The space community is making much of an item in President Obama’s schedule for Wednesday: a 3:05 pm meeting with NASA administrator Charles Bolden in the Oval Office to “discuss the Administrator’s work at NASA and… the Augustine Committee’s analysis.” Does that mean a decision on the future of NASA’s human spaceflight program is imminent?
Well, maybe. While Norm Augustine claimed on Friday that some of the “decision documents” were now with the president, it’s not certain how close the administration is to making a decision. At a Space Transportation Association breakfast two weeks ago, Marshall Space Flight Center director Robert Lightfoot said that the agency was “in the process of assessing” the findings in the Augustine committee report in order to provide recommendations to the White House. Lightfoot didn’t give a timetable then about when those recommendations would be ready; this meeting could be an opportunity for Bolden to brief the president on those recommendations (if, in fact, they’re now ready.)
Another thing to keep in mind is that even if a decision is imminent, an announcement of that decision may not be. In fact, you can argue that right now—near the height of the holiday season, with most of the political attention focused on the Senate’s debate on health care reform legislation—would be a particularly bad time to make any announcement. Why not wait until after the first of the year (as President Bush did with his Vision for Space Exploration speech at NASA Headquarters in mid-January of 2004), either as a standalone event or in the State of the Union speech, prior to the release of the FY2011 budget proposal?
However much I’d like to hear “the” decision I would rather wait so they get it right. Now in terms of showmanship I’d say an address in the State of the Union would be quite remarkable BUT is Space that important? It would reach the public a lot more than anything say at HQ like what Bush did with the VSE: I can assure you nobody knew we were on our way back to the Moon then, even in the aerospace industry save for those who were working on it. So if the WH and OSTP and NASA found something great to do with NASA a State of the Union address might be one of those feel good moments that is desperately needed. We shall see.
My predictions of what will eventually happen…cynics hat firmly in place.
1. Ares 1 is gone. In fact I think that the entire Ares program is going to go to one of Sarah Palin’s death panels. Toast
2. ISS is going to fly for a long time…2020 it is going to become the focus of US Space efforts.
3. There might be one or two more shuttle flights (ie they might fly off whatever infrastructure is left) and this will tie in with the next “thing”.
3a. Commercial lift (people and things) will be accelerated some. That will draw in Lockmart and Boeing, who along with Orbital will really start to put the pressure on Musk to deliver and if either does (Orbital or Musk) we will either see Lockmart or Boeing figure out how cheaply their vehicles can be flown…or will see merger pressure.
4. Heavy lift really heavy lift is going to get a “study” for about a year.
5. There are going to be some technology demonstrator efforts associated with the rhetoric of flexible path…these will be actually useful…some evolved leave earth orbit stages (ie propulsion modules with fuel tanks) fuel depots etc. “Constellation” will do some evolving as it sort of morphs into a reusable interplanetary spacecraft, probably based on ISS hardware.
6. NASA and contractor workforces are going to be cut…they wont mention this of course but it is headed that way.
7 probably some modest “money” about 1/2 billion dollars directed at all of this….
to borrow a phrase from Major Tom..FWIW
Robert G. Oler
“That will draw in Lockmart and Boeing, who along with Orbital will really start to put the pressure on Musk to deliver and if either does (Orbital or Musk) we will either see Lockmart or Boeing figure out how cheaply their vehicles can be flown…or will see merger pressure.”
From one of my posts in another thread:
If Orion goes on that may be. If Lockheed or Boeing have to develop their own crew tarnsport (as I assume it would not be ULA) and if it is a capsule they will be in a legal nightmare as they will not be able to use whatever they did for OSP and CEV on government money. So to me it is not clear they can get the crew transport, maybe the launcher. And here I am speaking of ISS service. For deep space I am not sure if it’d play a role unless the governement here again opens a COTS like competition rather than the current format. But note that if they change Constellation I would not be surprised they have to re-procure the whole thing… We’ll see.
common sense
good post…but I would add this there is more at play then just ISS stuff.
IF and it is an IF Falcon 9 flies AND makes its cost…I dont see how both Lockmart and Boeings launch vehicles survive. maybe one but probably only one.
If the 9 and the 9 heavy start to fly and make their cost, the DoD is going to, in my view move to the 9. If I were a betting person they would to the 9 over at Kwaj not at the Cape. The vehicle can go east or north/south there with not a lot of problems, it is completly outside of prying eyes…and going east it lifts more.
Again IF the 9 and heavy work then one is going to see how fast the prices for a Boeing or Lockmart launch come down (and of course Musk will go up a tad).
Robert G. Oler
“I dont see how both Lockmart and Boeings launch vehicles survive. maybe one but probably only one.”
They will not survive. Not one: If of course SpaceX can deliver on cost an d if COTS becomes the format for launch procurement. These two ifs are very hmm iffy. I doubt the price for ULA will go down much. Their financial scheme was based on different procurement method I assume. then again those guys at good at accounting manipulation… So we never know.
” there is more at play then just ISS stuff”
I agree but the legal issue for a crew transport still stands. The OSP/CEV/etc crew vehicles developed by LMT and BA were most likely done with government money and of course Orion is! So I seriously doubt NASA would be able to open an RFP and accepting say a so-called Orion-lite competing with Dragon developed on SpaceX money – for example. Orion-lite would essentially be developed with prior NASA money. Not a chance the lawyers will accept it just like that. But with lawyers there always is a possiblity for settlement and I don’t mean lunar ones
BTW I said a capsule but whatever vehicle was developed with government money they won’t be able to use…
I’m with Robert on this.
Obama will cease all NASA led HSF hardware development activities related to VSE. If I were Obama, insofar as I have been signaling NASA about my intention for months, I would now want to hear (hence the 3:05 Wed meeting) what the impact will be of my , Obama, various options.
Anything beyond Earth Orbit, BEO, will be studied for a long time; the results of this study will lead to the development of a HLV – but it won’t be led by NASA. NASA HSF will be transformed to operate much as the FAA does…enforce government policy and regulations on commercial entities, but with no real engineering expertise to speak of. So the HLV ‘requirements’ will be fed to Industry. There will be some uplifting rhetoric about the future BEO plans that NASA will lead, but this essentially gets NASA off of Obama’s plate for the next 7 years.
LEO service to ISS via commercial sector will be accelerated by the ‘freed up funds’ formally directed at VSE.
ISS will be extended to 2020; there will be a re-emphasis on R&D toward Flexible path (kick the can down the road) option technologies to take up some of the idle employees no longer working on the VSE.
But there will still be many people with nothing to do.
If all goes as Obama plans therefore, there will be less NASA employees as the future unfolds; MSFC and Stennis will be consolidated (hence the meeting this past week of Center Directors); there will be buy outs at JSC and KSC.
There will be some uplifting talk as to how NASA will be a major player in Obama’s STEM initiative; but if I am a young person, and am seeing NASA and aerospace contractors get in the unemployment line, I think I’d think twice about a STEM career in Aerospace.
Earth Science will be re-emphasized, but not sure if that translates into more bucks.
Look for an exodus of very senior people from the HSF programs as things unfold.
Time to start a poll (pool?) on how long Charles Bolden sticks around as NASA Administrator before calling it quits?
mike shupp wrote @ December 16th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Time to start a poll (pool?) on how long C..
I think that this is exactly what Bolden signed up for
Robert G. Oler
I will make one other prediction. whatever changes occur will go down fairly easy in the Congress.
the prediction by some (Mark Whittington for instance) of a significant revolt…are simplistic and unsophisticated.
Robert G. Oler
I doubt it’s “exactly what Bolden signed up for.” Unless, of course, it’s what took so much arm twisting to get him into the job. But what was the point of getting an ex-astronaut into the Administrator’s seat, that it would slow down the exodus of bodies when NASA started taking cuts? Hell, getting that exodus would seem exactly what the Obama administration wants! And it’s not if there’s a shortage of talented simon-pure Democrats willing to carve the manned space program to shreds — I gather every economics professor in the country would kill to have the opportunity.
Mr. Shupp – I wanna thank you for being part of the committee that like to keep the idea going that Democrats are out to eliminate the Space Program.
??? The point is simply that agency heads are political appointments and thus usually aligned with the White House. An avowedly liberal Democrat (Lori Garver?) would look like like a better fit at NASA than an ex-fighter jock who might have lingering Republicanitis. As for the economic profs willing to carve up the space agency, “every prof” would include everyone from Lew Rockwell associates to Socialist Worker Party stalwarts.
Don’t read stuff into my words that isn’t there. Don’t be so whiny.
Who better to dismantle the HSF culture and programs at NASA than a former astronaut.
Perfect fit
NASA HSF will be transformed to operate much as the FAA does…enforce government policy and regulations on commercial entities, but with no real engineering expertise to speak of.
That would require a complete rewrite of the Space Act, and it would be pointless, because it’s already within the charter of the FAA, and they’re doing it.
I think NASA should invest more in nuclear fusion propulsion.
http://www.crossfirefusor.com/nuclear-fusion-reactor/overview.html