Congress, NASA, White House

The moon is “dead”

The lede of today’s Orlando Sentinel article is blunt: “NASA’s plans to return astronauts to the moon are dead.” So, it claims, are the Ares 1 and 5 rockets, which will not be funded in the FY2011 budget proposal to be released on Monday. “There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation program at all,” the article continues. The article, citing a collection of (unnamed, of course) White House, Congress, NASA, and industry officials, claims that the budget will include the eventual development of a heavy-lift vehicle, but focus more in the near term on Earth science projects and R&D work to enable future human missions beyond LEO, as well as supporting development of commercial crew transportation systems to get crews to and from the ISS.

None of this is terribly surprising, given the rumors and hints that have leaked out in recent weeks and months, although the presentation here is particularly stark. It would, though, face some strong opposition from Congress, which included in the final FY2010 appropriations a provision preventing “termination or elimination” of any aspect of Constellation or creation of any new related program without approval from Congress in a subsequent appropriation. It’s not clear if the White House will seek a supplemental appropriation for FY10 to make that change now, or wait until the final FY11 bill is approved (which might be well into the 2011 fiscal year, based on past experience on the time Congress takes to finalize such bills) to make such changes, which means current Constellation development funded in the FY10 budget might be for nought.

Several members of Texas’ Congressional delegation, Republican and Democrat, tell the Houston Chronicle they may might any substantial changes in NASA’s exploration plans. “His own commission recommended a $3 billion increase to have a sustainable program,” Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) said, referring to the Augustine committee. “His own commission recommended a $3 billion increase to have a sustainable program.” And Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX): “We’re going to be very vocal about any undermining of the commitment to NASA that is different.” Will they—or, more importantly, will appropriators—back up those words with action, and funding?

46 comments to The moon is “dead”

  • MoonExploration

    Now I know the answer to the Fermi Paradox – all alien civilizations are run by democrats that lack the capability to have visions beyond Low Planet Orbit.

  • MrEarl

    I really think we are looking at the US letting Human Space Flight wither away in study after study. As for commercial ventures, COTs D, once these efforts hits some rough spots they’ll use it as reasons to abandon that too.

    I think it’s do or die time. We have to put away our petty procedural bickering and unite to keep HFS alive. What organization has the reach to bring all these groups together?

  • ME, you think it’s democrats only? when Republicans controlled both congress and the White House they still overpromised and underfunded. I got news for you, unless you’re talking representatives from the Space states, space has no allies in congress on either side and no president for decades has been a friend to space anywhere other than in front of a TV camera. The only thing that can be said about Republicans and space compared to Democrats is that they pay better lip service to it. Hell, I’ll even give the Democrats points for being honest about the fact that they don’t plan to put any serious funds behind it.

    I sure as heck am disappointed with the administration’s direction, or lack thereof, in the space arena, and I’m not at all happy with congress’ actions on the subject either. But let’s not pretend this is any kind of change from the glory days of prior admins. My hopes we were going to the moon were all but killed the minute Bush put out his first VSE-era budget proposal and they’ve been on life support at best ever since. The puppet show the government and NASA have put on since then has been more like salt on the wound than anything

    Frankly, I really do believe that the next manned moon mission from US soil is going to be on a private rocket, whether it be in ten years or thirty. And I really hate to say it, but I think Russia and possibly China will get there first. I want to be wrong, and some piece of my still holds out hope, but I’m not holding my breath.

  • CharlesTheSpaceGuy

    Not that I often comment on one paper’s article on another blog, but…

    The Orlando Sentinel (Bobby Block and Mark Matthews) often do good stories but this one has a serious, gaping hole. The blog posting here tends to support it. The offending quote here is: “There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation program at all,”

    But back to the title of this posting – the moon is dead – but it has been dead for quite a while!!! The Moon program’s code name was Altair, for the lander and all the associated stuff. I probably gloss over some details here, but the money for the whole Moon part of Constellation has never been there. We got a funny looking car to drive in the Inaugural Parade, and not much more.

    Constellation was the orion (I still can’t bring myself to capitalize that name), the Ares 1 and 5, and the Moon part. The Moon part disappeared rapidly (sure we had some studies and we got the Inaugural car), now the Ares appears to be morphing into Commercial Rockets, but the orion is still there. UNLESS someone is planning a replacement that has never been mentioned anywhere.

    So, Constellation is NOT dead. For one thing, orion is still a big program – with quite a bit of Stimulus money being spent there. The rocket part would be provided by a different source but orion is not gonna get into orbit by itself.

    To be accurate, in a business which prides itself on accuracy – the Moon part is still dead and Constellation is still a growing program. Different today but still growing. Lockheed is still on contract to build a bunch of orion vehicles, what exactly they will look like is not decided. Whether it will carry more than three crew members at a time is open for debate!

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Another demonstration that every Obama promise has an expiration date. Every one.

  • steve

    No, Constellation is not dead. The Space Shuttle is retiring very soon and Constellation is the program to take over when space shuttle retires. They are not going to end BOTH programs !
    Constellation may be “changed” in what it’s mission is or what rocket it uses but it is the future of human spaceflight beyond low earth orbit.
    Just because we won’t go to the moon and mars yet, and will go to an asteroid instead is just changing the destination of the program (not cancelling it).
    So, nothing is really new here AT ALL. Space shuttle still getting retired, Constellation moves forward as planned (budget, people, etc), just maybe not going to the moon with it.
    This has all been in the news for quite a while that the mission of Constellation will change.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Now we know why the new space policy didn’t make it into the State of the Union. “We Choose Not to Go to the Moon” doesn’t have quite the ring.

    By the way, don;t expect any alternative to see the light of day, all other things being equal.

  • Loki

    The Sentinal article says that the constellation program will be killed, and the constellation program includes Orion as well as the Ares rockets and the Altair and lunar base. While it’s true that the lunar stuff has been dead in the water for a while now, some clarification would be nice. When they say “There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation program at all,” do they really mean just the moon stuff, or will the constellation program as a whole be canned (including Orion)? It’s kind of annoying when news reports aren’t precise. Seeing that I work on Orion it would be nice to know if I should be freaking out yet or not.

  • Robert G. Oler

    “We certainly don’t need to go back to the moon,” one administration official said…

    no one here can provide a convincing reason to refute that statement.

    Robert G. Oler

  • MoonExploration

    @steve
    “Just because we won’t go to the moon and mars yet, and will go to an asteroid instead is just changing the destination of the program (not cancelling it).”

    What’s the purpose of sending humans to an asteroid? An asteroid is too small to land on. The same goes for human expeditions to the moons of Mars. And sending humans in Lunar orbit without landing seems just as ridiculous. That is something we use robotic probes for.

  • common sense

    @Loki:

    Here is the problem I think they are facing: Cash and Jobs. If say SpaceX comes up with a LV and a capsule to do the job for a tiny fraction of Ares/Orion, why would NASA go on with the system? The only reason is to not lay off thousands of highly skilled people. So how do they do that? Well, I would say you keep working on the next program that includes a HLV. That would save quite a few people. Now Orion. Well that seems like tough luck for Orion. If Dragon can do the job then that’ll be it for Orion. There may still be some IRAD cash for a future vehicle but better be looking for job numbers now… What can be salvaged out of Orion? Well the TPS maybe, and the LAS maybe. Since a lot has been done in those areas and you don’t want to waste it. I’d say open an RFP wher you glue your vehicle to the LAS and the TPS and you’re good for contract or something like this…

  • richardb

    LA Times has a similar story. Zeroed funding for Constellation. Like many of us claimed would happen if Obama was elected.
    This is a black day for America’s manned space program.
    Think about it, all funding for the hardward to visit the moon, inner solar system or Mars is de-funded with no commitment to fund anything better.
    To my view, if the goal is worthwhile, even a flawed solution is better than no solution. Today we have no solution if these press reports are accurate.

  • David Davenport

    Good thing if those stupid Ares missiles get dumped.

    Sound like they’ll keep Huntsville employed with a Shuttle-derived Heavy Lifter.

    Shuttle-dervied HLV implies Shuttle program life extension? Hmmm …

  • Major Tom

    “Think about it, all funding for the hardward to visit the moon, inner solar system or Mars is de-funded with no commitment to fund anything better.”

    Beyond a few tens of millions of design dollars, Constellation never funded any hardware for human visits the Moon, nevertheless any other solar system targets. Instead, billions and billions went to an intermediate-lift LEO launcher and a crew capsule to ISS. After five years, there is still no Altair lander, no Ares V heavy lifter, no EDS, and no lunar Orion hardware.

    I’ll take a civil human space exploration program that actually makes investments in human space exploration hardware, like the heavy lift launcher and critical exploration technologies mentioned in the article, over one that sets targets and dates but never funds the development of the necessary systems.

    “This is a black day for America’s manned space program.”

    On the contrary, if you favor civil human space exploration and activities beyond LEO, it’s an important first step towards the light. Free the agency of the Ares I albatross, and billions become available for actual exploration hardware, even within a flat NASA budget.

    Doesn’t guarantee that an executable and sustainable civil human space exploration program will come out the Bolden era any more than it came out of the Griffin era. But it’s a critical step in the right direction.

    FWIW…

  • MoonExploration

    @Robert G. Oler
    ““We certainly don’t need to go back to the moon,” one administration official said…”

    “no one here can provide a convincing reason to refute that statement.”

    Well, Robert – give us a convincing reason to why we should have a base on the South Pole (on the Earth)?

  • MoonExploration

    @richardb
    “This is a black day for America’s manned space program.
    Think about it, all funding for the hardward to visit the moon, inner solar system or Mars is de-funded with no commitment to fund anything better.”

    richardb – I give you my 100% support in your comments. It is a sad day.
    This was also foreseen before the election of Obama; http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1100/1

  • Mark R. Whittington

    I would ignore Oler’s jibes. There are a host of reasons to go back to the Moon. Oler just ignores them.

    “Major Tom” should be mortified by making a statement like he did above. Norm Augustine has said that there is nothing technically wrong with the program of record. The fact of the matter is that this policy change, if not reversed, is nothing short that an unmitigated disaster for this country.

  • Major Tom

    “give us a convincing reason to why we should have a base on the South Pole (on the Earth)?”

    This is a nonsensical question as the costs associated with Antarctic research station are many orders of magnitude smaller than the costs associated with establishing a base on the Moon. If a base on the Moon cost only hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to establish and only tens of millions per year to operate (the costs of an Antartic research station), we’d almost certainly have a lunar base (or more). But using the kinds of capabilities available to us today, it would cost hundreds of billons of dollars to establish a lunar base and tens of billions of dollars per year to operate. Those kinds of costs require a more compelling justification than the kinds of research that justify the existence of Antarctic research stations.

    But to answer the question, if by us, you mean the United States, we actually have four operating Antarctic bases. They each serve a different set of research functions addressing various science priorities (copied from wikipedia):

    Amundsen-Scott — Research at the station includes glaciology, geophysics, meteorology, upper atmosphere physics, astronomy, astrophysics, and biomedical studies. Most of the scientists work in low-frequency astronomy; the low temperature and low moisture content of the polar air, combined with the altitude of over 2743 m (9,000 ft), causes the air to be far more transparent on some frequencies than is typical elsewhere, and the months of darkness permit sensitive equipment to run constantly.

    McMurdo — Research is performed at and near McMurdo in aeronomy and astrophysics, biology and medicine, geology and geophysics, glaciology and glacial geology, and ocean and climate systems. The Albert P. Crary Science and Engineering Center (CSEC), located at McMurdo Station, was dedicated in November 1991 by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The laboratory is named in honor of geophysicist and glaciologist Albert P. Crary. There are five pods making for 4,320 square meters of working area that includes a two-story core, a biology pod, earth sciences and atmospheric sciences pods, and an aquarium. McMurdo is also the logistics hub of the U.S. Antarctic Program, with a harbor, landing strips on sea ice and shelf ice, and a helicopter pad. Its 85 or so buildings range in size from a small radio shack to large, three-story structures. Repair facilities, dormitories, administrative buildings, a firehouse, power plant, water distillation plant, wharf, stores, clubs, warehouses, and the first class Crary Lab are linked by above-ground water, sewer, telephone, and power lines.

    Palmer — The majority of the science research conducted at Palmer Station centers around marine biology. The station also houses year-round monitoring equipment for global seismic, atmospheric and UV monitoring networks. Palmer also hosts a radio receiver that studies lightning over the Western Hemisphere. Palmer Station is located near penguin colonies — Adélie, Gentoo and Chin-strap penguins are in abundance during summers, but small numbers can be found in the area at all times of the year. The area is also home to several types of seals: Fur seals, Elephant seals, Crabeater seals and Leopard seals. The area is often visited by Minke, Orca and Humpback whales. Other research is conducted from the R/V Laurence M. Gould. Science cruises cover physical oceanography, marine geology and marine biology. The ship also carries field parties to sites around the Antarctic Peninsula to study glaciology, geology and paleontology

    Siple — A research station in Antarctica, established in 1973 by Stanford’s STAR Lab, to perform experiments that actively probed the magnetosphere using very low frequency (VLF) waves. It’s location was selected to be near the Earth’s south magnetic pole, and the thick ice sheet allows for a relatively efficient dipole antenna at VLF frequencies.

    We have also abandoned Byrd Station, in 2005-6, after it no longer served a useful research function.

    There are also important international competition/cooperation dimensions to an Antarctic presence. 29 other nations, all signatories of the Antarctic Treaty, have one or more permanently or temporarily occupied Antarctic research stations.

    FWIW…

  • Robert G. Oler

    MoonExploration wrote @ January 27th, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    Well, Robert – give us a convincing reason to why we should have a base on the South Pole (on the Earth)?….

    yes my favorite question…I can not only give you one…I can give you a plethora…

    1. The base is affordable.

    By the time the US (and I’ll leave it to that) took the lead in South Pole (and continent wide) exploration the effort to build and sustain the base was doable with off the shelf hardware and for a cost that was in line with the maintenance/building of bases almost anywhere in the world. What was done in the South pole area was perhaps “more” expensive then say building a base in South Dakota, but not hideously so. Assume that ISS has cost about 100 billion dollars. That is for “six” people. OK lets say a lunar base cost 1/10th of that (and Constellation/Ares had no chance of even the build cost going that direction)..

    Name me some facility on earth for 6 people built by the taxpayers that cost that amount?

    2. The base was crewable at an affordable cost. I bet you that the entire budget to fly the shuttle for one year…far exceeds the cost of maintaining ALL US operations at the South Pole for multi decades. Maybe the entire post WW2 Effort.

    3. The base was crewable by a wide variety of people at an affordable cost. I dont know what the end cost of hiring an astronaut are these days (Ignore the GS 12-14 pay scale). IE what does NASA spend from the moment the “to be an Astronaut” call comes to when they step on the vehicle for their first mythic flight…what 2 million dollars? How much do you think it cost for “Jane Average Person” to submit an application for a post at the South Pole, get the posting and then step on the C-130 or 17 to go there? I bet it is under 20K.

    4. The base does science/etc at a cost that is affordable and in line with the results expected…..

    A trend should be developing here…the word “affordable”.

    There is nothing right now “affordable” with putting a group of people on the Moon…much less “affordable and in line with the results expected”…

    Until South Pole (and continent) exploration became “affordable”…the same number of people stayed permanently at the South Pole of the Earth as are at the South Pole of the Moon.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Joe Dere

    “Now Orion. Well that seems like tough luck for Orion. If Dragon can do the job then that’ll be it for Orion.”

    Can Dragon do crewed flights to ISS? We don’t know, it hasn’t done it.

    Can Dragon do flights beyond LEO? No, it wasn’t designed for that, but Orion was.

    Orion’s fate depends on whether there will be anything beyond LEO in the next decade, and that hasn’t been made clear.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ January 27th, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    There are a host of reasons to go back to the Moon…

    try naming ONE just ONE that anywhere justifies the 100 billion it would take..

    just one, Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    I find all the tear jerking over the end (very likely) of a program (Ares/Constellation) that has consumed billions and produced NOTHING sort of well amazing.

    How people can say “we have lost the Moon for a decade” when well we were not going back to the Moon in a decade under Ares/Constellation.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “There are a host of reasons to go back to the Moon.”

    And those reasons are…?

    And they’re worth spending hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money because…?

    “‘Major Tom’ should be mortified by making a statement like he did above. Norm Augustine has said that there is nothing technically wrong with the program of record.”

    Although I would argue otherwise, I didn’t write there was anything “technically wrong” with the POR (Constellation) in my prior post. I wrote that after five years, the POR has spent nothing on actual exploration hardware (Altair, Ares V, EDS, lunar Orion). Instead, the POR has spent billions in a failed attempt to duplicate LEO launch capabilities that the nation already has in spades. As a proponent of civil human space exploration and as a U.S. taxpayer, that’s a huge waste and misuse of federal dollars. I much prefer a program that spends scarce federal funds on actual exploration hardware development, like the heavy lift launcher and exploration technologies that are going to replace Ares I and the ISS Orion according to the article.

    If you favor actual civil human space exploration, then you should share that position. But instead you’re arguing that we should continue developing Ares I and the ISS Orion, which will only send crews to LEO, and accept that actual exploration hardware development should be put off for another 5-9 years.

    “The fact of the matter is that this policy change, if not reversed, is nothing short that an unmitigated disaster for this country.”

    How? What specific, material disasters are going to befall the United States because NASA is going to start developing actual human space exploration hardware instead of competing with military and commercial systems for LEO lift?

    FWIW…

  • common sense

    @Joe Dere:

    “Can Dragon do crewed flights to ISS? We don’t know, it hasn’t done it.”

    Neither does Orion.

    “Can Dragon do flights beyond LEO? No, it wasn’t designed for that, but Orion was.”

    How do you know that? Insider knowledge? Try and think.

    “Orion’s fate depends on whether there will be anything beyond LEO in the next decade, and that hasn’t been made clear.”

    When was that made clear? Who made it clear?

  • richardb

    I do recall on this site, when someone posted the theory that Obama would gut the manned space program by de-funding the VSE, there were shouts of hooray about what a smart guy Obama is. When that speech he gave documented in the SpaceReview article was brought up, many on this board and other boards would wax about how that was just a campaign slogan and Obama would change once in office, like he did when campaigning in Florida prior to the primary. When people posted the theory on this board that all the sniping from the Direct evangelists were simply giving Obama the opening to gut Nasa, we were entertained with notions that Obama is smart and would give adult supervision to Nasa.

    Guess the theories were more right than wrong.

    If these reports are true, how soon before we hear Congress begin debating de-funding the ISS since we’ll be totally dependent upon Russians for a boost, at least until 2015 and likely much later?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Joe Dere wrote @ January 27th, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    Has Orion done any of those things? Did I miss it?

    Robert G. Oler

  • You all seem to be assuming the Robert Block and Mark Matthews are correct. These two are well-known for sensationalizing and getting the “facts” wrong when it comes to NASA. Also, just a reminder, Congress gets the final say.

  • common sense

    @Joe Dere:

    ““Orion’s fate depends on whether there will be anything beyond LEO in the next decade, and that hasn’t been made clear.”

    When was that made clear? Who made it clear?”

    Ooopppsss correction, reading too fast here. You may be right on that one. But I still doubt there will be much of an Orion if what is reported does happen. Sorry about reading too fast.

  • There’s plenty of money to develop the Altair lunar lander– especially if the $2 billion a year ISS program is terminated after 2015. But you can’t terminate the ISS if you want to give corporate welfare to the emerging commercial manned space flight industry. Without the ISS, these private companies can’t get government contracts to shuttle NASA astronauts to the space station. And that appears to be our priority.

    But the fact that the Obama administration is apparently still going to develop a heavy lift vehicle tells you that he has pretty much endorsed the Flexible Path. The Flexible Path means that Obama doesn’t have to commit the US to any destination since most of the Flexible Path scenarios take place 15 to 25 years in the future. So the Obama administration is just committing itself to developing the HLV hardware and passing the buck to future administrations to decide how they use it.

    So Flexible Path advocates appear to have gotten what they wanted! So why aren’t they happy!

    Marcel F. William

  • Sad Boomer

    So this radical progressive not only wants to “transform” our nation into something akin to Venezuela, but now he wants to shoot down our DREAMS! This man is a complete IDIOT! He wants to give all NASA’s budget to freaking ACORN and other corrupt partisan organizations. No wonder so many people seem to hate this man!

  • richardb

    If the press reports are accurate this will ignite a real fight with Congress with Nasa in limbo for much of 2010. Congress will feel its been lied too while in a very partisan mood. They were told the USA was going to the Moon, Mars and other destinations. Now Obama is saying stop, we can’t afford it. If I were a Congressman being told this after approving billions since 2005, I’d have serious doubts that any future Administration is serious about manned space. Then has I look around the world and see the Chinese with a very robust manned space program, the Indians getting serious, Russia always serious I’d say “Why is the US spending billions on deep space robots to understand the Moon, Mars and our solar system when we will not go there for decades, if ever? All we are doing is basic research for these other countries that do plan on sending their own people there. Let them pay the freight for gaining the data, let them build the probes.”

    If Obama’s intent is starting from scratch with VSE, its not just manned missions in doubt, its the entire deep space program too.

  • ““Can Dragon do flights beyond LEO? No, it wasn’t designed for that, but Orion was.”

    How do you know that? Insider knowledge? Try and think.”

    First off, the “Think, people” strategy of internet posts is extremely obnoxious. It might find traction on a 9/11 truth site or a “Lunar Landings were staged” site, but here it’s borderline insulting.

    As for Dragon capability beyond LEO, it’s not currently designed to carry the sort of supplies necessary to make that kind of trip, nor is its heat shield really designed to handle lunar re-entry speeds. So right now, no, it’s not designed to go beyond LEO. Dragon is somewhat akin to Bigelow’s Orion Lite concept as far as capability. Orion Lite is pretty much Orion with all beyond-LEO capabilities stripped out.

    I will, however, note that in several interviews in the past Musk has been asked about the Moon and Mars and even specifically using Dragon to do it. His answer has been consistent in that respect. Yes to the Moon, Yes to Mars, and maybe Dragon will be the vehicle to do it. Since founding SpaceX, Musk has been clear that sending people to Mars is his ultimate end-game. At the moment neither the Moon or Mars have gone beyond the entrepreneureal vision stage.

    What leads me to believe it’ll be some time before we see SpaceX heading for the Moon or Mars is his statements to Augustine re:Manned Dragon. In those meetings he stated that he could go fully human-rated within 2 1/2 years contingent on funding from NASA. Almost all of that development would be in a crew escape system, which is reportedly the one and only piece of manned Dragon that hasn’t left blueprints in any form. There’s nothing saying the escape tower isn’t in development or that it won’t be completed eventually anyway. But the fact that he put a timeline out contingent on funding and made no mention of an independant development target does raise some doubt that the project will reach completion without the injection of funds.

    In short (too late) Dragon or it’s SpaceX descendants may very well beat Orion to the Moon. It may even be the route NASA takes for it’s own provider. But at this very moment that’s 100% speculation and 0% engineering. Orion, while it is minimally possible it’ll never clear the launch tower more or less LEO, at least is a program in active development toward the Moon.

  • common sense

    “it’s borderline insulting”

    It was meant to be harsh, not insulting. Talking about something someone knows nothing about and spreading facts that said person has no primary knowledge of I find is a lot more insulting.

    “As for Dragon capability beyond LEO, it’s not currently designed to carry the sort of supplies necessary to make that kind of trip, nor is its heat shield really designed to handle lunar re-entry speeds. ”

    Let me ask again. How do you know? You work for SpaceX? For the NASA program reviewing SpaceX? How do you know what you claim? Please post a link.

    “I will, however, note that in several interviews in the past Musk has been asked about the Moon and Mars and even specifically using Dragon to do it. His answer has been consistent in that respect. Yes to the Moon, Yes to Mars, and maybe Dragon will be the vehicle to do it. Since founding SpaceX, Musk has been clear that sending people to Mars is his ultimate end-game. At the moment neither the Moon or Mars have gone beyond the entrepreneureal vision stage.”

    So Elon Musk the CEO of SpaceX says that Dragon is intended for such trips yet you and the poster above know for a fact that it is not designed as such? Interesting.

    ” In those meetings he stated that he could go fully human-rated within 2 1/2 years contingent on funding from NASA. ”

    I don’t remember it was “contingent” on funding from NASA. Do you care to give a link? Because all I have is this http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361838main_11%20-%20SpaceX%20Augustine%20Briefing%20-%20Public%20Session.pdf and I see nothing like what you claim for example slide #24. Make sure you read the slide and you will find this statement: “and NASA is not the only customer”. Does that mean anything to you?

    There is a difference between what you “believe” and what the reality is. Sorry I am being harsh again but sometimes truth must be said in harsh reality.

    ” Orion, while it is minimally possible it’ll never clear the launch tower more or less LEO, at least is a program in active development toward the Moon.”

    Again are you working on Orion? In active development toward the Moon??? Maybe our frind Loki could answer that.

  • Major Tom

    “If the press reports are accurate this will ignite a real fight with Congress with Nasa in limbo for much of 2010.”

    I agree that there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth among congressmen in NASA human space flight districts and states, if, for no other reason, to play well to the current and former NASA employees and voters back home.

    But at the end of the day, those congressmen face a hard choice: either allow the President’s budget to go forward and accept the NASA employee and voters that come with it (even if reduced in number), or try to stop the President’s budget and risk those funds getting raided by other congressmen for other purposes and lose more NASA employees and voters in their district or state.

    History, from Apollo to Shuttle to ISS to Constellation, shows that Congress follows the President on major changes in direction in the civil human space flight program. The dynamics have little or nothing to do with who’s in office — it’s just how big program changes from the White House with only a handful of districts/states involved play out in Congress. There will be earmarks at the margins and other hijinks, but at the end of the day, Congress much more likely to pass the bulk of the President’s proposed big budget changes for NASA than reject them.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “So this radical progressive not only wants to “transform” our nation into something akin to Venezuela, but now he wants to shoot down our DREAMS! This man is a complete IDIOT! He wants to give all NASA’s budget to freaking ACORN and other corrupt partisan organizations. No wonder so many people seem to hate this man!”

    Take your meds, please.

    FWIW…

  • Loki

    @common sense & aremis:

    “As for Dragon capability beyond LEO, it’s not currently designed to carry the sort of supplies necessary to make that kind of trip, nor is its heat shield really designed to handle lunar re-entry speeds. ”

    According to Spacex’ Dragon fact sheet (http://www.spacex.com/downloads/dragonlab-datasheet.pdf) the heat shield is made from PICA-X, which was considered at one time for Orion’s heat shield. We went with Avcoat because testing showed that it performed better for high speed lunar re-entries. It is possible to make a heat shield out of PICA that can withstand the heat, but it would be heavier than Avcoat. We also decided to go with Avoat for the ISS (aka Block 1) version mainly for commonality with the lunar (Block 2) version.

    I can’t say for sure if the Dragon’s heat shield will be designed for lunar return from the start (since I don’t work for Spacex), but I kind of doubt it. Musk seems to be pretty smart about taking things one step at time. First Falcon 1, then F-9 and cargo Dragon, then he’ll do manned Dragon for ISS/ LEO and probably will later come out with a Lunar Dragon when the time is right, and maybe eventually Mars Dragon. I know he also wants to make Falcon 9 re-usable sometime down the road as well, probably through gradual block upgrades. That’s the same strategy we were planning for Orion, btw. Speaking of which;

    “” Orion … at least is a program in active development toward the Moon.”

    Again are you working on Orion? In active development toward the Moon??? ”

    As I alluded to above Orion is being developed in “blocks”. Block 1 is ISS, block 2 is lunar. You’d think that would mean we’re designing block 1 now with block 2 coming later, but no. For the most part we’re working on both in parallel. The main differences between them are in the Service Module, due to the different delta-v and consummable quantities required for the 2 missions. About 1.5 or so years ago (can’t remember exactly when, sorry) we were under direction to concentrate our efforts on the block 2 design and block 1 would essentially be a “downgrade” of the block 2 vehicle. But, NASA decided to change direction and directed LM to complete the block 1 design (and by extension anything that is common between the variants) and leave the block 2 upgrades for later. So, in a way, Aremis is right about that, but wrong at the same time.

    Since the bulk of the design is “common” between the 2 variants when you work on one you’re also working on the other, just not directly. You’ll probably be able to say the same for Spacex’ Dragon. I’m sure any future lunar Dragon variant will have as much in common with the initial LEO version as possible, since that only makes sense.

  • It took some time to find these links, but here goes:

    “and I see nothing like what you claim for example slide #24. Make sure you read the slide and you will find this statement: “and NASA is not the only customer”. Does that mean anything to you?”

    It’s not in the slide, it was in his presentation.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O81Zq02eStg

    In this video we see Musk’s actual talk with Augustine. As you suggest at 2:15, 6:00, 9:42, and 10:40 there are indications of his intent to do manned one way or another. However, the one and only point he gives any kind of timeline is on the slide you mention at 11:00 where he says it will take 2 years plus 6 to 9 months buffer “from the moment NASA says Go”. He also uses a lot of could’s throughout from 11:00 on. Now yes, that’s making a big deal out of one statement, but I’m far from the only person who’s highlighted that statement. And I think it’s important that the only time Musk’s given a timeline on manned Dragon is with that qualifier. He never mentions that timeline anywhere else in that speech or any other I’ve read, with or without the qualifier.

    13:50 talks heavily on using commercial to take LEO so NASA can go beyond, which really puts the focus on LEO operations. Does it say it’s not in the designs in some way? No, you’re right, it doesn’t. But he really puts the emphasis on his business plan aiming for LEO. And while I’ve heard tell of other customers, I’ve yet to hear of a single one asking for manned Dragon beyond LEO, even Bigelow, whom I’m also a fan of.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11699810/

    “At 3.6 meters in diameter, Dragon would be smaller than the 5-meter diameter Crew Exploration Vehicle. But then Dragon is only intended for comparatively short jaunts to the space station, not longer expeditions to the Moon and points beyond.”

    http://www.parabolicarc.com/2008/07/10/musk-dragon-development-progressing-moon-trip-could-cost-under-100-million/

    “There also would be significant modifications required for the Dragon spacecraft, which is designed for orbital use.”

    http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2008/07/musk-80-million-to-go-to-the-m.html#more

    “you are not going to want to be strapped in to a capsule for what would have to be at least a week long trip there and back and so you need a habitation module, you need an Earth departure stage to get the hab and capsule out to the Moon, and you would need a number of changes to the Dragon spacecraft such as a larger heatshield for the higher speed reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere.”

    That article is also interesting in that it mentions Musk putting a pricetag on manned cislunar flight. It’s also interesting because, as the comments point out, his own website says it will cost more than that to do cislunar on F9 Heavy, manned or not.

    “Again are you working on Orion? In active development toward the Moon??? ”

    That the Orion is being developed for Lunar operations is far from a secret. It’s common knowledge. I didn’t really feel the need for a citation. As for it’s ability to get beyond the tower, that’s based entirely on the issues already highlighted by the Augustine commission and others as well as comments and funding from both congress and the president. It’s speculation, but I thought I was being pretty clear on that.

    For the record, while the above references are based on what Musk has said and in some cases are direct quotes from Musk himself, what I think will happen is a different story, as you suggest. I think Musk will build a manned system with or without NASA and I really do hope he does it on the 2-3 year timeframe. I think NASA will still launch Ares I and probably Ares V and I have faith that Orion will launch with it. And I think we’ll still go to the Moon, even if we don’t do it until into the next decade. And man, I really hope we meet the schedule found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Constellation_missions . I also think Musk will refit Dragon to go to the Moon as the above articles suggest.

    But what I know, having read all of the above when they were first written and stashed it away in my memory banks, is that Musk hasn’t put a non-NASA contingent timeline on manned Dragon publicly, the Dragon spacecraft is currently aimed at LEO from and engineering and marketing standpoint, and Constellation has been consistently in doubt of ever getting the support from the government necessary to fly to the moon and has at least some chance of not flying at all. I made the comments I made precisely because I wanted to be cautious and ground what I said in what I’ve read and discussed in the past, and not just spout off what I think or believe.

  • common sense

    @aremisasling and Loki:

    Read Loki’s statement about Orion. The emphasis is on block 1, to ISS. Not the Moon. Now if you’ve worked on such programs before and if you know about the cash issues you should know that it means that probably they are giving 0.75 EP to 0.90 EP to ISS capability and the rest to the Moon. I would even say 1.00 EP to ISS and that the Moon vehicle is most likely being supported via IRAD. I agree it is speculation. If so, IRAD or anything in the future is most likely overlooked by either NASA or LMT. Loki willing to share his thoughts? I am happy to be wrong even if it’s moot now.

    PICA was indeed the primary choice for TPS because NASA could not revive AVCOAT then and had the most recent experience was with PICA. There are a lot of difficulties with PICA to be overcomed. However PICA on its own can sustain lunar return – difficulties are elsewhere. Can Loki comment on the TPS thickness currently looked at for the heatshield? And that required for lunar return on Orion? Are they actually building a vehicle that, mass-wise, can be put in orbit to go to the Moon. TPS = mass = cost and if there is no cash there is no Moon, hence the focus on ISS.

    As far as SpaceX goes, would you expect Musk to give you his exact plan? Whatever is in writing to the Augustine panel is probably closest to the “truth” as far as those things are concerned. Not whatever is given to the media. So again, how do you know Dragon is not designed for lunar return? ALL of your quotes are NOT Musk’s!!! They are the journalists’! What kind of support is that to your argument? Again you give credence to journalists over the SpaceX CEO. Not a good sign.

    Look you are free to believe what you want but I suggest you get a more critical eye on things and maybe get answers from the people in this business rather than on journalist. It will enlighten you more.

  • Fair enough. I’d love to get those sorts of opinions. I did at one point get an engineer’s response to my own advocacy of SpaceX lunar, but I’m unable to find it. I fully recognize that doesn’t support my statements any more than a journalist’s statements as it’s heresay. But generally when I’m challenged on SpaceX it’s in the other direction. It’s people saying either SpaceX won’t fly at all, which fortunately has proven untrue, or that whatever they are doing is far less sepctacular than what I hope for. I guess my point is that I’ve learned to view these things with precisely the critical eye you describe because otherwise I’m decried as a Musk apologist or a wide-eyed commercial space optimist. As a result, whatever I say is based on what I’ve read from what I feel are reliable sources and I moderate it based on criticism and corrections I’ve heard in the past. Trust me, I’d love to find something that indicates SpaceX is full steam ahead on a lunar Dragon.

    And for the record, I give Rob Coppinger a good deal of credit. He’s not exactly Paula Zahn. Neither is Doug Messier. His area of expertise is more aerospace policy than engineering, but he’s no slouch either. Journalists they may be, but you could do a lot worse for reliability of opinions on space companies.

  • common sense

    @aremisasling:

    Look don’t mind what others tell you including me. Base your ideas on facts, well known, tangible facts. Not on the delusion (constrcutive imagination?) of some journalist or blogger. Especially when it comes to technical comments. They are journalissts not engineers working at any specific firm knowing the requirements for a mission or a vehicle. See? Get your facts together and make up your mind. Journalists feed you whatever they are being fed by “sources” or in better cases by fact checking investigation. Remember that they also reecive absolute disinformation from sources. Look at the Time invention of Year thing. How does that scale in your values? Again it does not matter who they are. If you can corroborate what they say with other facts then fine otherwise…

  • Loki

    “Can Loki comment on the TPS thickness currently looked at for the heatshield? And that required for lunar return on Orion?”

    Since you asked…
    Unfortunately the TPS isn’t my area. I work with the Avionics and GNC sub-systems, so I don’t know off the top of my head how thick the heat shield is, sorry. I can tell you that it’s not actually a constant thickness. It’s thicker on the “windward” side, since that’s the side that faces into the “wind” and therefore takes more of the brunt of re-entry.

    As far as Dragon goes, now that I think of it, PICA might work for its heat shield for lunar return as well as LEO because it is quite a bit lighter than Orion. I still don’t know if its designed from the start for lunar return, and I don’t know that Musk or anyone else has said for sure, FWIW.

  • aremisasling

    To humbly submit on one major point, the most recent “This Week In Space” issue released is an interview with Musk.

    http://spaceports.blogspot.com/2010/01/musk-speaks-to-falcon-9-safety.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Spaceports+%28Spaceports%29

    In it he reiterates the 2-3 year development timeline on the escape system several times and basically makes the same sort of points I ususally do re: SpaceX vs Constellation in that even with huge engineering time margins on top of his estimates, he would still beat out even the optimistic estimates for Orion. That does put to rest the nagging worry of the NASA caveat to his manned Dragon. The only thing that does worry me a bit about it is that it is the same 2-3 year span he put forth to Augustine over half a year ago. In other words it appears the dev window has slipped. I may also be reading too much into that, but I’m doing what I can to tease details out of the scraps SpaceX and others throw out to the media and there’s some meta details in his statements that might speak louder than the statements themselves.

    That said, I am greatly relieved as a SpaceX junky to find the same timeline sans funding contingency reiterated multiple times ‘from the horses mouth’ so to speak.

  • common sense

    @aremisasling:

    What would your priority be if you just won the CRS contract for ISS cargo service vs. crewed service with no contract?

    Finally and just for fun: Say Orion is canned so to speak. Yet the LAS for Orion has been in development for some time now. If it can be shown that a variant of Orion’s LAS can be safely integrated with Dragon, how long would it take to field a crewed Dragon? I don’t know, just asking…

  • CS – I fully agree, it’s full steam ahead on cargo Dragon. But Musk’s devotion to a manned variant in most of his statements really does suggest he’s putting work into it. That’s why the NASA caveat in the Augustine speech caught my attention in the first place. It looked like a possibly ominous change in gears. But given this recent interview it appears he’s firing on all cylinders as usual and developing the manned variant alongside mass production of the cargo version. This is not too surprising to me as he’s got an ex-astronaut doing his astronaut safety program. You don’t hire someone like that to sit on the sidelines.

    I’ve never heard the LAS suggested as a solution, but it’s a fascinating idea. I love the Space Act stuff we’ve seen with Bigelow, SpaceDev, and others. And I’d love to see some of the Constellation systems grabbed up by someone who can put them to use. My suspicion is that while Musk has made some comments on being open to mating his hardware with other systems, he generally stands by having a 100% in-house system with the possibility of compatibility. There’s a lot of legacy stuff out there with a track record that he’s passed up in favor of starting from scratch. I imagine he’s probably been approached with collaborative offers as well, though I have no actual evidence of that. The point is if he ever did anything with LAS I suspect it would be only after he had his own escape tower coming off his own assembly lines.

Leave a Reply to Mark R. Whittington Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>