASA. But, then you go on to acknowledge yourself that EELVs are not manrated in your 4) statement. Do you even know what you wrote?

    All those companies that proposed EELVs for COTS (And I only know of three, so please feel free to list the countless others that you no doubt know about)? Their proposals were all on paper. They had invested little to no capital in development. Some of them, like Planetspace, were little more than proxies for LM and Boeing. The two winning bids, SpaceX and eventually Orbital, had both already invested tens of millions of dollars into developing their concepts.

    Yes, Lockheed Martin won the Orion contract. Its called a cost plus contract for a reason. There is no risk. LM will get its money even if Orion never flies. LM and Boeing always go for those kind of contracts. That is what they exist on. But that is not real competition. That is noncompetition. Both of these companies are well-known for lowballing NASA contracts then marking up the costs afterwards. If human rating EELVs, was simple and relatively less expensive, then LM and Boeing should have been willing to invest their own capital in doing so. But they didn’t. Surely, these two big aerospace with all kinds of ability to raise capital, far better than any New Space company, would have predicted that there would be a demand for LEO access. Especially since space tourists began launching on Soyuz. But no, despite many indications of new demand for human spaceflight, these big corporations did not work to develop their own system. They want NASA funding first. They want security. Only the New Space companies have been willing to put their money where there mouth is and take risks. That is entreprenuership. So now, we are just suppose to fund LM or Boeing to human rate EELVs so we can launch Orion? I find that notion laughable and ironic.

    United Launch Alliance is a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin who are consolidating all their satellite launcher production and launch operations under that venture. If ULA is doing anything to develop their launchers to compete in the human crew launch market, they certainly have been keeping quiet. There definitely hasn’t been any announcements or press releases. Apparently nobody outside of ULA managements knows what is going on there.

    BTW, You ascribe to Michael Griffin the powers of a deity. Lol! I mean, Oh My God! I am sure he wished at times that he really had that kind of power and influence.

  • Martijn Meijering

    @Gary Miles:

    What launcher do you propose to launch Orion then?

    If your concern is with crew rotation for the ISS, then sure fund COTS-D. EELV + Orion could be useful as a stopgap measure until COTS-D became operational. After that Orion should only be used as a backup. If ULA still wanted to be part of ISS crew rotation, they would have to develop a capsule on their own dime or sell launch services to someone else who did.

  • si_atwork

    It’s strange how NASA is attempting to make things harder for itself. The EELVs as they are will do just nicely for the human space flight. Just some instrumentation and to activate the abort system, and a human access tower/ramp to the fairing/capsule. That’s it. If they are good enough for launching something like a GPS sat, an NRO bird, or a MER rover, it’ll do fine for launching a version of Orion to LEO. Solved. Next problem?

    Anyway it brings a sad tear to my eye watching NASA’s MSFC tinkering with Ares so that they can re-learn how to design and make rockets, when the time and money are critical, and we already have outfits that know how to do rockets and have designed a couple just recently which are operational with a track record.

  • The Orion spacecraft is one element of the Constellation program. If the only purpose if the Orion was to service the ISS, then fine put it on an an EELV. Launching Orion on an Atlas V Heavy, the cheaper EELV, will cost nearly as much as launching the space shuttle and will certainly not have the capabilities of STS. If reducing costs was a priority, then launching astronauts on the Soyuz to the ISS would be considerably cheaper for the US than launching Orion/EELV for ISS missions.

    However, the purpose of the Constellation program, of which Orion belongs, is to move humans beyond LEO. Originally, ISS servicing was only Orion’s incidental role if the COTS and COTS D program did not produce viable crew and cargo alternatives by 2015. So far, a commercially available cargo transport may be available by late 2011 early 2012 if all goes well for SpaceX and Orbital. Had COTS D been funded sooner, then there may have well been a crew launch system availabile by 2015. But Congress has not authorized the funding for COTS D.

    The Constellation program is built around an exploration architecture not a transportation system. I support the continued development of Ares I and Ares V launchers. Right now I don’t have the time to argue its merits, but its technical problems are manageable and fixable. The question is money and time.

    Boeing and Lockheed Martin may have a knowledge base to build LEO launchers, but they certainly aren’t capitalizing on that knowledge. They have been virtually kicked out of the low to medium range satellite launch market and only have limited number of launch payloads for their heavy launchers.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “So the time to speak out to save NASA is now, not when its history. WHich is just what I plan to do.”

    I don’t think this has anything to do with “saving NASA”, except perhaps saving it from itself. As a result of decisions within the agency over the last few years, I suppose it needs that very much. Very simply, this is about coming up with rationale for human space flight, which is frankly in short supply right now. I hope outside contributors to the Augustine panel effort keep that charge to the panel firmly in mind.

    If this study results in cuts to the human space flight budget, it’s because the plan as currently conceived doesn’t clearly address what are accepted national priorities. Colonization of the solar system sure isn’t one of them. In many respects, such a challenge (or perhaps, more accurately, come-to-Jesus moment) for the human space flight community could end up making that community, and that function, a lot stronger, and could really pave the way toward larger federal investment.

  • common sense

    @ Gary Miles:

    I don’t know about Congress and COTS-D but NASA certainly did not warm to the idea. Ask them…

    As for Ares I, I suppose the Augustine panel will see whether or not it still is the one route to pursue. The problem I have with Ares as a whole is all the baseless arguments against EELVs they entertain in order to keep it going. Sorry but EELVs are one option and it should be looked at. If indeed Ares is the right one then be it. But I think it will be shown not to be true.

    Furthermore we will soon know if there is any real future space exploration program only if COTS-D get some funding. The same who argue it’s okay to fly Shuttle with all the risks involved oppose COTS-D on the basis of risks. It does not make any sense. The COTS-D risks, so far, only are financial risks AND small risks compared to Ares/Orion or even Shuttle. If the government cannot find the courage to put a little $$$ into some limited risk with enormous potential return, then talk about going to the Moon, Mars, or even to the DC beltway!

  • InTheKnow

    Martijn Meijering –

    The current Delta IV-H can lift the current Orion (6-crew) with about 5% margin. A Delta IV-H with an RS68-A has about 20% margin. In both cases, Black Zones are closed.

    So there’s really no need to redesign Orion.

  • Martijn Meijering

    @ InTheNow
    “The current Delta IV-H can lift the current Orion (6-crew) with about 5% margin. A Delta IV-H with an RS68-A has about 20% margin. In both cases, Black Zones are closed.

    So there’s really no need to redesign Orion.”

    I’d prefer they do not redesign Orion, but I’m mostly interested if there would be a way to launch it On D-IV-M, since that would be considerably cheaper. I had wondered if that was possible with all the proposed Delta upgrades done and most of the propellant off-loaded. Of course, another possibility would be to launch Orion fully fueled and to use it as a third stage.

    I’m thinking about cost, initially for Orion, later on for commercial capsules. I’d really like to see manned single-core Atlases and/or Deltas.

  • George Purcell

    “Launching Orion on an Atlas V Heavy, the cheaper EELV, will cost nearly as much as launching the space shuttle and will certainly not have the capabilities of STS.”

    Marginal cost, perhaps. Average cost–I don’t see how that is possible.

  • InTheKnow

    Martijn,
    “I’d really like to see manned single-core Atlases and/or Deltas.”

    Absolutely agree. Single cores are much simpler, reliable vehicles. That’s why many COTS-D bidders chose Atlas V. That’s why Bigelow wants Atlas V.

    Orion is designed to go to the moon, so it’s a great ship for Exploration. The Nation should continue to build it.

    Let’s turn LEO over to commercial and see what they can do. Put a small capsule on an Atlas and take them to ISS, or to Bigelow’s station. And remember, just because it’s labeled “commercial” doesn’t mean that it’s solely the entrepreneurs (like SpaceX) that will bid on it. If NASA can craft the commercial procurement properly, you’ll likely see LM and Boeing play.

    This is the best opportunity to get a commercial program going. If we go down the Ares/Orion path, commercial human spaceflight will be dead for the foreseeable future. NASA needs to be the anchor tenant to get a commercial crew vehicle designed.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Oh absolutely, ISS rotation should be done through COTS-D. However, it will take a while for COTS-D to become operational, even if it is funded immediately after the Augustine review makes its recommendations. It’s possible the Shuttle will be extended a bit to reduce the gap, but the commission’s statement of task directs them to consider architectures that do not rely on that. In the mean-time EELV + Orion would be a good option. It should only last until COTS-D becomes operational, after which it would serve only as a backup option in case anything goes wrong.

    Commercial capsules the size of Dragon or even Soyuz could be launched on an existing Delta IV Medium or an Atlas and that would be a good thing. But if it were possible to launch an Orion on an upgraded Delta too, that would be great. It would probably not be possible to upgrade Delta enough to be able to launch an Orion on a Medium before COTS-D becomes operational, but for lunar missions the Orion still needs to be launched to LEO and if that can be done on a Medium instead of a Heavy, even better.

    I’d like to see all “minor” Delta upgrades done as well as Atlas Phase 1, or actually a common upper stage for Atlas and Delta. That puts EELVs in a good position to be part of (semi-)commercial activities beyond LEO.

  • richardb

    Assume that Ares I is recommended for termination by the Obama Administration. How long would it take to do another RFP for a replacement US system? I assume that Obama wouldn’t dictate the booster the way Bush did so an open competition would probably be held.

    How long would it take for Nasa to evaluate the proposals and make a final selection? RFP + Eval + contract award sometime in 2011?

  • kert

    How long would it take to do another RFP for a replacement US system?
    US system as in a US launch vehicle ? No time, US already has launch vehicles.
    If NASA wants to conduct exploration, they’ll just have to design around existing capabilities. You know, like they do with earh-observing spacecraft, martian rovers, deep space probes and so on.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Besides, the statement of task directs the commission to go for architectures that build on existing plans or on existing or emerging launchers. There’s no room for clean sheet architectures.

  • […] House appropriators call a “time-out” on exploration spending – Space Politics […]

  • There’s no room for clean sheet architectures.

    That’s the dumbest thing I have ever heard. That’s like saying there is no room for discovery, no room for invention, no room for innovation and no room for anything new at all. They didn’t say that. They just said that any new architectures must build on preexisting plans and emerging launch vehicles.

    Ares I was a clean sheet design that totally broke with all of our previous experience or state of the art, and we all know exactly where and what that little exercise in folly led us to. It led us directly to this review, after nearly four years and ten billion dollars. They just don’t want to waste that costly and time consuming learning experience, and inarguable failure. Rocket science is about building on previous accomplishments and learning from your previous failures and mistakes. Ares I completely violated that tenet.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Huh? How does They didn’t say that. not directly contradict they just said that any new architectures must build on preexisting plans and emerging launch vehicles.? Either it is clean sheet or it draws on existing plans/designs.

    First you say That’s the dumbest thing I have ever heard. and then you go on to say Rocket science is about building on previous accomplishments and learning from your previous failures and mistakes. Ares I completely violated that tenet.

    This does not make sense to me. What am I missing?

  • Either it is clean sheet or it draws on existing plans/designs.

    Black and white went out of vogue in the 60’s, and absolutism went out of vogue with general relativity and quantum mechanics. Consider yourself lucky that the vast majority of rocket science is Newtonian in nature.

    This does not make sense to me. What am I missing?

    Nuance, context, and the phrase ‘clean sheet’ in the Augustine tasking text.

    Dr. Frankenstein needs a new assistant, I hear.

  • […] is scheduled to take up the markup of the Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) appropriations that the subcommittee handled last week, slashing several hundred million from the administration’s proposal and calling a […]

  • This does not make sense to me. What am I missing?

    You are missing the fact that it is Thomas Lee Elifritz (who at least had the decency to spout his usual incoherent nonsense under his own name for once).

  • […] biggest issue had been funding for exploration, after the House slashed exploration by nearly $700 million. That funding has been largely restored, with $3.8 billion in the final bill “to extend […]

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>