Congress, NASA

Congressional reaction to the Augustine report

Last week’s release of the Augustine committee’s sumary report got, as you might expect, some reaction from Capitol Hill, although not as much as you might have expected. While a few members issued formal statements, others, including those who normally speak out on space issues, decided not to, at least for now.

The chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), issued a relatively non-committal statement after the report’s release, saying that he expected the report would help the committee’s work on a planned multi-year reauthorization of NASA later this year. “I want to work with the Administration to ensure that our nation can sustain a vital exploration program,” Gordon said in the statement. “As has already been recognized by the Augustine panel, NASA has not been given resources matched to the tasks it has been asked to undertake. That has to change.”

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), chair of the science committee’s space subcommittee, issued a press release Wednesday responding to the report. She stated that the report demonstrated that NASA needed additional funding, and included this comment:

Continued underfunding of NASA risks the good work being done by the Constellation Program, which includes vehicles capable of launching astronauts to low-Earth orbit and to the Moon. This is unfortunate, particularly because the Augustine panel found no significant technical problems with the Constellation Program.

That’s not quite what the committee said in its report. Here’s the key passage:

Most major vehicle-development programs face technical challenges as a normal part of the process, and Constellation is no exception. While significant, these are engineering problems, and the Committee expects that they can be solved. But these solutions may add to the program’s cost and/or delay its schedule.

Saying that any problems with Constellation can be solved isn’t the same as saying there are no “significant” technical problems with the current architecture.

Meanwhile, Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) issued a statement expressing concern about the seven-year gap the committee projected for the current architecture based on its progress to date and projected funding. He used the release to advocate for his own bill, the American Space Access Act (HR 1962) that would authorize funding for additional shuttle flights beyond 2010. No action has taken place on that bill since its introduction in April.

Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) took his concerns about the space program to the House floor–in the form of a one-minute speech early in the day September 10. Olson reiterated general concerns about the future of NASA and its need for appropriate resources.

What’s missing from this reaction are comments from appropriators: while it’s great to authorize additional funding for NASA, it’s not useful unless that authorization is backed by an appropriation, something that has been lacking in the past. While Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who chairs the appropriations subcommittee in the Senate whose jurisdiction includes NASA, took time last week to participate in the unveiling of the some of the first Hubble images since its servicing back in May, she has remained quiet in public on the question of NASA’s budget. And her counterpart in the Senate, Rep. Alan Mollohan, has also largely remained quiet. His subcommittee took several hundred million dollars out of NASA’s FY10 exploration budget earlier this year, citing the uncertainty about the future of the exploration program. Mollohan did tell The Hill that the report confirms his belief that “the emperor has no clothes”.

40 comments to Congressional reaction to the Augustine report

  • Major Tom

    Based on NASA’s appropriations performance over the past five fiscal years, it’s highly unlikely that the agency is going to receive another $3 billion per year for civil human space flight/exploration (or anything else). Several points:

    — Since Columbia and Katrina, Senator Mikulski has tried annually to get NASA a one-time, $1 billion budget increase to pay back Katrina damage and reimburse the agency for the Columbia recovery effort and investigation. She was unsuccessful in both Republican- and Democrat-controlled Congresses at even getting a floor vote on such a measure, despite her position on the appropriations committee and the support of other NASA Senators. Even when the civil human space program is arguably reeling from man-made and natural accidents, Congress is not sympathetic even to a one-time $1 billion increase, nevertheless multi-billion dollar increases over multiple years.

    — It took the biggest economic crisis since the Depression for NASA to finally get that one-time $1 billion budget boost in the Recovery Act. But only $400 million went to human space flight/exploration. Moreover, with rising concern over rising deficits, such an opportunity is not going to present itself again anytime soon. Even with the Augustine Committee’s recommendations, it’s very doubtful that the White House would propose to increase human space flight spending, an easy target for fiscal conservatives in this budget environment. And even if the President did propose such an increase, it would almost certainly be greatly scaled back/eliminated by Congress, per the point above.

    — Prior to the Recovery Act, NASA’s last large budget boost, a multi-year $1 billion increase, came in FY 2004, when the Bush II Administration rolled out the VSE. However, it was saved only by the intervention of Administrator O’Keefe and his connections with appropriators, especially Rep. Tom Delay. There is no manager sitting in the Administrator’s suite today with O’Keefe’s OMB and appropriations connections.

    Although they came close, it’s unfortunate that the Augustine Committee’s Summary Report did not identify a exploration option that better matched fiscal realities. It will be up to White House staff and NASA managers to salvage a fiscally viable exploration path out of the Committee’s options. Looking at the budget charts in Sally Ride’s presentations, the big budget driver in the Augustine Committee’s options is development of a heavy lift vehicle.

    My two cent solution to the problem is that the multi-ten billion dollar expense of heavy lift development be deferred as long as possible in favor of in-space propellant provisioning development. That should be adequate for modest exploration missions (Lagrange point, NEO, and small lunar) in the near-term, and the expense of developing heavy versions of the EELV can be pursued if and when it’s determined at some future point in time that heavy lift is necessary for more demanding exploration missions (Phobos, lunar base, Mars).

    FWIW…

  • […] Congressional reaction to the Augustine report – Space Politics […]

  • Jeff: That’s not quite what the committee said in its report.

    As I recall, the report did say something to the effect that they saw no insermountable problems with the Orion part of Constellation. In fact, as I read it, they are encouraging Orion to continue as is, albeit possibly or probably on a different launch vehicle. Unfortunately, I do agree with those who say the report did not paint a clear enough set of choices.

    Major Tom: I agree with essentially every word. A friend also pointed out to me that, since aerospace voters in Florida did not overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats, Mr. Obama owes them nothing. If so, unfortunately, this reverses my earlier argument that Mr. Obama might caugh up some money because he needs Florida in some three years.

    On the other hand, I doubt the Mr. Bolden signed on to dismantle the human space program or limit it to LEO. I suspect he must have been promised something. . . .

    I would add lunar mining of oxygen from the regolith (as opposed to any polar ice) to your list of things that probably could be at least demonstrated with an EELV+ class launch vehicle, and a project that might be appropriate for automation. Oxygen remains the heaviest commodity needed in space: why lift this from Earth for the propellant depots, at least in a second generation?

    — Donald

  • FYIO, the CYRUS SPACE SYSTEM can now be viewed on NASA.gov in the section HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT STUDY COMMITTEE (Augustine Panel) or at our regular web site at: http://www.cyrus-space-system.com If you compare the CYRUS SPACE SYSTEM with the 12 page summary from the Augustine, you will see how similar the two documents are, particularily the areas dealing with the SPACE SHUTTLE and orbiting fuel depots. If any of you monitor the USPTO patent entries, you will see that there is a renewed interest in orbitig fuel depots. Bidding on the CYRUS SPACE SYSTEM closes Sept 30, 2009. If you want the particulars, Email me at cinedog@netzero.net Congratulations to Armadillo on their successful Xprize for completing Phase 2 of the contest successfully. I’m a little jealous. Daniel Sterling Sample Space Designs in Los Angeles

  • I predict that NASA will get the $3 billion and Obama will chose the much cheaper Sidemount or inline (DIRECT) shuttle derived alternatives to return to the Moon.

    But if my predictions are wrong and Obama decides to cancel the Moon base program then I predict that he’ll lose the state of Florida and possibly even the presidency in 2012.

    NASA is actually one government program that actually creates a lot more wealth than it consumes. There would be no global telecommunications satellite industry if it weren’t for NASA.

  • Robert Oler

    Donald. I agree with what you and Major Tom wrote.

    Obama’s reelection chances depend on one thing and one thing only, after four years are we out of this recession/depression and are the jobs back..

    If they are not he is toast, if they are then he gets “four more years” with probably an 84 style reelect.

    Indeed if the jobs are back I can see Obama standing at the SpaceX facilities in CA, TX and or FL and touting the “new jobs in the new economy”.

    I make no prediction as to which one will be in play in 2012… It is even possible that the ’36 scenario holds true…things havent gotten worse, but they are not much better….

    But a bunch of laid off aerospace workers in three states, CA, FL and TX wont change the red/blue mix (alone)

    Major Tom…nice analysis

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert Oler

    Marcel.

    NASA is actually one government program that actually creates a lot more wealth than it consumes.

    there is no data to support that analysis, indeed there is a lot that says it is very flawed.

    “There would be no global telecommunications satellite industry if it weren’t for NASA.”

    Old News 1960 vintage. and it had nothing to do with human spaceflight

    Sorry.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris Valyn

    Marcel – Of the options offered Obama, a combination of Direct/Sidemount paired with a moonbase was not offered. In fact, a moonbase has never been on the table, to speak of. I know everyone was of the opinion it was, but it isn’t in the program of record (even if they got the double budget increase they need to pull it off)

    As for what I want to happen, and what I expect? I really am not certain

  • Robert Oler

    Ferris…I agree

    “and what I expect? I really am not certain”

    why would the administration have to do “anything” other then shut the entire thing down…the administrations super collider move?

    Robert G. Oler

  • eng

    … sigh.

    What I was hoping would be a robust analysis and policy debate of the technical, managerial and programmatic mistakes of the Constellation and search for solutions got boiled down to the simpleton “give NASA more money”

    The usual tactic “let’s throw more tax funds at the problem and pray” is irresponsible in these days of deficits (both federal and state) and gross mismanagement and incompetence all around.

    As a taxpayer I would be opposed to ANY increase in NASA’s budget until the roots of the gross mismanagement of its exploration mandate are identified and corrected. (I’d actually redistribute even the existing funds away from the poorly performing programs such as the Constellation)

    Suppose NASA’s HSF allowance is increased (3bil), there is no assurance that that will be sufficient to overcome its deeper problems, will we hear the same whining come next authorization?, the ‘moral hazard’ that it will actually perpetuate the severe programmatic problems (“when in trouble just ask WH and Congress for more money”), other agencies will certainly note this freeloading attitude and follow the suit.

    (and to preempt the “ah, but what is 3billion for this free spending administration – TARP, GM, etc…”, I ALSO argue similar POV wrt those, but on appropriate forums)

  • Doug Lassiter

    It’s probably asking a lot for appropriators to come forth promising $3B/yr when there isn’t a real plan on the table. I doubt that any appropriator would want to get caught paying for “do something, anything!” The administration and the agency needs to make some hard decisions, and Congress will give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down to the goals and implementation plan they come up with.

    That’s why I completely agree that a budget bump is unlikely to materialize in FY11. In a sense, such a bump is even less likely now than it was before, because the Augustine panel has formally called even baseline plans into question. At least Mikulski had something specific to fight for, and it was something that was repeatedly authorized. She doesn’t have that anymore. The options presented have not been given the kind of study that could fully justify such a budget bump. The “go-forward” provision from Crawley’s group for beyond LEO is to “consider” certain alternatives. Those hard decisions won’t be made fast.

    I too find technology development on propellant depoting and depot operations to be an affordable path that builds capability that we’ll need eventually.

  • Robert: Thanks for the kind words and response.

    NASA is actually one government program that actually creates a lot more wealth than it consumes. …

    there is no data to support that analysis, indeed there is a lot that says it is very flawed.

    It depends on what you count. What is GPS worth to the economy? Weather reports (my family own a farm, so this question is entirely rhetorical!)? Our overwhelming ability to win short-term military battles, which is greatly dependent on space applications (especially your beloved UAVs which would not get very far without massive comsat capacity). And, yes, comsats, which seem to be the one industry that really is recession-proof.

    All of that is before giving us the keys to potentially save the planet by providing the evidence both to identify and combat artificial unintentional climate change.

    I suspect that all of these things are worth at least the hundred billion or so the world spends on spaceflight each year.

    As for human spaceflight, since we are still well within the experimental stage and nowhere near applications yet, it is a bit early to make any kind of economic valuation. Neolithic ventures to remote islands probably didn’t make a whole lot of money either, but they led to the great deep-sea trading empires of the last several thousand years. GPS was hardly in the minds of those who “wasted money” building the first satellites.

    When we are mining, say, oxygen on the moon for use elsewhere, or heavy metals on asteroids, or who knows what we’ll find on Mars which had enough geologic activity to concentrate ores — then it will be time to decide whether the investment was worth it.

    — Donald

  • Ferris Valyn

    If you mean shut down the human spaceflight program? I don’t see that happening.

    If you mean what to do with the program of record? Short of them getting a doubling in the budget (which, frankly isn’t in the cards) Constellation as is is almost certainly done for.

    The real issue is this – if we cancel the program of record, and we will keep having human spaceflight, what do we get in its place? And the real question that this raises is what happens with the shuttle workforce. I personally am of the opinion that it is time to end the shuttle, and any form of shuttle derived vehicles. I personally would love to see what Major Tom discussed happen – lets end shuttle, and its workforce, put off any HLV vehicles until we are 100% sure we need them, and go after a combination of Deep Space exploration, and in space infrastructure, utilizing commercial launch for both crew and non-crew.

    But Obama is in a major battle right now, with regards to Health Care (along with other issues, like the Economy and Afghanistan). And the question is, how much political capital is he prepared to spend for this to happen?

    In short – what replaces Constellation? And what is Obama prepared to pay for, both monetarily and politically, for it to happen?

  • Mark R. Whittington

    The adults who comprised the Augustine Committee have offered our government a very stark choice; either we spend more money or we resign ourselves to being a second rate space power. I suspect that some of the posters here are right in supposing that there are people in the Democratic Congress who would be just fine with that. After all, these are the people who, with a straight face, expounded how Afghanistan was the “good war” a year or so ago but who are now demanding a Vietnam style bug out.

    This is a test for Obama. If he shows a hitherto undemonstrated capacity for leadership, some things can happen. Else, we’re in trouble. After all, Tom Delay is no longer around to give the NASA budget cutters a dose of the hammer…

  • Major Tom

    “As I recall, the report did say something to the effect that they saw no insermountable problems with the Orion part of Constellation.”

    Not exactly. The Committee’s language is conditional. They essentially wrote that there are no insurmountable Constellation technical issues _given enough budget and schedule_. Here are the relevant excerpts:

    “… even when [Constellation] was announced, its budget depended on funds becoming available from the retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010 and the decommissioning of ISS in early 2016. Since then, as a result of technical and budgetary issues, the development schedules of Ares I and Orion have slipped, and work on Ares V and Altair has been delayed… While significant, these are engineering problems, and the Committee expects that they can be solved. But these solutions may add to the program’s cost and/or delay its schedule.”

    Of course, between the Constellation delays enlarging the gap and Constellation cost growth consuming the budget, there is very little schedule or budget remaining for Constellation to solve its technical issues.

    “In fact, as I read it, they are encouraging Orion to continue as is, albeit possibly or probably on a different launch vehicle.”

    Again, not exactly. The Committee encourages Orion to continue on a faster schedule and with fewer recurring costs, probably via a smaller crew requirement. Here are the relevant excerpts:

    “An independent assessment of the technical, budgetary and schedule risk to the Constellation Program performed for the Committee indicates that an additional delay of at least two years is likely. This means that Ares I and Orion will not reach ISS before the Station’s currently planned termination, and the length of the gap in U.S. ability to launch astronauts into space will be no less than seven years…”

    “The Committee found no compelling evidence that the current [Orion] design will not be acceptable for its wide variety of tasks in the exploration program. However, the Committee is concerned about Orion’s recurring costs. The capsule is considerably larger and more massive than
    previous capsules (e.g., the Apollo capsule), and there is some indication that a smaller and lighter four-person Orion could reduce operational costs.”

    My two cent read is that Orion should only survive if it’s schedule can be made relevant to ISS (otherwise defer it development so it’s phased appropriately for exploration activities) and its costs reasonable versus commercial alternatives.

    “Unfortunately, I do agree with those who say the report did not paint a clear enough set of choices.”

    On exploration, I’d argue that the choices are clear but not very good. Either cough up tens of billions of dollars more in a very austere federal budget environment on top of the $200 billion (about $10 billion per year) that NASA has already programmed in its budget for human space flight through 2020. Or remain in LEO for another couple decades.

    The Committee was operating under pretty extreme time constraints, but should have made identifying one or more fiscally realistic exploration options more of a priority.

    Where the Committee did a good job was articulating the right roles for NASA (technology development, beyond LEO) and the private sector (LEO transport including crew and in-space supply of perishables like propellant) and baselining those roles into all the options.

    “On the other hand, I doubt the Mr. Bolden signed on to dismantle the human space program or limit it to LEO. I suspect he must have been promised something. . . .”

    No one is talking about dismantling the civil human space flight program. It’s just a question of how far it goes and how fast. From this article and other sources, it appears that the Administration is trying to put together an exploration thrust within the existing budget by redirecting and finding savings on existing human space flight programs:

    http://www.space.com/news/090903-obama-spaceflight-options.html

    “I would add lunar mining of oxygen from the regolith (as opposed to any polar ice) to your list of things that probably could be at least demonstrated with an EELV+ class launch vehicle, and a project that might be appropriate for automation. Oxygen remains the heaviest commodity needed in space: why lift this from Earth for the propellant depots, at least in a second generation?”

    It’s the right thing to do from a technology demonstration perspective. But whether the costs of deploying and supporting even an automated lunar oxygen production capability at the scales necessary to refuel upper stages will compete well with just liquefying oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere and launching it from Earth, even with the gravitational penalty, remains to be seen. Unless it has some good combination of low development costs, light weight, low operations costs, and high reliability, the costs of establishing and maintaining such an infrastructure may not trade well with the Earth-based solutions, especially if ETO costs continue to come down over time. I sincerely hope so, but given the inability of any in-space endeavour beyond moving photons around to be cost-effective (and even that rarely does well against terrestrial alternatives) I think we have to remain skeptical.

    My two cents is that we probably won’t see cost-effective ISRU until nanotech, rapid prototyping, fabless production, wireless power transmission, and other manufacturing revolutions allow us to manipulate matter without the levels of centralized infrastructure and substantial logistics tails we see today. Being able to get to space using a smaller launch vehicle in a 1/6th-g environment helps, but alone is probably not enough to make ISRU pay. Propellant is cheap, but machines and their upkeep are not (yet).

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “This is a test for Obama. If he shows a hitherto undemonstrated capacity for leadership, some things can happen. Else, we’re in trouble.”

    It has nothing to do with Presidential leadership and everything to do with the current fiscal environment. With the nation facing deficits it hasn’t seen since the World Wars, any President of any party would get clobbered by Congress, the press, and the public if they proposed spending tens of billions more taxpayer dollars on something as discretionary as human space flight when that program is already budgeted to receive $200 billion over the next 20 years. It doesn’t matter that the amount involved is a very small piece of the overall federal budget — in terms of visibility, it’s a political non-starter.

    And even if the White House did support such an increase, given both Congress’s repeated inability to pass even a one-time $1 billion increase for human space flight after Columbia and Katrina, it’s just not going to happen.

    NASA either takes this opportunity and leverages the wisest elements of the Augustine options to identify a way to move out of LEO within its annual $10 billion human space flight budget, or the U.S. civil human space flight program waits another decade or two to begin making progress beyond LEO

    “I suspect that some of the posters here are right in supposing that there are people in the Democratic Congress who would be just fine with that.”

    No one has written such in this thread. Why are you putting words in other posters’ mouths? If you can’t participate in a discussion without talking to yourself, then don’t bother posting.

    “After all, these are the people who, with a straight face, expounded how Afghanistan was the ‘good war’ a year or so ago but who are now demanding a Vietnam style bug out.

    What does bugging out of Afghanistan or Vietnam have to do with expanding civil human space flight beyond LEO? Your post lacks even a lick of logic.

    FWIW…

  • Ferris Valyn

    Let me add a further wrench to this machine, as it were

    The Augustine Committee has already made the major point about Ares I, and it being a mess. So odds are good that its gone

    Second, the committee seems to have implied that Altair is off the table as well.

    Third – the committee offerred at least 1 option that eliminates all of the shuttle workforce.

    Which brings us to the last point (which I remark on, but without offering any comments)

    1. During the final Augustine hearings, both Jeff Greason & Leroy Chiao openly commented on the idea of canceling (or at least seriously rescoping) Orion

    2. Orion, as is, cannot take advantage of in-space infrastructure.

    Which begs the question – are we talking about a complete rewrite?

  • Doug Lassiter

    “Orion, as is, cannot take advantage of in-space infrastructure.”

    Not completely sure what you mean by in-space infrastructure. If you mean ISS, that’s certainly not the case, except Orion doesn’t provide the downmass that some science needs. If you mean propellant depots, well, Orion doesn’t really need them. The EDS that Orion would use is what would need them. Now, Orion is not particularly well designed for in-space operations, in that there is little that could fit in the service module that would make it particularly useful for in-space assembly (even aside from the fact that EVAs out of Orion are presently highly limited by a short umbilical). What might one like to have there? A crane, telerobotic arm — much of what the shuttle offers now. But a separate vehicle, perhaps permanently stationed at a construction site, could be used with Orion.

    But as a human transport & hab, Orion serves most needs, including outside LEO, which I believe COTS does not.

  • Doug: But a separate vehicle, perhaps permanently stationed at a construction site, could be used with Orion.

    I agree. Why lift this stuff all the way to orbit every time you want to use it?

    Major Tom: “The Committee found no compelling evidence that the current [Orion] design will not be acceptable for its wide variety of tasks in the exploration program. However, the Committee is concerned about Orion’s recurring costs. The capsule is considerably larger and more massive than previous capsules (e.g., the Apollo capsule), and there is some indication that a smaller and lighter four-person Orion could reduce operational costs.”

    That is the part I was referring to. However, you did not quote the rest of it which argues that a redesign should not be considered without considerable thought.

    The Committee was operating under pretty extreme time constraints, but should have made identifying one or more fiscally realistic exploration options more of a priority.

    I agree. One option might be staying in or near LEO but using an EELV-launched Orion, commercial vehicles, and the “construction shack” Doug suggests to work hard to develop the infrastructure and knowledge needed to go beyond. That would get you utilization of the sunk costs in the ISS and reduce costs later on. Early options would be to revive the Japanese centrifuge module (adapted for EELV launch) for the ISS, practice fuel transfers, practice resource utilization with simulated and actual lunar, asteroidal, and Martian moon material (and pray the Russian Phobos mission actually flies and succeeds), and continue continue practicing orbital construction so that you can bootstrap your way to the planets through small incremental steps, rather than asking for one gigantic project that can’t possibly be done with the political resources available. Meanwhile, all this activity would create larger markets for SpaceX and Orbital and others. What’s wrong with slowly building up a lunar infrastructure or an interplanetary “ark” over decades with small individual payloads, much as the ISS could have been built if launched on EELVs without the Shuttle?

    But whether the costs of deploying and supporting even an automated lunar oxygen production capability at the scales necessary to refuel upper stages will compete well with just liquefying oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere and launching it from Earth, even with the gravitational penalty,

    The only way to find out is to try it and practice it. Note that this would be much more economic if you had a lunar base and lots of traffic to and from the moon anyway. Learn now, apply later when you have the lunar base for some other reason. A big problem with they way we view and conduct human spaceflight today is, if our studies don’t prove it will be “economic” right off the bat, it’s not worth doing on a pilot scale when you can. That is no way to colonize a literally infinite frontier.

    To wit, even if launch from Earth were free, no serious human presence in the Solar System can function for any length of time if it is entirely dependent on supply from Earth. Who cares if it is “economic,” we still have to do it to meet the ultimate goals of many of those contributing to this list.

    — Donald

  • Robert Oler

    Mark Whittington wrote:

    “either we spend more money or we resign ourselves to being a second rate space power.”

    lol we already spend more money on NASA then the rest of the worlds space agencies combined spend…

    So we are already “number 1″ we spend more money then any other space agency or all of them combined..None of them NONE OF THEM including the Red Chinese are contemplating moves out of LEO.

    Tell me again how if we dont spend money to do a program/project that NO OTHER country is doing/attempting we will be “second rate”?

    Since this is space politics I’ll leave the rest of the statements alone.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert Oler

    Donald.

    this is the problem…there are no spinoffs from human spaceflight, 40 years since Apollo that justify its existance.

    That is not accurate (as you so ably point out) for uncrewed flight. GPS would exist without NASA, Weather Satellites would have come into being without NASA and they would exist today without NASA (Are they not a total NOAA/DOD thing? not for sure).

    NASA’s last act in com satellites was ACTS and the corporate NASA bored of that rather quickly. it was a Lewis project and didnt really do anything really “human” about it.

    There is almost nothing that The Republic spends the money it does for human spaceflight on that does as badly in the justification phase as human spaceflight does.

    End it today and the economy would be no significant amount poorer for it, except for where the pork is spent.

    That wouldnt even last long. BEfore the Depression/Recession hit there were quite a few studies out that Clear Lake would make a lot more money if JSC were an educational institute. (and that is where it would go).

    I think that the jury is in.

    How human spaceflight is conducted in this country is pork and that is about it.

    It doesnt have to be…and oddly enough the privatizationof ISS access is in my view the key.

    BTW working a bit on a farm myself…redoing the barn… Its a “gentlemans farm”…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert Oler

    Mark Whittington wrote

    “If he shows a hitherto undemonstrated capacity for leadership, some things can happen. Else, we’re in trouble. After all, Tom Delay is no longer around to give the NASA budget cutters a dose of the hammer…”

    no Tom is dancing with the stars…and really when he gave NASA more money in 2004 and you were estatic, well what I predicted happened…

    more money is not the key Mark and I think you know that or knew it.

    More money would vanish in the haze and a couple of years from now not even 3 billion would be enough, it would take another 1 billion or so. Go see the history of every NASA project since Apollo (or AAP) and you get a whiff of where it would go.

    Besides, if we dont keep throwing money down the human exploration rat hole how are we “in trouble”?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert, but privatized ISS access would not exist without the ISS. I rest my case.

    — Donald

  • Robert Oler

    Ferris.

    Major Tom and Donald R and a few others have come up with where things are probably headed in my view…I think a few things are going to be different but they are nuances in the scheme of things.

    I think that there are going to be two “centers of mass”.

    First ISS is going to continue and I suspect that the Administration is going to work some issues to find a structure for it that a) makes some use of it (or lets private industry to make some use of it) and b) cuts the cost.

    Slowly but surely we are going to see three things happen at ISS…1) commercial lift is going to become the norm, 2) NASA control is going to ebb and 3) NASA astronauts will stop being the “American crew”…2 and 3 are going to take some time but thats where I think things wills start evolving.

    The second center of mass is what to do with NASA human spaceflight. I suspect the lunar landing thing is out.. but Orion will stay as a “reduced” size devolpment for a kind of “interplanetary craft” but more along the lines of NEO’s/l2/some lunar stuff (although not landings)…in other words it is going to become the new NASA program of record.

    Thats going to mean a smaller NASA/workforce but that is where the money is. The launch vehicle for Orion is going to be the EELV’s or something (Maybe SpaceX would be in the mix but probably not).

    These two seperate evolution paths strike me as a very sensible effort, they can eventually each take advantage of each other to form a true space industry.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert Oler

    Donald…

    “Robert, but privatized ISS access would not exist without the ISS. I rest my case.”

    OH I concur and having a raft of now 10 year old pieces arguing against ISS I take a wry satisfaction in the fact that at least I nailed the ultimate cost and the timeline a little close, even if my suggestion that it not be built was ignored (grin).

    BUT in the 1990’s had the one vote not been there to keep ISS and it died, we would have been far better off, just as we will be better off if “exploration” dies.

    I stopped writing the op eds and moved on to other policy statements because the trick is, as my Grandfather use to say, “is knowing when the train is going to come and then make something useful out of it”.

    ISS in itself doesnt bring a space age, but commercial access to orbit at least has the potential and we could have gotten that without ISS…We actually could have gotten it (or at least had the potential to) with the shuttle alone…

    Before I left my last assignment the “group” went back to my alma mater and got a copy of every op ed I had published in the school newspaper…OK I was a teenager then, but well I could still run for office! LOL

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris Valyn

    Robert – in the grand scheme, I think a lot of what you, and Major Tom, and Donald R have talked about is both the desired direction, and IN GENERAL the direction that NASA is heading in.

    The big issue, in all of this, comes back to what happens with the shuttle, and any shuttle derived vehicle. I personally think its time to retire the shuttle, and realign the workforce, either through reduction or else reassignment. But there are powerful forces that desperately want to retain that shuttle workforce, vis-a-vie a shuttle derived heavy lift.

    And because of the required budget needed for an SDLV, this has major implications for the rest space development – is there money to pursue a larger depot testing system? What about money for advanced RLV research? And so on.

    I can think of other examples, through out NASA, that will be impacted, both due to budgets, but also due to the belief that “Its too early for commercial” (and I can think of some that are much less risky than Commercial Crew)

    If Shuttle is permanently ended, and this includes and SDLV heavy lift, then we will have turned a huge corner. I won’t say we have definitively won, but I think we would’ve moved hugely closer to becoming spacefaring.

    If, on the other hand, it is decided to retain a SDLV vehicle, with the required infrastructure, we would still have a ways to go. While it is true that with things like Commercial Crew, until Shuttle and its workforce is gone, NASA will be much closer to a pork machine than to an industry enabling and spacefaring enabling agency.

    While the first is obviously more desirable, anyone who thinks its the easy path should go listen to Senators Shelby or Nelson. Or for that matter, certain committee members.

    Which brings me back to not knowing what will happen, and it depending on how much capital, both political and financial that Obama is prepared to spend. Ending the shuttle workforce would mean no need for a major budget increase, but it would involve a serious expenditure of political capital (or at least, I suspect that is how Obama would see it). Alternatively, going with an SDLV would mean no political expenditure, but would need a $3 Billion increase. And there are options in the middle, such as postponing a decision on any form of heavy lift.

    But this is the decision that is for all the marbles, in some respects. And I really don’t know what the decision will be, but I do believe that the decision made will impact NASA for at least a decade to come, if not more

    Anyway, thats why I say its hard to predict what is going to happen – it all boils down to the issue of the shuttle workforce.

  • Robert, (probably for the first time!) I agree with every word of your analysis. It is interesting and probably meaningful that several of us, with dramatically different goals and outlooks for our space program, are coming together around a basic, affordable program going forward.

    but commercial access to orbit at least has the potential and we could have gotten that without ISS…We actually could have gotten it (or at least had the potential to) with the shuttle alone…

    The key question (to quote a certain aerospace company’s awful ads), How? How would we have got commercial bulk cargo delivery to orbit without an ISS, albeit a smaller and cheaper one than the one we built? Answer me that, in a politically and economically convincing way, and maybe I’ll buy it. What I see is a comprehensive record of abject failure — until Mir, and then the ISS, were built.

    On another subject, what do people think of this human lunar and planetary flyby idea? Since it could give us limited deep space experience, it is hard for me to call it a total waste, but other than that it is very hard for me to see how it could much advance either scientific knowledge, commercial development, trade, or human expansion.

  • Robert Oler

    Donald…LOL We all should take a moment and disagree since I DONT even agree with everything I think.

    I have tried to measure myself with two things while “growing up”.

    First “what is possible coupled with what is desirable”…thats a hard combination to figure out. In the 80’s I had a vision of space commercialization that used the shuttle…but what it required was the shuttle to be used as infrastructure (National infrastructure) rather then just pork. There was a company, SpaceTrans whose “vision” (and it was backed by some geniune names) was essentially that since we were going to fly the shuttle “anyway” that there was some sort of subsidy “there” for flying the shuttle as an operating concern but that coupled with that they would fly the shuttle in a sort of “for profit” effort including bringing its processing etc all “private”.

    There was an AVLEAK publication of the era called commercial space and I have an article in it which envisioned a US government answer to the Arianespace model …ie not purely a government launch industry but one which brought private enterprise into the picture to make it an American model.

    What in my view caused the shuttle system to fail (and several people who I have talked to who were involved with its design agree) was that there never was any incentive for anyone (much less NASA) to evolve the system in a series of lessons learned to make the thing functional. They were on the way when Challenger blew up but instead of simply learning the lesson (and fixing the problem) the agency just went the other direction.

    In essence I think that almost any effort can be made infrastructure instead of pork, but the devil is in the details. There was a guy named Ed Wright (is he still around) who many years ago he and I went round and around about Rich Kolker and my concept called “The Liberty Vehicle”. Ed was ultimatly correct in my view about how the EELV’s have gone (there is little incentive for the two contractors to make them more then government step children) but we are in my view seeing the first steps toward the liberty vehicle with what OSC and SpaceX are working on.

    What has snaked us in human spaceflight is the NASA uberallis model always wins out no matter what project is being attempted (and it strikes me funny that people who would fight to the death a government run health insurance plan embrace a government run space program…another topic) …and that is what turns it into pork

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert Oler

    Donald. guess at some point I should discuss the “second thing” I learned growing up…

    but as for the “Jim Oberg” (grin) option. I like it a lot. I think it puts NASA back into the technology business with some “at least entertaining” programs.

    Robert G. Oler

  • sc220

    On another subject, what do people think of this human lunar and planetary flyby idea? Since it could give us limited deep space experience, it is hard for me to call it a total waste, but other than that it is very hard for me to see how it could much advance either scientific knowledge, commercial development, trade, or human expansion.

    Many of us think it’s a great idea. First of all, flybys are only mentioned as potential first missions. Ultimately you want to do the exploration over long periods of time while in orbit. That requires a more capable vehicle, but is certainly possible using existing technology.

    Second, I still can’t see why some can not appreciate the tremendous benefits to science in reducing, if not eliminating, the communications delay over large interplanetary distances. This gives you real-time control over telerobotics, and when you factor in the inordinate amount of planning and preparation required for any crewed EVA, provides better, more continuous exploratory capability than having humans on the surface.

  • Jim Hillhouse

    What surprises me is that Space Politics has not posted about an article that appeared in Florida Today about the results of the 5-segment SRB test last week. Preliminary test results have so far indicated that TO was 8-10 times less than what the models predicted and that, depending on further testing, TO mitigation may be unnecessary on Ares I.

    If the final data analysis points to TO being an 1/8 to 1/10th of what was predicted, two things will stand-out–the models are pretty poor predictors. And Ares I does not suffer from at least one of what the Augustine Committee so nicely called “technical challenges”.

    That none of the Ares I critics such as NasaWatch, the Orlando Sentinel’s Write Stuff, and Space Politics are carrying Florida Today’s story is surprising.

  • Robert Oler

    Jim…the operative paragraph from the article

    “”This is preliminary — less than 24 hours after the test. So the truth is more tests will help us verify this. But, boy, it looks like a nice path we’re headed down,” said former NASA Chief Astronaut Kent Rominger, vice president of test and research operations for ATK Space Systems.”

    everyone at ATK seems pleased with the test…which was very flight like…

    not

    see how Ares 1X does…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Rocket Stuff

    That none of the Ares I critics such as NasaWatch, the Orlando Sentinel’s Write Stuff, and Space Politics are carrying Florida Today’s story is surprising.

    I guess you must have missed the fact that the test was conducted sideways, on the ground, with no loads.

  • Major Tom

    “What surprises me is that Space Politics has not posted about an article that appeared in Florida Today about the results of the 5-segment SRB test last week. Preliminary test results have so far indicated that TO was 8-10 times less”

    Is this a joke?

    Of course the thrust oscillation for the ground test is much less than the flight models (or Shuttle flights) because the SRB is attached to a large mass (the Earth or the ET) at several points, which greatly dampens the oscillations. We won’t know if a 5-segment SRB can work in the Ares I configuration until one actually flies. And that won’t happen until the Ares I-Y flight in late 2013.

    And at this point, it doesn’t matter now that Ares I/Orion are so behind schedule and over budget. Even a working Ares I doesn’t do the gap or ISS any good if it doesn’t show up until 2017 or 2019.

    If you’re really this ignorant about rocket engineering, then please don’t post on the topic here. You’re wasting our and your time.

    FWIW…

  • In his remarks yesterday before Congress, Dr. Ed Crawley revealed an Augustine Panel departure from one of NASA’s “Key Exploration Objectives” for Constellation: to “separate crew from cargo delivery to orbit”. (I believe this objective/requirement was born in the CAIB report.) NASA has been developing two different launch vehicles, Ares-1 and Ares-5, to do this. Based on Dr. Crawley’s remarks, the Augustine Panel interprets this not as a requirement for two different types of vehicles, but rather the use of a single vehicle type, with separate launches for crew and cargo.

  • Robert, given the many delays in Ares-1X, I wonder why they didn’t add a fifth live segment and make it a much more realistic test. As it is, I’m afraid this test won’t tell us a whole lot more than the ground test — which at least showed us that a five segment rocket of this enormous size could be made to work.

    — Donald

  • Robert G. Oler

    Donald. Ares 1X is a fraud. It has little or nothing to do with actually working up Ares…it was an attempt to cement the program by a test which would prove little but have a lot of visuals and NASA could say “moving on”.

    The first real military program to use “state buy in” was the B1B bomber…having seen Carter (correctly in my view now…not so much then) the B1 when the redo came around the work was farmed out to just about every state…and there were endless flight demonstrations that had little to do with the weapon system.

    All the 1x was designed to do was to cement the program

    Robert G. Oler

  • […] So which members of Congress support the efforts to further fund the US human spaceflight program. According to Space Politics: […]

  • […] growing Washington consensus (albeit with continuing rear-guard and ultimately doomed battles from some of the authorizers in Congress) that NASA needs to get out of the earth-orbit space transportation business for personnel, and at […]

  • Robert Jones

    Humans visiting places is not exploration. Science is the real
    exploration. Given the financial problems we should only
    fly people when we can’t do the job with robots. A new
    manned spacecraft able to do things like the old Hubble
    servicing mission makes sense. An experiment in earth orbit
    with artificial gravity makes sense. A project to fly humans
    in earth orbit for perhaps 2 years with zero resupply from
    the ground makes sense. Otherwise put most of the money
    into robots at least until we either get a more robust
    economy OR perhaps an international launch vehical. (Say
    the US funding the russian Angara/PPTS programs.)

Leave a Reply to Doug Lassiter Cancel 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>