Yes but.

People need to express their frustration and a blog is easier than in front of a manager. I am not saying they should not talk to their management just that sometime it may spell danger for many. And you surely know that or you would not post anonymously (no problem here just a fact).

So I agree with you to some point. It is your role then if you can or that of those who can to try and explain the current state of the affairs. These are tough times for many many people. I am not a fan of the current Constellation and I said it BUT a lot of people there may just loose their jobs.

Then there is the advocates, without any engineering knowledge or enough to be dangerous, that claim what we MUST do and when and how. And that doom is all upon us if we don’t set foot on the Moon uh when? 2014? 2020? 2030? In my lifetime? Again one must try and educate them when they want a spaceplane coming back from the Moon or Mars etc…

STILL these forums allow people to participate, or to think they are so I say go ahead let your voice be known. As to what the best architecture is, is it not NASA that is supposed to know better? Then again Constellation/Ares/Orion seem to disprove that…

Oh well…

1. Wish that it would not happen and cling to the past (daydream).
2. Fight desperately for #1, even though the evidence is to the contrary
3. Complain and do nothing.

Seldom, do we see people who look change square in the face and say: “OK, let’s take this and really make something of it.” Let’s decide that Yes, we’ll take the changes that are to come and become something else.

What will NASA choose to become?

Will it wither in the face of people choosing state 1 above?
Will it stagnate whilst its members fritter energy away in state 2?
Will it degrade with the negative postures of people in state 3?

Accept that you’re not the President here. Accept that you have little to no control over what is happening. I’m not saying be a sheep and be herded. What pays in any successful venture or mission in life is to accept the boundaries, the cards you’ve been dealt and play them as well as possible.

I’ve grown positively tired of hearing about the technical details of all the different configs from the Augustine Report and those of you who wait on baited breath for magic to descend and tell you that all is well. That’s really putting too much in the hands of leadership.

Acknowledge the reality of the leadership ahead and say: OK, if this is happening, what can I do to make the best of it. If you can’t say that, then do something about it that _IS_ constructive or go somewhere else.

Do what you can to enact change where you are. If you spent as much time doing things to make your workplace better vs. reading and writing blogmatter, the agency might have a handful of vigorous agents of change who could possibly even do something meaningful…

I would like to see NASA’s human spaceflight ended as much as I would like to see the Senate Health care bill defeated (I am for single payer paying for it is a tad exciting but I think people like Rush Limbaugh should contribute “something” to The Republic…moving on).

To me a “win” would be the following.

The shuttle ends, the station goes on to 2020 or forever as far as I care.

There is commercial lift to ISS in the US and some cash is thrown in to accelerate that.

Massive layoffs at NASA…reduce it to a NACA sized agency that works technology issues.

Technology issues…work on propellent depots (there is a use for them)…maybe some work on some new heavy lift.

Exploration by humans…oh lets talk about that in 2018 or something.

Robert G. Oler

“but the Team, does not see Technical Issues as being the road blocks or speed bumps;”

Believe it or not but the Griffin’s team did not see any of that either. And some still don’t however incredible it may seem! They will have issues one of which and not the least will be the integration of a LAS that works, i.e. save the crew. As you can imagine an ascent abort will require the dumping of the SRBs and a fly off from the stack. A low altitude abort with the SRBs going full thrust will be something interesting to (not) see. Was there any analysis done there? Do you know? Is it public? And that is just an example of things to come…

Now I disputed your 2 LV assertion as day dreaming, yes. There most likely will be one LV of some sort, be it Jupiter, Ares V lite or something in between. They will pick the one that makes most political sense not necessarily the one that makes most technological or financial sense. If you’ve followed what happeneed to Mike Griffin you know he is somewhere in Alabama right? Why is that so? What do you think? So again the Jupiter team may have a very reasonable offer for all that I know BUT it does not mean they will be able to make it a viable political option.

(0) Augustine II will be a useful doorstop in coming years. It will serve no other purpose, except to amaze and amuse our grandchildren.

(1) NASA may get a $1 billion boost in the next budget, but it will be for (unmanned) earth observational satellites. Planetary science and astronomy is going to get pinched. Manned space flight will stay at roughly current levels, with the money that had gone to shuttle now going to space station.

(2) NASA will lose about 25 % of its people in the 2012-2015 period; USA and other contractors will take larger hits, probably sooner. There’ll be enough pain and suffering (and job loss) in the larger defense-aerospace environment as military spending falls that no one will notice or care.

(3) Ares I and Ares V are dead, Ares 5-lite will not be started. It will soon be announced that NASA will “study and encourage new developments” in chemical propulsion “until future requirements are determined.” A new large booster will be developed “eventually” — meaning no start until after 2020.

(4) The US will “return to the moon, to stay” but with a team of international partners. We’ll build the rockets; THEY will build the moonbase(s), or at least pay for and build the modules we transport to the moon. This will not happen quickly (surprise!).

(4a) The IPs will include smaller / less developed nations who can find _something_ to contribute; e.g., Israel, Nigeria, Indonesia. ESA will drag out its contribution until 2050 or later.

(4b) There’s probably a role here for Bigelow, as a subcontractor or manager for some of the IP modules, and maybe for supplementary lunar structures (“pup tents”).

(5) Moonbase will not be as cheap as initially advertised. Operating budgets will be higher than originally estimated. There will be arguments over allocating costs. There will lots of rhetoric about cooperation “in all environments” and consultation and many exciting opportunities for ministerial meetings and high-level exchanges in Geneva and Rio and other spacious sites.

(6) ISS will be crewed until 2020, and possibly from then to 2025 with a smaller crew. Eventually repairs will cost more than anyone wants to pay and the station will be de-orbited. There will be no replacement.

(7) Space propellant depots are not in the future — too little demand.

———————————-

Summing up, less facetiously, spaceflight’s becoming an adjunct of US diplomacy, one of the tools of “soft power” which the US employs to shape world affairs as it slowly relinquishes its military dominance. Barring any development of widespread public interest in spaceflight per se, I’d expect this phase to last another 40-50 years — basically until the appearance of one or more successor superpowers with their own agendas to impose.

Yes 1 possible Jupiter config. You said 2 LVs not one!

Now a comment on this. Jupiter just may, or not, be less expensive than any Ares V of any kind but it is far from sure. Note further that “less expensive” does not mean “affordable”. See any and I mean any LV will have its own set of issues, and no it is not because of history I say so but because I’ve been working in this area. The real reason why we may go with a Jupiter vehicle is political just as Ares was. The only good thing about Jupiter vs. Ares, and I don’t know enough to say more, is that it seems to bee based on “real” Shuttle hardware which btw Ares was supposed to be initially. See things change. And that is that. So this would appease someone in Alabama you see. Nothing else. You may or not believe me.

As to the Sidemount I already said that it was an unsafe vehicle right after the Augustine presentation so no real surprise here, just relief. I still can’t believe that NASA dared show such a bad design. Oh well…

Finally you are assuming that the NASA Exploration/Operations leadership will stay as it is which is far from sure… Some of these people have opposed COTS-D and that goes against what this WH wants to do. So again we shall see.

William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator for Space Operations
Douglas R. Cooke, Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Mission Directorate
Phil Sumrall, Exploration Launch Projects Advanced Planning Manager, MSFC
Geoff Yoder, Director, Constellation Systems Division, NASA HQ

in a meeting that was scheduled since Christmas; they had a good two way exchange of ideas and there has been requests to follow up with more data and talks; while it is not expected that the Direct Architecture or HLV will be taken without some mods, it is expected that Ares I/V are off the critical path, as is Side Mount; there is no money for the first, and the second has safety issues with relation to the Crew Capsule being within a few feet of the ET and SRBs, w/ doubts of whether the LAS could be sufficiently powerful to pull them out of harms way;
at the present time, the expectation is that a Jupiter like SHLV could be tested as early as 2014, w/o the Orion Crew Capsule Block I, that coming sometime around the 2015/16 time frame; these are estimates based on NASAs own protocols; this is NOT inside knowledge but public domain, at Nasa Space Flight.com; http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19548.2025

For those averse to going there, here is Ross T.’s statement after returning to Florida from Washington;

“We had a very good meeting this morning with Bill Gerstenmaier, Doug Cooke, Phil Sumrall and Geoff Yoder.

We will not go into the details of the meeting, other than to say our presentation was well received, generated two-way questions and answers and that there was sufficient interest that we will definitely be providing more information and will also be engaging in further discussions. I think I speak for all my colleagues when I say that I am very happy with this whole trip.”

Ross

Obama gets a C minus over all because he has barely been satisfactory at keeping The Republic moving…he has not exhibited superior or average performance at changing the direction of The Republic from the course it was on which got him The Presidency. It is almost impossible to see significant change (except health care which is its own disaster) from the course his predecessor left The Republic on.

In space policy…well it seems “clear” that the old path under Mr. Bush is going to die…I think that is dying solely because of “indifference” meaning that I do not think that The President has any real interest in space (most Presidents dont) or human spaceflight…but I think that his “group” figured out that the course left him by his predecessor is simply not sustainable for the amount of money that he wants to spend (or it might not be sustainable at all).

What course is in the future I am not sure is determinable right now. I dont think it includes “great exploration goals”…one hopes that it includes “initiative” trying to figure out a unique path that truly changes the future of The Republic. Mindless exploration has no value to a people who are facing the difficulties that now exist.

Robert G. Oler