Bottom line: The POR does not make any sense for sustainable exploration and will most likely impair any ISRU effort on the Moon or anywhere. In order to eventually, if at all possible, make use of ISRU the commercial sector MUST be part of it. The US, or China for that matter, as a nation will not be able to make any claim on the Moon or elsewhere in the solar system. The Moon would have to become the 51st state of the Union which will not happen. On the other hand treaties might help a variety of nations to have some commercial exploitation of the Moon. But that is so far off in the distant future that we most likely will not see it in “our lifetime”.

Bottom bottom line: Either we start anew using whatever good there might be in Constellation if any and substantially involve the commercial sector NOW, OR, HSF will die a slow death in the US. Other nations will possibly hang on for a while and then let go of it as well for a long long time.

Irrelevant. Again, per the Augustine Committee, the program of record requires that NASA’s budget increase to $3B more per year than the current runout. Logsdon is stating that the Obama Administration is not going to provide that $3B increase. So, unless they’re going to underfund the program they’re backing right out of the gate (unlikely), the Obama Administration is pursuing an alternative to the program of record that doesn’t require a $3B increase. The alternative is not necessarily one of the options in the final report of the Augustine Committee.

“John Logsdon was a member of the NASA Advisory Council from 2005-2009 and has supported the goals of the Constellation Program.”

Goals or implementation?

A broad goal like a human return to the Moon is easy to support, and there’s little doubt that Logsdon would support such since he wrote the policy history on President Kennedy’s Apollo decision. But that doesn’t mean that Logsdon supported Constellation’s technical approach and implementation.

Moreover, it doesn’t mean that Logsdon is qualified to make such technical judgements. His PhD is in history. His undergrad degree was in physics, but Logsdon would tell you himself that he’s no aerospace engineer. Logsdon was on the NAC in a policy advisory role, not in an engineering oversight role.

“Also, I seem to recall John Logsdon being critical of Flexible Path at several times over the last few months.”

Logsdon himself is almost never personally critical of anything in his press statements. He’s a professional policy analyst.

Logsdon has questioned whether politicians and the public can understand the importance of human missions to Lagrange points and asteroids as easily as the Moon. But that doesn’t mean he personally prefers one option or the other. I very much doubt he would ever express his personal opinion in the press.

Moreover, even if Logsdon had stated publicly that he favors the program of record, that doesn’t mean that he’s going to pass along what he’s heard from Administration officials only if it’s positive for the program of record. That’s pretty goofy logic.

“So considering the source of information, I would submit that this appears to be a good sign for the current Constellation program.”

There’s nothing in the article or Logsdon’s background indicating such.

Moreover, multiple sources now claim that none of the final White House options were the program of record. Like this one:

“… 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 this one:

“According to insiders, the White House is looking at four options, each of which would scrap Ares I, dramatically revise Constellation and start new programs allowing commercial space companies to carry humans to the space station.”

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20091210/NEWS02/712109722

“Noticeably, there has been no stop work order from Obama on Constellation projects.”

Actually, yes, procurements have been withdrawn and work has been stopped on Ares V and Altair since the election. There’s unlikely to be changes on Ares I or Orion until the FY11 budget is rolled out in February (or any earlier announcement from the Administration).

“Given the partisan rancor over the HCR debate and financial reforms, President Obama will be looking for a fig leaf for bipartisanship.”

This would be a bad candidate. The White House would have to wait until NASA’s FY11 budget is passed late next year (CY11) before it could make any claims about a bipartisan victory. And even then, NASA’s budget is going to be wrapped up in larger appropriations bills that will be passed along partisan lines for reasons having nothing to do with NASA.

“With the latest signs from Congress of clear bipartisan support for the Constellation program,”

There’s no broad bipartisan support for Constellation. There’s a few congressmen from key NASA center states and districts, especially Alabama, making a lot of loud and false statements. They may be from both sides of the aisle, but their arguments are driven by parochialism, not bipartisanship.

“I do not believe that President Obama is looking to pick a fight regarding the issue of space exploration.”

Historically, from Apollo to STS to Freedom to ISS to the VSE, the White House leads and the Congress follows on major changes in the direction of NASA’s human space flight program. There’s always some noise from those few whose rice bowls get tipped over, but most in Congress follow the President’s lead when it comes to big changes at NASA for a number of recurring reasons. This is unlikely to change.

FWIW…

I’m not arguing against Dr. Logsdon’s comments. I’ve thought for a few months that a modest budget increase is actually the most likely scenario. I just think a modest budget increase points away from Constellation as it exists rather than towards it, and I didn’t see anything Logsdon said one way or the other in the New Scientist article about Constellation.

Gary: “As far as the Augustine report goes, it left out one practical and realistic option to extend the ISS and retain Constellation program. If the US and its partners want to extend ISS to beyond 2020, then they can continue to purchase crew transport services from commercial provider RKK Energia, which incidentally is what NASA will be doing starting in 2011.”

Actually the Augustine report assumes NASA will purchase Russian Soyuz crew transport services during the gap. Even with Soyuz and an extra $3B/year, the Committee was not able to find a way to keep the ISS functioning beyond 2015 while also developing Constellation (nor could it afford a technology development program). Soyuz crew transportation is not free, and there is a lot more to ISS maintenance than crew transportation.

Gary: “This action may actually stimulate the commercial market in the US to further invest in developing a competing crew launch system.”

I doubt that NASA purchasing Soyuz rides would encourage U.S. commercial space, if all NASA does is that and build Ares I. Why would they invest in NASA crew transportation on the slim chance that some future NASA would purchase their services instead of Soyuz or Ares I? NASA would need to make very strong and encouraging moves to get U.S. commercial space interested. I do, however, see a possibility of some U.S./foreign commercial partnership providing NASA crew transportation services.

There are also political issues with relying entirely on the Russian Soyuz, and risk issues with relying on any single crew transportation system.

Also, don’t forget that the OSTP asked the Augustine Committee to investigate ways to stimulate commercial space and to reduce the gap. I’d have to assume the Administration has some interest in doing those things. Although the Augustine Committee deemed commercial space as only beating Ares 1 by a year (2016 vs. 2017), that was their worst-case commercial assessment compared to their best-case Ares 1 assessment.

Gary: “There has also been suggestions that the US may renegotiate with its ISS partners so that those participating nations would be responsible for a greater share of the costs, particularly if China is willing to join the ISS partnership.”

That may happen, and it may be a good idea, but I don’t see it happening on a dramatic enough scale to make much difference in the Augustine Committee assessment. I don’t think the U.S. will be willing to give up major portions of its use of the ISS after 25 years of development, just so it can go through another 25 year development program with the Ares rockets, any more than I can see the U.S. discarding the ISS after a handful of years of operation.

Gary: “This could relieve some of the financial burdens for NASA and free up more funding for human spaceflight program.”

Well, the ISS is part of the human spaceflight program, too.

My guess about the Administration and ISS use is they’ll want to make serious use of the ISS, and a lot of any NASA budget increase will be for ISS use. ISS use can be directed towards various Administration priorities, and it can return results quickly compared to Constellation. Perhaps they won’t ramp it up quite as much as Augustine suggests (eg: through the sort of renegotiation you described), but I think the ISS will be the HSF centerpiece for many years, and it won’t be neglected by the U.S.

Gary: “The Flexible Path will give greater control of human spaceflight to government contractors and not to the commercial space industry since there is simply no market beyond LEO to stimulate commercial investments at this point.”

There may be no market beyond LEO to stimulate commercial investments, but that seems to be equally true for Constellation’s physical destination (the lunar surface). [I’m not against Moon-first approaches, but the way]. I wouldn’t make too much of the “market”, if you mean something like a NASA lunar base in the 2030’s. That’s too far away in time to consider – and Constellation would take that long to be there for a market (just like the ISS took that long). Why would we assume NASA would even purchase commercial services then when it’s balking so much at ISS crew transportation services and other commercial services now?

Compared to Constellation, I see a number of potential Flexible Path commercial services (keeping in mind that Flexible Path is flexible, and does not guarantee any of these):

– commercial crew to ISS
– additional commercial cargo to ISS (because of 2020+ ISS, greater use of ISS, and possibly more cargo services to ISS by new crew vendors)
– fuel depot
– transporting fuel to fuel depot
– telecommunications (eg: for teleoperations)
– commercial lunar lander components based on commercial lunar robotics per the Augustine Flexible Path suggestion
– mini commercial space stations, servicing nodes, and/or assembly areas to be reused at various points (Lagrange points, lunar orbit, etc)
– spin-off of satellite servicing to commercial vendors for Earth orbit servicing
– various commercial robotic missions at different destinations

I could also see some commercial services with a non-Constellation Moon-First approach, such as lunar robotics. Constellation as it exists now doesn’t leave much room for NASA purchase of commercial services.

The NAC list on NASA’s website only list the chairs of council committees for some reason and not all of the committee members which is considerably more. Here is a link to a meeting report from July: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/383019main_09-07_Minutes.pdf. If you scroll down to the bottom, it will list all of the members of the council by committee.

NASA may not list his name on the Council, but he was part of the Exploration committee to NAC chaired by Gen. Lester Lyles. Bolden recently made changes to NAC, so those changes may not be reflected. NASA does not always update their info either.

And just for the record, because I mispell his name too, its Jay Barbree. Lol! Yeah…

..

sorry I got the spelling wrong.

Barbree was a good reporter, he has however stayed well past his prime and his work recently has been worse then coasting.

As for JL…he is a nice guy and has some neat ideas…he has not contributed a lot of good information to the debate.

Robert G. Oler

Robert,

I just watched Meet The Press on NBC where President Obama’s economic advisor Dr. Christina Romer was discussing Obama’s plan for creating a second stimulus for jobs recovery and reducing overall unemployment. ..

Hello GAry.

I watched MTP as well. The only impressive character was Cramer…Greenspan is part of what is wrong with the economy, The two pols; WMR and Michigan are weak political flaks.

Look…I voted for the other guy in 08…but I am not a right wing (or left wing) idiot, we have only one President at a time, and unlike the GOP right wing I sincerely hope that Obama is “mission accomplished” in his economic theories (and his presidency in general), because in my view the future of The Republic as we know it today (ie a super power) is at issue.

My belief however is sadly I dont think that Obama will do much more then “level us off” and we will be lucky if he does that. It is early but my belief right now is that like Bush after 9/11 almost everything that is being done looks like hard work but is really making the situation worse. All in all had Bush not done a thing after 9/11 we would be far better off…and had we just let business that were going to fail go under, we would be far better off.

What is wrong, in my view, in our economy is not little “tweaks” or just “the business cycle” it is fundamental change is needed.

And federal policy is the key to that. As is federal spending.

Federal spending is, like it or not a big chunk of GDP and will remain that way. IN some areas like human spaceflight it is all the money spent.

The question is how should that money be spent?

Should it be spent cultivating private enterprise capability which then can branch out to other areas of profitability (the airmail/airline model) or should it be spent in ways which simply have no additional impact on the economy…the space station (right now at least) model.

There are some things (prisons come to mind) which have little impact on the economy other then the specific service that they offer, keeping bad people locked up. But so far at least every federal dollar spent on the turbojet engine has had a multiplicative affect past the actual “thing” that it did.

Why I think Obama’s economic plan will fail is that so far, like Bush’s it concentrates on saving the very folks and policies that got us into this mess ie socializing failure…but has done nothing for folks who are desperatly trying to build a better mousetrap.

This is the connendrum in human spaceflight. Ares development doubtless employs far more people then Musk would or even Boeing and Lockmart would have had they built a human carrying vehicle. So far NASA/Nasaetes have on Ares spent over 9 times what Musk has, and have little or nothing to show for it. They need about four times that amount in addition to get to any usable capability. But it will create jobs, jobs that have no impact past the money spent.

Musk is a true private sector employeer and while he does not have as many jobs, nor does his effort take as much money…and Musk can likely offer his services somewhere else. Ares never will.

The stimulas was in my view badly spent. I hope I am wrong, but I’ll bet you dollars that this time next year the overall economy is not measurably better.

Robert G. Oler

The market already exists – the market, in this case, is transportation of humans & equipment to the surface of the moon, for exploration purposes. If that wasn’t a market, no one would actually be talking about Altair.

The point is, NASA is not responsible to develop most of the vehicle – instead, they can simply buy an existing vehicle, or have one slightly modified.

Imagine something like Scorpius or Xoie actually acting as your Lunar Lander