In brief introductory comments at a Space Transportation Association (STA) breakfast, Congressman Parker Griffith (D-AL) sounded the alarm about NASA funding and what he perceived as a lack of interest in the subject by the president. “We cannot frame this Ares 1/Constellation project in terms of the current economy,” he said. “The decision to go forward with Constellation and Ares 1—proven technology—has to be made.” And as for the White House: “The fact that we are not getting a direct signal from our administration is bothersome. I think the heat needs to be turned up.”
The main speaker at the STA breakfast, Marshall Space Flight Center director Robert Lightfoot, briefly discussed the status of the agency’s deliberations on the Augustine committee’s report. “As an agency we’re in the process of assessing” the findings of the committee’s final report, he said. “We’re going to provide some recommendations to the administration, some feedback to the administration on that.” He did not, though, give any timetable for providing those recommendations to the White House.
Later, Lightfoot stressed the importance of encouraging commercial providers to provide access to LEO for ISS cargo and crew, without going into specifics about how to accomplish that. “If we can get the commercial operators to low Earth orbit, get that access in place, then NASA can focus on getting out of low Earth orbit,” he said. “Our goal is to enable them, not fight them… We’ve got to get past the ‘tyranny of or’—commercial or NASA—and get to the ‘power of and’, commercial and NASA.”
Kudos to Mr. Lightfoot. It’s good to see some enlightened MSFC management that actually cares about advancing the space exploration enterprise for once, especially in the face of Alabama congressmen like Griffith who continue to only be interested in Ares I pork and votes.
FWIW…
Mr. Lightfoot, I am glad to see a NASA executive who thinks the same way as I do about the “or” and the “and”. Thank you!
These are fine words, but it’s easy to make vague statements for public consumption while pursuing the opposite behind closed doors. To some extent, COTS vs. Ares I actually IS a zero sum game. It’s difficult to imagine a center director taking any actual actions that would diminish the role of their center.
“The fact that we are not getting a direct signal from our administration is bothersome. I think the heat needs to be turned up.â€
I am aghast…you mean that the WH ignored the 1/2 million letters from the Florida ARea? ALL THOSE letters that were so carefully written, packaged and sealed and sent with the best intentions…thoughtfully read by the WH mail readers (gasp perhaps by Obama himself)…
that isnt enough heat?
Despair agony and misery Dibello must be in anguish (quick suicide watch)
Robert G. Oler
in all seriousness…the Congressman’s comments are dumb.
Lightfoots comments are entertaining..but if there is a tyranny, it is from NASA.
I LIKE flexible path…but NASA couldnt think out of the box in terms of doing it if they were all given Newt Gingrich (or DARPA) prize money.
If there is commercial crew/cargo then why on the Creator’s earth is NASA even thinking about flexible path with something that has to “take off and land”? it makes no sense.
NASA has demonstrated with the space station that it can build and operate a crewed spacecraft long term…so why are we not in the process of designing for flexible path the first true “space ships” of discovery…instead of something that has to ride up and come down thehill?
The reason is because NASA cannot imagine getting out of the lift business.
Robert G. Oler
Lightfoot: “As an agency we’re in the process of assessing†the findings of the committee’s final report, he said. “We’re going to provide some recommendations to the administration, some feedback to the administration on that.â€
Robert O.: Is this an ingenious statement?. I mean it’s always during Thanksgiving holiday that NASA gets the pass back from OMB, thus beginning the negotiations as to what is going into the Presidents budget submit to Congress, which will be highlighted at the State of the Union address.
If so, then NASA should already be in deep discussions with OMB and the WH about the path forward….and the ‘recommendations and feedback’ that Lightfoot refers to will have already happened by the time of his statement. Right?
Or am I missing something here.
I think that what Mr. Lightfoot may be significant in that that it sends a message to his organization and possibly to NASA at large about Commercial Space. Also he may be trying to get ahead of the game rather than wait for the cancellation of Ares I. I suspect there will be some sort of Ares V in the plan so not all is lost for MSFC either. I think he’s doing the smart thing for his center and for NASA. Words ARE important, of course they are best when followed by action but we’ll have to wait for the WH I guess to choose a direction.
I would say that to all of us who would like to see commercial space go forward it’d be nice to acknowledge when some one is in support of it, especially a Center Director and especially when the center is MSFC. Then again, we can whine and complain…
Oh well…
Let me ask what may be considered a stupid question (what can I say – I am the young, naive person here)
Why is it the assumption that if Ares I and Ares V goes away (and lets really expand it and assume that all of the shuttle infrastructure goes away) why is it the assumption that if this it goes away, why do people assume that Marshall goes away? We can find stuff for Marshall to do. Good stuff, that actually needs doing.
Why is it the assumption that if the rockets go away, Marshall goes away?
I suspect that if Ares 1 and V go away, MSFC will be funneled money to develop technology experiments to fly on the ISS. Either that, or close the Center, which ain’t gonna happen.
Other Centers may also be asked to ‘transfer’ work to MSFC as well. Hey, “10 healthy Centers”..right?!
I’m sure there has already been discussion at HQ about ‘what to do with MSFC’ when the Ares are canceled.
NASA Fan
Yeah it is an ingenious line.
Look, I think that the decision doesn’t rest with anyone but the Obama administration with perhaps input from General Bolden and maybe Garver….General Bolden PROBABLY (I am just guessing here) got some agreement along some lines before he took the job. My guess (and it is just that) is that General Bolden got some agreement to reorg and refocus NASA away from the Bush moon effort which even a blind man could see was imploding.
How that will be done (the focus shifted), I am pretty sure is being tossed around in the mid level management of this administration.
But I bet it has to do in some fashion with the political winds that are blowing.
Look how things have worked out in this administrations so far in this term is not so well And unlike Reagan’s administration where the programs/projects being implemented are ones that match the ideology of the administration, I dont think that the ones so far do. They seem to be indicators of more drift and mismanagement then anything else.
My guess is that soon the administration is 1) going to tackle the exploding deficit and 2) is going to focus more on job creation in the private sector…and I bet you dollars that NASA is going to be part of that.
Robert G. Oler
Ferris Valyn I actually view MSFC as not all that vunerable particularly in how I think that the NASA reorg is going to go.
Robert G. Oler
“Why is it the assumption that if the rockets go away, Marshall goes away?”
Here is a simple straight kinda cynical answer: As was already amply demonstrated there is no imagination in and around Constellation. “It’d be hard work to “recycle” the workforce” is probably what it is.
How about this question: Is it not rather the current management structure at MSFC that would go away if Ares were to be cancelled?
Because, to me, even if we go Flex-Path but if the ultimate goal remains Mars we will need to learn how to go there, stay there, land there and take-off from over there and come back here. Is that not plenty of work? If you want to make it sustainable then you need a real space infrastructure: That alone would take months if not years to make work.
So the question really is “where the heck is the imagination? The creativity?” Okay that makes 2 questions.
Oh well…
common sense ( up for a bit, “baby” is awake)
my take on the world situation is that if NASA gets a new direction General Bolden has to ditch a lot of the management.
Robert G. Oler
“10 healthy centers” is not a part of Bolden’s platform. It is “building healthy and sustainable centers”. The number of centers is up for grabs.
This is not news, since before Griffin’s departure, legislation was enacted to prohibit layoffs prior to 2010. Until then, NASA has to keep its workforce and facilities.
@ Silence Dogood, @ Robert, @ Anyone,
So, with the MSFC Director openly encouraging commercial resupply to ISS, a statement that I believe reflects a future Obama decision and some knowledge of where this is all headed (future of HSF), how do you see the NASA workforce and Centers shrinking as we enter the Obama Vision?
For instance, if NASA goes COTS, and drop sAres 1 and V, what need is there for any of the infrastructure on Kennedy owned property? What need is there then for any KSC NASA employess if COTS is launching out of CCAFS, WFF, or wherever? Does it not make sense to shut down KSC as a relic of the glory Apollo days? Think of the expanded tours they can give if the entire Center becomes a tour stop!
And if MSFC is not ‘building rockets’ and if Stennis is not ‘testing rocket motors’ on behalf of a NASA managed program…they what use are they really? Shut them down too?
I wonder how folks see this unfolding……
“how do you see the NASA workforce and Centers shrinking as we enter the Obama Vision?”
It depends on what parts of the final report of the Augustine Committee are made into policy. If the advice about giving the NASA Administrator the flexibility necessary to manage the agency’s human resources rationally and about refocusing NASA’s human space flight activities on enabling technologies are made into policy, then the operational workforce at the human space flight centers (JSC, KSC, and MSFC) could shrink considerably. But the Augustine report also incorporates a Shuttle-derived heavy lifter in most options, and if that development follows the Shuttle model, then a huge NASA standing army will attach itself to the vehicle to save their jobs, regardless of whether they’re actually needed or not, and drive its cost up and its sustainability down.
“For instance, if NASA goes COTS, and drop sAres 1 and V, what need is there for any of the infrastructure on Kennedy owned property What need is there then for any KSC NASA employess if COTS is launching out of CCAFS, WFF, or wherever?”
Even if NASA were to get out of the launch operations business entirely — not even a heavy lifter — KSC would probably still handle a lot of payload assembly, processng, and crew prep. If you had a crew exploration vehicle like Orion, it would also make sense to move assembly, prep, and refitting of that vehicle to KSC. KSC also arguably has the world’s premier experience with cryogenic propellant handling. Logically, technologies associated with in-space propellant storage, management, and transfer would be developed there. The VAB and pads might become museums or be demolished, but there’s lots of other unique things that KSC could and should be doing instead of duplicating USAF, ULA, Space-X, and OSC launch capabilities.
“And if MSFC is not ‘building rockets’ and if Stennis is not ‘testing rocket motors’ on behalf of a NASA managed program…they what use are they really? Shut them down too?”
Again, even if NASA gets entirely out of the launch vehicle development business — not even heavy lift — there are still rockets that MSFC and SSC need to develop and test. There is tons of work needed to develop reliable and reusable rockets for in-space stages, transfer vehicles, and landers. The challenges of developing a rocket that can reliably restart multiple times in a deep space environment without checkout or maintenance is not trivial and would greatly benefit from federal R&D.
And then there’s advanced propulsion, which MSFC used to do a lot of work in before Ares I and Orion ate that budget. From tethers to solar sails to solar thermal rockets to nuclear electric propulsion, there’s literally a dozen or so concepts and technologies, most of which have existed for decades, that have never been fully developed and ground or flight tested. Some mix of these are probably going to be necessary to pull off a sustainable human Mars program when the time comes.
And then there’s the commercial human space flight industry, which, if it’s not strangled in the crib by pork-driven legislators like Griffith, would probably make good use of SSC test facilities and MSFC technical (if not managerial) expertise.
A big part of the problem is right-sizing the NASA workforce and institution. Unless NASA is given the flexibility to manage its resources rationally, not politically, its unclear that the agency will ever be efficient enough to afford a human space exploration program, even with a huge budget boost included in the Augustine Committee report.
But even if you don’t do that, just redirecting the NASA workforce and institution away from those launch and Earth orbit operational activities that industry can already do or could do in short order and towards those technology, development, and exploration activities that no one in industry has attempted before would have a huge impact. It’s public policy 101 –the government should not do those things that the private sector is capable of supplying.
FWIW…
The bottom line for NASA is that it should invest in the future, not in the past. Apollo omn steroids is not the right way for NASA and it is so bad that it failed, abominably failed. The future will require tons of cash and engineering/science. HSF must serve exploration for sure but also Earth here! Regardless of the endless debate on climate change we could figure once and for all if it is true or not using observation satellite and supercomputer simulations. Then we need to chart a path forward. I don’t care if it is more an NOAA work if NASA can help then NASA MUST help. As for HSF loo at Major Tom’s above post that is a nicely developed plan along similar ideas I posted earlier. There is TONS of work if we have the right budget and the right plan for everyone inside NASA. Now if people at MSFC really itch for designing well known rocket technologies (e.g. Ares) then they may try and join the industry.
Again it is not NASA OR Commerical it is AND. Synergy is better!
NASA Fan wrote @ December 5th, 2009 at 5:45 am
@ Silence Dogood, @ Robert, @ Anyone,
how do you see the NASA workforce and Centers shrinking as we enter the Obama Vision?
not much to disagree with in terms of what Major Tom said…I would add this.
Assuming something does change (and there is a slight chance in my view nothing does)…what I see is forces set in motion which eventually “eliminate” NASA as we know it, although I think that almost all parts of it will remain.
Just as Roman Chariots eventually sort of became the standards for train gauge I think that there is a short and long term path to how things might evolve. And that is to fullfill “roles” that remain even if NASA gets out of (and I think it should) “routine” space flight.
For instance TDRSS is and will remain in my view the functional standard for space communications. Likewise there will be a need to run a launch center at KSC (on the civilian side)…there will also be a need to train “space people”, there will also be a need to build X rockets…see my drift.
The only thing tying NASA together right now is routine human spaceflight and the almost from scratch development of the technologies and systems for it. Take that away and assume commercial organizations do it AND eventually “voyages of discovery” are done using a more traditional model…or even a one shot government model…and you have a need for national infrastructure which is available to private (and other government) concerns and that has to be ‘manged’ by someone and some group.
I do not see that happening in the next five years of course but if we start private lift of cargo and people…I see it happening.
Say Musk gets Dragon going…I can see Musk on the 50th of Glenns flight doing a recreation of it, but completely private (Hoot Gibson flies, Miles OBrien reports, Peggy W flies…etc) effort. They would have to be trained somewhere and I bet the system uses TDRSS etc.
in my scheme what does MSFC and Stennis end up with? X vehicles.
Robert G. Oler
We’ve got to get past the ‘tyranny of or’—commercial or NASA—and get to the ‘power of and’, commercial and NASA.â€
Translation:
We’ve got to get past the ‘tyranny of or’ – either free and open competition or privileged government design bureaus – and get to the ‘power of and’, a double standard that gives a privileged position to government design bureaus and free and open competition to commercial players.
Reasonable man that Robert Lightfoot.
Robert – A minor modification – I think it would be better to prescribe them to work on X Projects, not X vehicles.
For example, the development of Prop depots isn’t really a vehicle per se, but it definitely needs doing.
There are other examples, but you get the point.
However, this is arguably a nitpick
Ferris…I concur with your point…yes
Robert G. Oler
My thought is that most of the talk we hear nowadays is that NASA will concede the supply to ISS and possibly an ISS manned rocket to commercial, maybe….
But, the future of NASA is deep space (heavy lift vehicle) whether it is moon, flex path, whatever… And NASA will not concede the heavy lift vehicle to commercial, not gonna happen. It will be an Ares 5 variant or maybe a shuttle variant (I’m envisioning Ares 5 variant)
As far as getting rid of the VAB and pads on KSC side, that will never happen! No way! Even if NASA gives a commercial company a manned LEO contract it WILL BE LAUNCHED from KSC, it won’t be launched from the Air Force side. No way, no how.
The firing rooms are being redesigned on the KSC side and that is where the launches will happen regardless of whether it is a NASA rocket or commercial.
But, the future of NASA is deep space (heavy lift vehicle) whether it is moon, flex path, whatever…
Heavy lift is not necessary for deep space, but as long as people continue to indulge themselves in this myth, NASA will retain its power to hold back the opening of the frontier.
“And NASA will not concede the heavy lift vehicle to commercial, not gonna happen. ”
Hmmm. Do you mean in the same way that NASA will not concede crewed vehicles to commercial?
As far as launch sites: Commercial will launch wherever it makes financial sense. If it is KSC then be it, but it might be from Kazakhstan or the North Pole if you see what I mean.
“Hmmm. Do you mean in the same way that NASA will not concede crewed vehicles to commercial? ”
No, in my first sentence I said “possibly an ISS manned rocket to commercial”
So, I think it could happen that they MIGHT allow crewed vehicles to commercial but just for LEO missions.
Deep space and heavy lift will be retained by NASA.
As far as launch sites: my opinion is that NASA will dictate where commercial CREWED vehicles will launch. If a man is on the rocket it will be launched KSC side pad A or pad B. No cape side launches for manned rockets.
“So, I think it could happen that they MIGHT allow crewed vehicles to commercial but just for LEO missions.”
Well and what if a commercial decides to make it to the Moon? NASA will not “allow” it? Do you think that they could not find astronauts to go to the Moon on a non-NASA ship?
NASA will “dictate” those missions that are NASA missions, but if someone wants to launch to say a Bigelow station then what?
Sounds to me like Lightfoot is saying under his breath that Obama wants to kill the human-launch-optimized Ares I and instead redirect those government dollars toward commercial satelite-launch-optimized hardware.
Kind of the reverse of the Arianne, which was originally designed for the ESA Hermes space plane, and instead earns it’s living performing multi- satelite launches.
Heavy lift makes sense to me. Being able to put 180,000 Kg in LEO with one Ares V lanuch instead of 7 Shuttle launches at 24,000 Kg each time has obvious advantages (time, reliability, logistics…).
I suspect that orbital space tourism might not become truely economical until we are able to launch a 747-sized ship with hundreds of passengers into orbit.
However, the devil is in the details.
“the human-launch-optimized Ares I”
Not sure where to start… But, human-launch-optimized? Optimized??? Any data supporting the “optimization”? And please let us know what it is that is optimized in Ares I to launch human. Optimized…
Oh well…
@cs
Ares I is specifically designed soley to transport crew safely to LEO. It has no other mission.
In contrast, the Delta II and Atlas V were designed to place small satellites in orbit. The Falcon 9 was originally designed as a reusable competitor for the EELV Delta and Atlas satellite launch market.
Cheers,
Nelson
@Nelson:
You’re wrong about Falcon 9. Musk said several times it had been designed from start to ferry crew.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/09/air-force-spacexs-falcon-9-first-launch-planned-for-nov-29-.html
“SpaceX is owned by former internet tycoon Elon Musk. The Falcon 9 is a medium lift class rocket with nine Merlin engines. It is being designed to haul both cargo and crew into space, though SpaceX’s contract with NASA so far only covers cargo flights under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services, or COTS, program.”
Do you know of OSP? Do you know of the early O’Keefe’s CEV Phase 1? In both cases EELVs were the LVs of choice for crew and cargo. Check it out. Optimized does not mean anything: You could optimize an EELV to deliver crew.
Oh well…
[…] noted here last week that Congressman Parker Griffith (D-AL) had some strong comments about the lack of a space policy decisio… to date, and the underlying concern that such a decision could jeopardize the future of the Ares 1 […]
[…] care to missile defense. On space, he has cited on multiple occasions in recent weeks, including an STA breakfast in early December and a hearing the following week his frustration at the White House for not yet making a decision […]