Sigh… I pointed out that Hill article to you four posts ago.

“Doesn’t see to be talk here of killing Ares I. Commercial space flight appears to be a supplement to Constellation.”

Like the Augustine Committee, Hill only refers to Constellation as the “program of record” in that article. Hill makes multiple references to a commercial crew “alternative”. If it’s an alternative, that implies Ares I termination. (There’s nothing else that commercial crew could be an alternative to.) Hill also refers to a “commercial alternative orbital vehicle”, which would also imply Orion termination. Hill also references actual ongoing NASA “requirements” work (more than just discussions with the White House) towards these commercial alternatives, which would indicate that decisions to move out on them have already been made. Hill also references ongoing NASA heavy lift studies, indicating that Ares V may also be up for change, consistent with the Augustine Committee report.

Assuming they’re accurate (and they may not be), the nasaspaceflight.com article on Hill, combined with the sources in the other nasaspaceflight article, indicate that major changes are in store for Constellation. The fact that Administrator Bolden also told a WIA/AIAA crowd this week that tough changes are in store that will make him unpopular, appears to confirm the nasaspaceflight articles.

FWIW…

That’s supposed to mean that Paul Hill thinks the White House / OMB isn’t making plans for the future of our human space flight program? Sorry, but Mr. Hill may say it like it is for him, but can hardly be expected to say it like it is for the White House.

Mr. Hill is Flight Director in the Missions Operations Directorate at JSC, not at headquarters. The White House doesn’t talk to JSC. They talk to NASA headquarters, and Paul Hill isn’t there. I don’t think anyone in the centers have much of a clue about what’s coming down with regard to the future of the agency and, most likely, only those on the 9th floor at headquarters even have a glimmer.

I suspect that Gerst, Hill’s overseer at HQ, is starting to get some picture of the future, but that’s a front-office issue, not a JSC issue.

In any case, I don’t see what that has to do with Ares I. Ares I is part of the Constellation program which, while having its program office at JSC, is not in Hill’s directorate, which is about ISS and Shuttle.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/12/nasa-direction-extra-shuttle-flights-commerical-launcher/

““I hear rumblings that some of you are concerned that we are not telling you what we know about the future direction of human space flight, Shuttle, MOD, et al,” Mr Hill added. “While I’d agree we haven’t passed along much in the way of new plans in a few months, you can still trust that we will pass along whatever we know, when we know it.”

“That means there isn’t any news to pass along regarding executive office direction on space policy and the ramifications to MOD.”

Mr Hill is highly respected in the space program, not least for his leadership skills, but also his ability to “say it how it is” – as was seen during a press conference when dealing with some repetitive questions from a BBC journalist during STS-114.

BTW Paul Hill is MOD Director

Doesn’t see to be talk here of killing Ares I. Commercial space flight appears to be a supplement to Constellation.

Yes, it will be interesting when the 2011 budget is released and we see how many of the blogsphere experts were right.

It may be a waste, but there’s no advantage legislatively to the White House releasing only a partial picture of the overall budget. If the White House released changes about Constellation now, there would immediately be questions about the other parts of the NASA portfolio, followed by questions about the rest of the nondefense R&D budget. And until those questions were answered, few in Congress would move forward on the changes to the Constellation budget — they’d want to know where their other interests stood first. And Congress can’t move forward on Constellation in isolation, anyway, since NASA’s appropriations are passed as part of a larger bill covering several other agencies. There is no “Constellation” appropriations bill.

The point is that the White House isn’t stalling or being wasteful for no good reason. It’s just the way that the budget process and calendar works.

FWIW…

I could see the budget being embargoed until February. But having individuals continuing to work on the Ares I system, and the Orion that will be launched on it until February, or beyond, IF Obama has already made the decision to cancel it seems like a huge waste of resources, not to mention money. You would think at least a stop work would go out on it.

Yes, I know the Orion may survive Ares I. But the Orion that may launch on an EELV will have major design differences then the Orion that would launch on the Ares I, so that is wasted effort as well IF the decision has been made to cancel the Ares I and go with EELV for it.

Thanks for reiterating the other poster’s clarification a third time. I am awestruck at how insightful and enlightening your comments are. They really add to the discussion.

“his space policy 2.0 from January 2008 (to that clearer to you) that was written by his educational policy expert.”

She didn’t write the document you linked to. She wrote the earlier blurb in the education policy document about cutting Constellation to pay for that policy’s education proposals.

“But unless you are part of the his budget team you have no evidence to claim these decisions have already been made.”

Sure I do.

Anyone who knows the White House budget process will tell you that OMB passback (the letters from the White House Office of Management and Budget to department and agency heads telling them what their budgets will be) occurs around Thanksgiving. See:

http://www.budgetanalyst.com/Passback.htm

Just by knowing what day of the year it is, we know whether the White House has made budget decisions with regard to their NASA (or any other agency’s) budget.

Moreover, sources in this article claim that “all four options [presented to the White House for the NASA budget] had commercial crew for LEO access. Ares I was not included in any scenario.”

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/11/ares-pressing-forward-plans-ares-i-x-prime-flight/

And a Shuttle manager emphasized commercial crew in a recent talk in this article:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/12/nasa-direction-extra-shuttle-flights-commerical-launcher/

“But if Obama has decided to kill Ares I in favor of commercial options he is just adding to the gap by not revealing it now and keeping it under wraps until February when the 2011 budget is released.”

For better or worse, The White House budget process is embargoed until February. The only details revealed are leaks.

FWIW…

“Thanks, I hadn’t figured it out after the other poster put up a note saying his statement was tongue-in-cheek. Your repeating the other poster’s clarification really adds to the conversation.”

The rest of us figured it out the first time, so I wanted to make sure it was clear to you since you seemed slow on the uptake on it. You still seem to think I was talking about NASA’s budget and not his space policy 2.0 from January 2008 (to that clearer to you) that was written by his educational policy expert.

Also Obama’s Space Policy 2.0 referred to the ISS as an example of what could be accomplish with international cooperation, so what Bolden stated is still in conformance to it and says nothing on Obama’s current views on NASA.

But we will see how much if any of the later versions of his space policy are in the 2011 budget when Obama lets the rest of the world know what his space decisions are.

But unless you are part of the his budget team you have no evidence to claim these decisions have already been made. Perhaps they have and the 2011 NASA budget is a done deal, or perhaps they are still deciding on it. But if Obama has decided to kill Ares I in favor of commercial options he is just adding to the gap by not revealing it now and keeping it under wraps until February when the 2011 budget is released.

You did state that whatever is decided will “be heavy on STEM”, which is pretty consistent with the other poster’s language.

“Once again you are putting words in other people’s mouth to attack them.”

Once again? Where have I done this before?

That’s your modus operandi, not mine.

“Obama’s Space Policy version 2.0… But I guess that is what happens when your education policy expert is writing your space policy statements.

That’s not who wrote that plan. They’re responsible for the earlier campaign document.

“And please learn to tell the different between a joke, as Common Sense was making on STEM, and real opinions before attacking their posts.”

Thanks, I hadn’t figured it out after the other poster put up a note saying his statement was tongue-in-cheek. Your repeating the other poster’s clarification really adds to the conversation.

“(Shake [sic] head…)”

You’re telling me to shake my head?

“And yes, I know there has been more versions of Obama’s space policy issued since version 2.0, as well as the Augustine Committee.”

If you know that, then why are you using an earlier, outdated campaign document that was superseded by later campaign documents?

“It will be sad if it turns out the only justification for NASA in Obama’s eyes is K-12 education”

That’s clearly not the case when in his speech to the WIA/AIAA, Administrator Bolden “stressed that one of the changes will be increased international cooperation, a goal embraced by President Obama” and that NASA should be “focusing on its role in innovation that drives the national economy”.

It’s obvious if you actually read the linked speech summary that the Administration is articulating international relations, innovation, and the economy as three other justifications for NASA’s programs.

Don’t you read the references others provide you before you comment on them? Or are you having problems with reading comprehension?

“But we will see when Obama finally makes some decisions on NASA’s future direction.”

Decisions have already been made. OMB budget passback to the agencies occurs around Thanksgiving. Unless Administrator Bolden is still appealing the NASA passback, the decisions are now final. The President’s Budget is released in February.

FWIW…

These words say explicitly that FY10 funds will not be available for termination or elimination of a Constellation program element. So they are aimed directly at Constellation. If large changes are going to be made on Constellation, there will be very significant termination costs. That is, for example, NASA can’t take Ares I development money and just use it for prematurely closing down Ares I contracts.

Instead of saying that Congress simply isn’t going to let the White House make big changes, I should have said that Congress isn’t going to let the White House simply make big changes!