Some people hate the proposed NASA budget. Some people love it. Others are undecided. Some samplings of opinions in all three categories:
Love It
As you would expect, the Commercial Spaceflight Federation “welcomes” the proposal and its emphasis on commercial crew transportation. “President Obama has given NASA a bold and exciting new mission: to once again push the limits in technology and exploration, promote innovation, and foster a vibrant commercial spaceflight sector,” said CSF president Brett Alexander in a statement.
The Planetary Society asks Congress to endorse the budget proposal in a statement. The organization believes that the new approach, including both commercial crew and NASA technology development initiatives, “should enable human space exploration to move ahead more realistically and even more quickly than previous plans,” in the words of executive director Lou Friedman.
The X PRIZE Foundation also sees positives in the budget proposal. “While many are calling President Obama’s proposed grounding of NASA’s program to return to the Moon the ending of an era for space travel, the X PRIZE Foundation sees this new budget proposal as a visionary step for NASA and an opportunity to forge new ideas, develop much-needed technology, and channel the American Spirit spurring innovation and entrepreneurship.”
Hate It
Sen. Shelby isn’t the only member of Congress to issue a statement opposing NASA’s change in direction. Fellow Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions is also opposed to canceling Constellation. “This ill-advised decision, which comes on the 7th anniversary of the sacrifice of the space shuttle Columbia crew, abandons our nation’s nearly five-decade commitment to human space flight and will likely result in NASA taking a back seat to China, Russia, and India in space exploration,” he states. He predicts a “long, difficult battle” over the FY11 budget and the agency’s future.
Speaking of battles, the mayor of Huntsville, Alabama, Tommy Battle, vows to “do everything we can” to restore funding for Ares. “I respectfully ask you to please, sir, not give up on the Constellation program,” Battle states in a letter to the president. “Doing so does not just negate the billions of dollars already invested in safe, manned space flight – canceling this program puts limits on the dreams of our country.”
Several other members of Congress were, as one might expect, opposed to canceling Constellation, including Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL), Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), and Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX). All has previously expressed their concerns about the NASA budget and Constellation last week.
ATK, a company closely tied to the Ares 1, issued a statement in response to the budget proposal that, indirectly at least, expressed disapproval about the budget. “It is not clear why at this time the nation would consider abandoning a program of such historic promise and capability – with so much invested,” the ATK statement reads. “In the weeks and months ahead we are hopeful that the Congress and Administration will work together to deliver a budget that supports a program that capitalizes on the investments the nation has made in the Constellation program, closes the gap in US capability to return to space, and best assures continued US leadership in space.”
Undecided
Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, said that the NASA budget request “requires deliberate scrutiny” but didn’t pass judgment on it. “We will need to hear the Administration’s rationale for such a change and assess its impact on U.S. leadership in space before Congress renders its judgment on the proposals,” he states.
The Coalition for Space Exploration adopted a neutral tone in a statement, saying that it “awaits collaboration between the White House and Congress” on the budget proposal. “We urge the White House and Congress to come together under the proposed budget increase for NASA to develop a sustainable, long-term strategy,” it adds.
It is the battle of those who love their federal money and those who are trying to really move the national situation in space forward
Robert G. Oler
@Robert, it is actually the battle of those who love their federal money and those who love their federal money. Oh, and also an administration that wants to award CSF campaign contributors whilst punishing red states.
Loved it:
Buzz Aldrin
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/421062main_Buzz_Aldrin_Statement.pdf
pork fight wrote @ February 1st, 2010 at 9:16 pm
that is to be kind nonsense.
In the end, the Program of record is a train to nowhere. It attempts to preserve the status quo of how human spaceflight has been done in The Republic for the last 40 years, 20 years (or more if it ever got operational) into the future.
That is not the fault of the people who work at NASA or the contractors…it is the fault of NASA management which could not recognize that the cold war imperative that birthed the agency is gone.
Red states had nothing to do with it.
Florida voted for Obama
Robert G. Oler
This is plan is being referred to as a “bold new direction.” It is neither. This is a retread of 1990’s space policy minus shuttle upgrades. Through the X programs, NASA took a back seat to industry led efforts and history is very clear on the results. No powered flights, but billions wasted. What we will get is a very expensive technology sandbox. Sure, we will get some very interesting advances in key technologies. But don’t hold your breath for an actual vehicle to emerge on the other end. It will not happen.
“This is a retread of 1990’s space policy minus shuttle upgrades.”
The 1990s didn’t have a commercial crew program.
The 1990s didn’t have an HLV program.
The 1990s didn’t develop an in-space propellant demo, fly robotic precursor missions, or even deploy an ISS centrifuge or inflatable module.
“Through the X programs”
For better or worse, I’ve seen no mention of reusable LV demonstrators.
FWIW…
It does not matter the ‘content’ of the proposed R&D effort or the magnitude of the dollars. The NASA/WH/Congressional/Industry dysfunction has a long history of failing at the next generation of LV R&D efforts. Folks at MSFC can tell you all about that dysfunction. I suspect the dysfunction is still present and alive; hence don’t look for any vehicle or breakthrough content to come from this.
Over time NASA HSF will become more like the FAA; a regulatory agency that doesn’t have enough funds for the R&D needed for the next generation of technology, and not enough funds to police adherence to its regulations.
Whatever the out-years show in the Punter of the United States FY 11 thru FY 16 budget for this new R&D push will not materialize.
Remember: the more things change the more they stay the same.
And I predicted Obama would roll something out that lets him say “you see, I”m not like any other President in history; see how different I am’
Very predictable this one.
“It does not matter the ‘content’ of the proposed R&D effort or the magnitude of the dollars.”
Really? The White House could propose a ten trillion dollar R&D effort in flying saucers, and it wouldn’t matter to you?
Really?
“The NASA/WH/Congressional/Industry dysfunction has a long history of failing at the next generation of LV R&D efforts.”
So turn all LV development over to the military?
Really?
“Over time NASA HSF will become more like the FAA; a regulatory agency that doesn’t have enough funds for the R&D needed for the next generation of technology, and not enough funds to police adherence to its regulations.”
NASA has no regulatory function. Unlike the FAA, NASA is an R&D agency.
FWIW…
“Oh, and also an administration that wants to award CSF campaign contributors whilst punishing red states.”
And that’s why the first commercial crew dollars awarded today from the Recovery Act funds are going to four companies (out of five awards) in Alabama, Arizona, and Texas:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30125
Oy vey…
“… Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), whose state stands to lose 7,000 jobs when the space shuttle program ends next year, signaled that he will not fight to keep Constellation alive: “When the president says he’s going to cancel Constellation, I can tell you that to muster the votes and overcome that is going to be very, very difficult.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102145.html
FWIW…
I look at this budget proposal with a sigh of relief. Hopefully, we’re going somewhere, but this administration has been brave enough to pull the plug on an effort that was going nowhere. Well, it was supposed to be going to the Moon, but we all knew it was never going to get there. It takes some gumption not to just twiddle with the numbers and make small adjustments (as I really thought Obama would do), essentially offering “hope” to a godforsaken architecture. But instead he called a spade a spade and in language that one could call blistering, drew a big bold X through Constellation. Yes, “bold” is the right word. Note as well that in the middle of a discretionary budget hell, he gave NASA a sizeable boost. That’s brave, as well as bold.
I’ll admit to being leery of a human space effort with no hard goals beyond LEO, but the clearing of the decks, and admission of a big mistake make such goals possible.
But the huge battle that will shape up in Congress over all this is a daunting prospect. As has been noted by many, a provision in the FY10 approps bill makes it so that Obama has to keep shelling out for Constellation until Congress gives him permission not to. So that sigh of relief is tempered with some real concern.
Human space flight won’t tank because we’d go commercial, or because we’d do flexible path instead of something more lunar centric. But it will tank if Congress and the Administration can’t ever see eye to eye, and it looks like it might be a long time before they do.
Step 1 was today’s announcement cutting Constellation and directing NASA to start a varity of R&D projects on “new & innovative” technologies.
Step 2 will be in the follow-on federal budgets in FY 12 & 13 to reduce and eliminate most of those R&D projects without much fanfare. What chance do these R&D projects have without an integrated program? They will be easly pickings for the OMB vultures.
The only clear winners in this are the Russians with their proven Soyuz. If history is any guide, it will take commercial industry 7-9 years to fly a human-rated spacecraft.
The price for the Soyuz seats to ISS for U.S. Astronauts (those that decide to stay that is) just went up.
“Sen. Bill Nelson, the Florida Democrat who chairs the Senate subcommittee on space, told reporters today that Ares 1 was a ‘non-starter’ because it wouldn’t have been ready until 2018. That’s too late for it to be of much service to the International Space Station. ‘It was a rocket in search of a mission,’ Nelson said.”
…
“Some lawmakers said NASA should stick with the Constellation program because more than $9 billion has been spent on Ares and the Orion crew capsule already. But Jim Kohlenberger, chief of staff at the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, had a sharp retort for those critics.
‘I think the fact that we’ve poured $9 billion into an unexecutable program really isn’t an excuse to pour another $50 billion into it and still not have an executable program,’ he said. ‘That’s what I would tell taxpayers.'”
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/02/01/2191461.aspx
FWIW…
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=24520#comment-105361
I doubt Constellation will be restored completely, but Congress has to work with the White House to craft a better policy than was presented today. The following is a quote from Charlie Bolden at today’s roll out:
“Imagine trips to Mars that take weeks instead of nearly a year; people fanning out across the inner solar system, exploring the moon, asteroids and Mars nearly simultaneously in a steady stream of firsts,” NASA administrator Charles Bolden said Monday in a briefing on the new plans.
Close your eyes. Do you see all of these things taking place? Good, because that is as close as this budget is going to get to actually delivering any of it.
“What chance do these R&D projects have without an integrated program? They will be easly pickings for the OMB vultures.”
It’s those “OMB vultures” that developed and approved NASA FY 2011 budget request, including the five-year runouts for those R&D projects.
FWIW…
“If history is any guide, it will take commercial industry 7-9 years to fly a human-rated spacecraft.”
Even if you’re right and manned Dragon runs 5-7 years over the projected 2012 debut, which is remarkably unlikely, it would still be in LEO at the same time or shortly after Ares I. So far SpaceX is averaging about a 2 year engineering buffer on top of initial estimates. I think 2014 is a more likely conservative first flight date. I’m sorry, no privately funded company has been where SpaceX is. History is no guide because there’s no precedent in history for where commercial space is.
As I stated elsewhere in the space blogosphere, Musk is not just aiming high or just aiming to build a sustainable company. Orbital did sustainable, but they never left LEO and never went manned. The various companies of the 90’s aimed too high too fast and never built a base to grow on and fall back on when flight 1 didn’t pan out. Musk built Falcon 1 and got a manifest for it and now he’s built Falcon 9 and will do the same. He’s got a market share and a committed launch manifest with more customers added about every other week. SpaceX is bringing in cash flow to support manned Dragon and has hired the talent to do the job. And that’s why he has the chance to make this work on a reasonable time frame. He’s got a business already. Manned Dragon is just another product in his line at this point.
I really hope some of the other players like Sierra Nevada and Boeing will play a role and play it smart as well. If there’s one thing the ‘gap’ should have taught us is that more than anything what NASA needs is more that one option to get to where they are going.
Jim D. wrote @ February 1st, 2010 at 11:27 pm
Close your eyes. Do you see all of these things taking place? ..
I do. There is an alternate universe where non of it takes place, where at some point shortly human spaceflight simply ends as the money dries up…
but I also see a universe where the opposite happens.
I see a universe where the technologies (and this is where Charlie Bolden is headed in my view) that enable human participation in spaceflight as a vital part of it occur.
Look…the one thing ISS proved, the one thing is that humans have a role in the assembling of complex structures in space. Right now the only thing that is making money in spaceflight is commercial comm satellites…and right now the only thing that is making spaceflight valuable for the US government are things like comm satellites AND missile early warning/intel operations.
There is a future where those payloads (the commercial comm and the US government payloads) stay just about where they are…ie completly uncrewed systems (and un human interacted systems) that are disposable assets. But what Hubble and ISS have pointed the way to is a different future…one where if human spaceflight is affordable it can be integrated into the mix of uncrewed vehicles that have a stand alone purpose…and used to not only prolong their life but more importantly build a “system” that is far more capable then “launch and use”.
If that future is summoned, and this is where I think the stuff that the NASA budget consist of…then the future for human spaceflight is bright.
eventually those technologies (ion engines) etc can be integrated into human spaceflight and make it far more “possible” then it is.
Ares/Constellation were a flop because they assumed something that NASA has to do with every project…ie that nothing in the past is used, that everything is built. That is why the “vision” did not use ISS to go back to the Moon, that is why NASA must be in charge from launch to splashdown…and everything must be “purpose built”.
I see a future where things are adapted from one use to another in space…I see a future where human spaceflight gets “easy” because instead of having to fight for every piece of hardware a lot of it comes, just as it does for South POle exploration from “other” things.
I frankly have grown tired of the “Moon whiners”…the “we lost the Moon ” crap that the Ares huggers push out. They never had the Moon…they had a lot of promises and lack of performance from an agency that is floundering.
I dont want the past in the future…I want a new vision, one that does things not because they are “hard” but because they are doable. If NASA was Columbus they would have taken a look at the Nina Pinta and SM and said “Nope wont work, we have to design our own”.
That is because until now the dollars they have wanted are what they have gotten.
Robert G. Oler
@ Major T
“Really? The White House could propose a ten trillion dollar R&D effort in flying saucers, and it wouldn’t matter to you?”
That’s right. T’would not matter one iota what the content is. I can see you are getting my point.
“The NASA/WH/Congressional/Industry dysfunction has a long history of failing at the next generation of LV R&D efforts.â€
“So turn all LV development over to the military?
“Really?”
Good question; and I suspect it’s as dysfunctional over in the military because they still have to deal with the WH and Congress. So it’s s coin toss.
“Over time NASA HSF will become more like the FAA; a regulatory agency that doesn’t have enough funds for the R&D needed for the next generation of technology, and not enough funds to police adherence to its regulations.â€
“NASA has no regulatory function. Unlike the FAA, NASA is an R&D agency.”
NASA does not have regulatory functions now, but we haven’t experienced the future yet, when someone will need to police the amazing growth in commercial HSF , what with multiple flights to orbit and the moon each week. Got to have somebody watch dogging them. The FAA does some R&D, just not enough of it to be called an R&D Agency
Glad to see you understand what I am pointing to.
@ Robert
You contradict yourself a few times. On the one hand you want new technologies and on the other you want NASA to use old technologies.
Last I checked Ares I was based on old technology.
You also read a lot into the budget. I didn’t see anything about developing ion engines for manned interplanetary travel.
I have read a lot of your posts over the last few days and you mainly just defend Obama. Which is fine but you are asserting that Obama has this grand strategy for the space program and by cutting constellation that he will enable us to do greater things.
This is not evident in what we see today. If we were to judge Obama based on his actions and his words, we would have to conclude there is no grand strategy, no goals, no plans for anything other than studying climate change and servicing the ISS.
In the absence of a strategy from Obama you are projecting one for him based on your faith in what you hope he will do.
IF you think the moon is not enough, I would agree with you. If you think the Ares I and Ares V were the wrong systems, I could be convinced.
If not the Moon then where? If not Ares then what? I don’t want Robert to answer those questions, I want Obama to answer them. So far Obama has no answer no matter how much Robert projects for him.
I think most of the people who are upset over this, are not upset because they are Ares strokers or moonhuggers or whatever you call them but because Obama did not present an alternate strategy.
He didn’t say, “We are not going to the Moon because we are going to Mars.”
He didn’t say, “We are not going to the Mars because that is a worthless hunk of rock we are going to Europa where the water is.”
He didn’t say, “We are cutting the Ares I to funnel all available resources into the Ares V so we can beat everyone else to the Moon.”
He didn’t say anything. No vision. No strategy. Nothing to ignite the passion of our populace.
Red state vs blue state is not really a good method to track the deal making. If one were so inclined they would look at the political contributions from the board of directors and top executives of all the companies that received stimulus funds or will be getting lucrative contracts to put personnel and materials in LEO.
Then you would have to correlate that with similar data from companies who competed but did not get stimulus funds or other lucrative contracts to see if contributing provided an advantage.
Maybe see what companies have former congressmen on their board or working as lobbyists.
Jim D. wrote @
This is plan is being referred to as a “bold new direction.†It is neither. This is a retread of 1990’s space policy minus shuttle upgrades.
In politics, “bold” is a code word for “the proposal I like”. The guys in favour of Constellation say “bold” means supporting a program that will only rehash stuff Apolo did, but 60 years later. How is that “bold”? At least Obama is doing something new by moving to the private sector. That’s something we need to do at some point or another anyways. We will never have the futuristic space access we all dream of if it is always in the hands of big daddy government. Take a moment to imagine your vision for the 22nd century. Imagine Mars colonies, mining asteroids, or space colonies. Picture it in your mind. Do you envision all these things saying “NASA” on them and being part of the US government? Or do you envision these things being independent companies? Do you envision the colonization of the inner solar system being driven by a government or by the free enterprise? I suspect that when most people dream of a space-faring future they think of private individuals and companies, rather than one government. But to make that future happen, at some point or another we have to take the difficult step of moving from big government on to the private sector. And the longer you put off that move, the longer you put off that space-faring future we all dream of.
Doug Lassiter, well said:
I look at this budget proposal with a sigh of relief. Hopefully, we’re going somewhere, but this administration has been brave enough to pull the plug on an effort that was going nowhere. Well, it was supposed to be going to the Moon, but we all knew it was never going to get there. It takes some gumption not to just twiddle with the numbers and make small adjustments (as I really thought Obama would do), essentially offering “hope†to a godforsaken architecture. But instead he called a spade a spade and in language that one could call blistering, drew a big bold X through Constellation. Yes, “bold†is the right word. Note as well that in the middle of a discretionary budget hell, he gave NASA a sizeable boost. That’s brave, as well as bold.
I’ll admit to being leery of a human space effort with no hard goals beyond LEO, but the clearing of the decks, and admission of a big mistake make such goals possible.
————————-
In order to begin the process of going further, faster, smarter and developing new industry in space, this is a far better way to do it. Take a look at how Constellation has spent their money:
$3billion for Orion, that was nothing more than a less capable Apollo, but which has not gotten beyond the first step in a program, PDR. It was going nowhere fast.
$3billion for an Ares SRB, which was really nothing new beyond the existing SRB, but which was not powerful enough to be used for what it was originally intended.
$3billion playing games like having mock-up space-suited astronauts playing in unlikely design electric rovers in crater fields in the far west; the astronauts who are getting ready to fly will need to practice in the year or two prior to their mission, but this was just game playing. Ditto for new spacesuits, ALSEP science stations, etc.
We would not have needed to have started any of these for decades.
In the meantime, the one real near term project that needed attention, the Shuttle replacement, was still a decade away at the rate these folks were moving.
It was time Constellation be put out of its misery and we go back to what the Vision was really all about.
NASA Fan wrote @
Over time NASA HSF will become more like the FAA; a regulatory agency that doesn’t have enough funds for the R&D needed for the next generation of technology, and not enough funds to police adherence to its regulations.
But today we have a large aircraft industry, commercial flights everywhere in the world at prices that most middle income people can afford. We have a mobility that our grandparents could only dream of. Would you really be happier if we gave up the air flight industry in exchange for a big government agency that runs a handful of airplanes at government prices?
The only clear winners in this are the Russians with their proven Soyuz.
“Proven” is a euphemism for “obsolete.”
One could argue that the USA ought to stick with the Shuttle instead of developing new low orbit transportation systems because the Shuttle is a proven system…. or return to the Moon by simply building more Saturn V/Apollo vehicles, original equipment in every detail except for using contemporary avionics instead of OEM electronics.
“Proven” is always a code word used when trying sell old stuff.
Make that ” to sell old stuff.”
> “Imagine trips to Mars that take weeks instead of nearly a year…”
Imagine an electric rocket that requires at least hundreds of MWe for days and weeks on end. I’m all in favor of R&D to that end and hope VASIMR development moves to the point of flying in space. But fast manned interplanetary travel implies some Really Big technology advances.
Or maybe he was thinking about Orion.
[…] A Spectrum of Opinions […]
He said, “Really Big technology advances.”
That leaves Orion out.
Does anyone remember what the CAIB recommended at the end of their report? This country was lacking a clear vision for NASA at the time of the Columbia accident. No destination to look forward to – the ISS is not considered a destination in an exploration sense. The VSE at least gave NASA that destination – too bad the adequate funding never came through – a clear failure of national leadership that the CAIB warned about. Now it seems this new budget is taking us back to pre-VSE lack of clear vision times. Work on some R&D, tech development – maybe someday we’ll use it for some future, yet undefined, actual mission. Very un-inspiring.
Wodun wrote @ February 2nd, 2010 at 7:06 am
@ Robert
You contradict yourself a few times. On the one hand you want new technologies and on the other you want NASA to use old technologies…
nope…
you need to reread the post.
I really dont care about the technologies involved, they are as specific technologies irrelevant…and no where do I say NASA should use old technologies.
What I said, and it is a hard thing to comprehend…and you frankly illustrate that…is that the future I see is ONE THAT IS UNPREDICTABLE In the present.
This is what you write: “If not the Moon then where? If not Ares then what? I don’t want Robert to answer those questions, I want Obama to answer them. So far Obama has no answer no matter how much Robert projects for him.”
Obama, I nor you nor really any one person can answer that question. Indeed it is a question that shows you are mired in the “program” mentality of statist government.
It is like saying “we are building the interstate highway system to allow Home Depot or Walmart to prosper”.
The dynamics of invention and innovation require infrastructure (and that includes technology) to occur. With its program mentality since Apollo NASA has just about killed that in human spaceflight. “We have to build (insert project here)” has been more important then what the project actually accomplishes. It didnt matter that the shuttle did not meet one of its goals, we would find goals that the shuttle could meet…it didnt matter that the station blew up the budget we could find something it could do…and that keeps going to the Ares/Constellation program.
It is idiotic to say “we have to go somewhere” … particularly when in the next sentence “why we have to go” the reasons are so blah.
I dont defend Obama, I think that right now his Presidency is flailing. BUT I do think that Charlie Bolden (and perhaps Garver) have managed to take two lucky events 1) the program of record is flailing and failing and 2) TWWwas receptive to other ideas.
I think Bolden has crafted together a clever and well done plan of priming the pump of private lift, maintaining the station and developing some modest R&D projects of things which if mature can at some point be adapted to other human spaceflight projects (this includes some heavy lift development).
What space folks want is either “jobs” or they want to know in the age of the Z 80 (or earlier processor) some assurance that our current age of microprocessors is coming.
Sorry, the best one can do is to remove the enemies of the future, those who need a “program to go somewhere”.
If Ares/Constellation had performed…people like me would not have a chance of killing it…now that it has failed…we do.
Robert G. Oler
rocket_scientist wrote @ February 2nd, 2010 at 11:05 am
No destination to look forward to – the ISS is not considered a destination in an exploration sense…
really?
Everytime I hear “we are going in circles in low earth orbit” I smirk…the answer to that from those people is “lets go in circles on the Moon”.
ISS is as much a destination as the Moon is. in fact more so…there is water/air/power and habitat there. and the Moon is going in “circles” as well.
Robert G. Oler
Wodun wrote @ February 2nd, 2010 at 7:06 am
Nothing to ignite the passion of our populace…
yes he did.
he (Obama) said that we were going to have private lift to space…that will “ignite the passion” of the folks who are going to provide that as a service;…that is the same passion that took us from the DC-3 to the 747 in less time then human spaceflight has existed.
Which passion would you like …more “Yawn we are going back to the Moon” or the passion that took aviation from the DC 3 to the 747.
tell me
Robert G. Oler
I may be changing my mind. I would encourage everyone to read more about where the money is going. There are a lot of great programs that will get funded. And if the commercial sector does take off, this could be great in the end. NASA will have a lot more capability and many of us normal people will have a chance to go to orbit. However, if the commercial sector does not take off, this will be a train wreck.
A $19 billion a year NASA budget is publicly unsustainable if there are no clear goals to do really do anything and their is no way to measure whether the R&D money is being productively utilized. So I guarantee you that if this plan is passed, NASA’s budget will be slashed significantly in the following years.
Many in Congress are extremely angry that the Moon program has been canceled. And many more in Congress could care less if NASA gets any money at all.
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ February 2nd, 2010 at 12:59 pm
A $19 billion a year NASA budget is publicly unsustainable if there are no clear goals to do really do anything and their is no way to measure whether the R&D money is being productively utilized…
that might be you’re wish but the evidence does not support that.
if there needed to be a way to “measure whether i the R&D money is being productively utilized” to determine project support…
then the same could be said of Ares “there needs to be a way to measure if the money for the project is being productively utilized…”
OK so lets review. The project (Ares) has gone on how long? Spent how many billions? And what are the metrics for “productively utilized”.
If the changes in this budget get AT LEAST the same amount of time that Ares/Constellation have gotten and the same amount of money and they dont work then it is time to reevaluate.
But I would argue that they will get the same time.
Robert G. Oler
[…] Obama’s proposed NASA budget certainly polarizes opinions. Low funding is explained away as a boon to commercially-funded space companies. […]
@Vladislaw:
Buzz Aldrin is a very, very smart man. I do not always agree with him on tactics: I believe he favored a Sidemount a la Aquila but at least his system did not show an unnecesary LAS but it’s a different story. Today he endorses a real plan, a strategy, for the future of HSF. I am sure part of him must mourn Constellation as it does me for personal reasons.
There must be a better way and this is a great chance for us ALL. I hope that after the mourning most of us if not all will get behind this new plan so that, if not us, at least our children or grand children live in awe of what men and women can accomplish and that this accomplishment be once again led by the USA.
Constellation is dead! Long live HSF!
The people of Chicagoland spoke in a non-scientific pole last night on the privatization of space flight (they ask a question and during the news cast you can call or text your answer). FOX Chicago News which is unlike its parent FOX News since it’s in democratic Chicago. Anyway…
Question: The White House should privatize space travel?
Last night it was 66% wrong and 34% right
Today it is 53% wrong and 46% right
Now it’s a bad question here because we just went through a really bad transition with the privatization of parking meters. It just wasn’t planned well. Also we have privatized Tollways and a Toll bridge, all of which cost a lot more. So in general I think it’s a positive reaction (non-scientific of course).
In 1999, during a visit to NASA, I listened to Dan Goldin presenting studies for “second” and “third” generation Space Shuttles, since, at the time, creating a new Shuttle was the main direction in the minds of NASA folks. There was even a group studying configurations for a “fourth” generation Space Shuttle. The crumbling of a key component – the composite LH2 tank made by LM – killed the “second” generation Shuttle, the Venture Star. Whatever the “third” and “fourth” generation vehicles looked like, who cares today. Therefore, there is a choice in crafting space exploration R&D: i) develop key components using advanced concepts and technologies to minimum TRL 6 and then configure the missions or ii) configure the missions and objectives, and beat the horses to get there. There are +’s and -‘s in both approaches: How do you quantify and measure progress in i) while making sure your budget is not cut in the following FY. How do you control costs in ii). There is no clear answer perhaps other than ensuring the plan chose is not disrupted or derailed every 4 years. After G. Bush initiated the Space Exploration initiative, NASA has chosen the i) alternative under Admiral Steidle at the Office of Exploration Systems. The approach was very much DARPA style, with only one problem: not enough $$. Griffin redirected the approach using ii), and forcing the Ares I and V configs, scrapped today. At the time, there was a time limit set by the president. Obama has reveresed to the i) approach, but has removed the time limit, no schedule pressure.
Nobody on this list knows if it will work or not. Only time will tell.
“Many in Congress are extremely angry that the Moon program has been canceled.”
No they’re not. Congress cares about whether the taxpayer money in NASA’s budget is going to their constituents, not whether NASA ever gets back to the Moon.
If Congress cared about whether NASA was getting back to the Moon, then Apollo wouldn’t have come to an end, SEI wouldn’t have been cancelled, and/or Congress would have met their VSE funding commitments.
“And many more in Congress could care less if NASA gets any money at all.”
Congressmen representing NASA employees in their states and districts would care greatly if NASA’s budget was eliminated or reduced.
FWIW…
“This country was lacking a clear vision for NASA at the time of the Columbia accident. No destination to look forward to…”
Vision and destination are not the same thing. The CAIB said that NASA needed a “compelling reason”, citing the Cold War competition with the Soviets during Apollo, to drive the development of a second generation space transportation system. The CAIB didn’t say that NASA needed to pick a target and go.
“Now it seems this new budget is taking us back to pre-VSE lack of clear vision times.”
The new budget proposes that the vision and destination be the solar system.
FWIW…
“there is no grand strategy, no goals, no plans for anything other than studying climate change and servicing the ISS.”
Whether you call it a “grand” strategy is up to you, but it’s a false statement to say that the budget contains “no goals, no plans” besides climate change and ISS.
The flagship component of the Exploration Technology and Demonstration Program is clearly tasked with demonstrating “in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems” (among other capabilities) via “projects that are generally funded at $0.4-$1.0 billion over lifetimes of less than 5-years.”
The enabling component of the Exploration Technology and Demonstration Program is clearly tasked with demonstrating “in-situ resource utilization and advanced in-space propulsion” (among other capabilities) via “smaller scale (less than $100 million generally) and shorter duration projects that are competitively selected.”
The Robotic Precursors program is clearly tasked with sending “robotic precursor missions to the Moon, Mars and its moons, Lagrange points, and nearby asteroids to scout targets for future human activities, and identify the hazards and resources” using project “that are less than $800 million in life-cycle cost.”
Etc., etc.
It’s one thing if you don’t like the strategy. That’s fine. But don’t ignore the budget documents and Bolden’s statements and/or pretend that they say something that they don’t. They clearly articulate a plan and goals.
“…Obama did not present an alternate strategy.”
The President hasn’t presented anything with respect to NASA.
FWIW…
“That’s right. T’would not matter one iota what the content is… I suspect it’s as dysfunctional over in the military because they still have to deal with the WH and Congress.”
This is an argument to end all U.S. government involvement in space (or at least launch vehicle development). If that’s what you meant, that’s fine. But you should know that’s what is coming across in your argument.
“Over time NASA HSF will become more like the FAA; a regulatory agency”
Again, NASA has no regulatory function. Congress would have to rewrite NASA’s enabling legislation before the agency could have any regulatory authority. NASA has no legal ability to “become more like the FAA” or any other regulatory agency.
And in point of fact, the FAA is responsible for regulating launches from NASA’s COTS program.
FWIW…
I’ll admit, I may have been in panic mode with the release of the NASA budget for FY2011. It’s not because I was a fanboy of the Constellation program of record. It’s been argued to be the savior of exploration and the death of it with equal justification an fervor; but it was the only concrete path that we had out of LEO. Maybe what was being proposed was a new direction. So I went back to the Fact Sheet and supporting document the White House released yesterday and the administrator’s statement. Even with it’s support of commercial crew transport to the ISS, (which is the perfect place to get commercial entities more involved in the design, construction and operations of HSF) this budget is a huge step backwards for US human exploration beyond LEO.
Let’s take a look at a few examples:
“Research and development to support future heavy-lift rocket systems…….”
There has been tons of research done on heavy lift with the latest available technologies. I don’t think 5 more years of study is going to bring significant ROI by lowering launch costs significantly. It’s well past time to pick a concept and stick with it.
“A vigorous new technology development and test program that aims to increase the capabilities and reduce the cost of future exploration activities.
$1.2 billion for transformative research in exploration technology that will involve NASA, private industry, and academia, sparking spin-off technologies and potentially entire new industries.”
Sorry but there are no specifics here and from the wording seems to be a $1.2 billion payoff to get Boeing, LockMart and others to fall in line.
“..create the 21st Century launch facilities and infrastructure needed at Kennedy Space Center, transforming the facility to more effectively support future NASA, commercial, and other government launches.”
Call me cynical but this sounds like the razing of the VAB and Launch Complex 39 with nothing to replace them.
From Bolden’s statement we get this:
“Next, the president has laid out a dynamic plan for NASA to invest in critical and transformative technologies. These will enable our path beyond low Earth orbit through development of new launch and space transportation technologies, nimble construction capabilities on orbit, and new operations capabilities. Imagine trips to Mars that take weeks instead of nearly a year; people fanning out across the inner solar system, exploring the Moon, asteroids and Mars nearly simultaneously in a steady stream of “firsts;†”
When a nation can’t even launch a person into low earth orbit, (which after the last shuttle flight the US will not be able to do for an indeterminate amount of time) it’s strains belief to hear stories like, “ people fanning out across the inner solar system,â€.
“Transformative technologies†sounds like Bolden want to start our trip into the solar system on the Queen Marry 2 instead of the Mayflower. What is a solid goal of these technologies? Bring launch costs down by a factor of 10? Is it reasonable to expect to bring Mars transit time down to a few weeks anytime in the near future?
Advancements in human space flight must be made by evolution not revolution. It isn’t glamorous but small steady improvement in rocket engine design, materials and procedures are what will start us on our path out of LEO.
I believe that without an over arching goal and a reasonable time frame these individual projects would be picked off in future budget years to go to other programs or agencies or deficit reduction.
“Imagine trips to Mars that take weeks instead of nearly a year; people fanning out across the inner solar system, exploring the moon, asteroids and Mars nearly simultaneously in a steady stream of firsts,†NASA administrator Charles Bolden said Monday in a briefing on the new plans.
Close your eyes. Do you see all of these things taking place?”
Who knows? But I’d rather see NASA trying, and sometimes failing, at the new technologies and capabilities necessary to fulfill this vision versus wasting my taxpayer dollars building the nation’s fourth, mid-lift LEO launch vehicle or renacting Apollo 30 years from now.
There are nuclear- and big solar-powered propulsion options that would enable low-month and multi-week long human missions to Mars and that havn’t been investigated in any serious way since the early 1970s. This budget provides funding to do so. Some, maybe all, won’t pan out or be affordable. But neither was any of the Mars planning (to the extent there was much) under Constellation (or SEI or various JSC DRMs). NASA needs to try something new, and it’s better to have what is suppossed to be the nation’s cutting-edge exploration agency pursuing new, potentially sustainable capabilities than reinventing old ones with a long history of being unable to get off the drawing board.
And although I think Bolden is getting ahead of himself when he talks about “nearly simultaneously” visiting all these targets, the Augustine Committee laid out multiple options, backed up by Aerospace Corp. costing, that included annual or twice annual trips to steadily more difficult targets in the solar system. Again, the Augustine Committee could be partly or all wet, but it’s better to have what is suppossed to be the nation’s cutting-edge exploration agency pursuing multiple new frontiers rather than only revisiting the same old planetary target from 40 years ago (actually 70 years ago by the time Constellation would have gotten back to the Moon).
FWIW…
“this budget is a huge step backwards for US human exploration beyond LEO”
Before making such statements, you should actually read the budget documents. Relying on an overarching five-minute speech from the NASA Administrator for plan and goal details is not going to give you what you’re looking for.
Copying from a prior post, here’s some extracts from the budget summary document:
The flagship component of the Exploration Technology and Demonstration Program is clearly tasked with demonstrating “in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems†(among other capabilities) via “projects that are generally funded at $0.4-$1.0 billion over lifetimes of less than 5-years.â€
The enabling component of the Exploration Technology and Demonstration Program is clearly tasked with demonstrating “in-situ resource utilization and advanced in-space propulsion†(among other capabilities) via “smaller scale (less than $100 million generally) and shorter duration projects that are competitively selected.â€
The Robotic Precursors program is clearly tasked with sending “robotic precursor missions to the Moon, Mars and its moons, Lagrange points, and nearby asteroids to scout targets for future human activities, and identify the hazards and resources†using project “that are less than $800 million in life-cycle cost.â€
Etc., etc.
You may still not like these details, but you should make sure that you’ve absorbed more than one speech before passing judgement on the entire plan.
“I believe that without an over arching goal and a reasonable time frame”
The overaching goal is the solar system. The timeframe is ASAP.
“these individual projects would be picked off in future budget years to go to other programs or agencies or deficit reduction.”
Picking targets and dates didn’t save NASA’s post-Apollo Mars plans, SEI, or Constellation. We’ve spent four decades trying to reinvent the Apollo miracle in the absence of the Cold War rationale that drove Apollo. It’s far past time to try something different.
“I’ll admit, I may have been in panic mode with the release of the NASA budget for FY2011.”
Forgive me if this sounds insulting, but I think you’re still in panic mode. We (myself included) need to grow up and stop acting like insecure babies just because we don’t have a target named and a date set. We know what the targets are for human space exploration in the solar system. And there’s no reason not to try to get to them as capably and as soon as possible.
FWIW…
@ Robert
You said in regards to if not the moon then where, “Obama, I nor you nor really any one person can answer that question.”
That is the President’s job.
“Indeed it is a question that shows you are mired in the “program†mentality of statist government.”
Are you saying that the state should do nothing other than R&D for private industry? Are you saying that you want to go everywhere but you don’t want to choose where to go first?
“What I said, and it is a hard thing to comprehend…and you frankly illustrate that…is that the future I see is ONE THAT IS UNPREDICTABLE In the present.”
Planning mitigates risk involved with an uncertain future. You really think that a vision, strategy, plan, goals, and all the little steps that go along with those things are unneeded? Every successful business and organization has those things and NASA should too.
According to you there is a plan…R&D and helping out the commercial space sector. Those are great, no one says they are not. However, that is not enough. We need to set our sights higher.
Indecently, R&D and priming the private space companies was already happening. Slight tweaks to to what was already happening is not a revolutionary plan that will shape our destinies. It means we are treading water.
“Sorry, the best one can do is to remove the enemies of the future, those who need a “program to go somewhereâ€.”
Why have NASA if we are not going someplace?
Why spend money on R&D if we are not going to use it?
Why say we want to visit other planets, moons, asteroids, or Lagrange points if we never pick which we want to do first?
I think what you might be saying, although its hard to tell because you contradict yourself from post to post, is that we develop x, y, z technology that will allow us to go to w, a, s, d locations but not pick what location until after the technology is finished.
What I am saying is that we need x, y, z technologies to get to w, a, s, d but that we develop those technologies with a larger strategy of picking where we will be going first after we have worked out the technical challenges to get there. And I think that the President should be the one who chooses where to go.
I’m looking at the big picture here not just a small snap shot of the big picture.
In regards to igniting passion in the populace you said,
“yes he did.
he (Obama) said that we were going to have private lift to space…that will “ignite the passion†of the folks who are going to provide that as a service;…that is the same passion that took us from the DC-3 to the 747 in less time then human spaceflight has existed.”
No he didn’t say anything to ignite the passion of the populace. I would agree he ignite the passion of companies that will profit from lucrative contracts to supply the ISS but he didn’t do anything for the common man who’s taxes pay for all of this.
I want Obama to speak with the same passion about our manned space program as he does about health care, with the same passion he used to convince millions of voters to vote for him, with the same passion he blames Bush for all of his problems.
You know what would help that happen? If he said we are developing x, y, z technologies that will allow us to go to w, a, s, d places but we are going to w first.
@ MT
“The overaching goal is the solar system. The timeframe is ASAP.”
Is that an official NASA goal or your speculation? Where is it written or who said it?
“Program is clearly tasked with demonstrating “in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems†(among other capabilities) via “projects that are generally funded at $0.4-$1.0 billion over lifetimes of less than 5-years.—
Frankly, everything that you listed, except closed-loop life support systems, has been going on for years. The Russians and ESA dock to the ISS automatically and remotely if necessary. Progress and the ATV do in-orbit propellant transfer and Bigalo (sp) has two inflatable modules in orbit that were first developed by NASA years ago. Not exactly ground breaking or “transformitive” technologies.
“Picking targets and dates didn’t save NASA’s post-Apollo Mars plans, SEI, or Constellation.”
We don’t know that yet for Constellation. The president has cut it’s funding but I’ve heard from quite a few people who saw the reports on Fox and NBC that were a bit upset about it. The reaction was along the lines of “We have plenty of money for the banks but can’t find the money to go back to the moon.” Can the sentiment last or translate into support? I think with the proper leadership it could.
@ Major Tom
You said, “Whether you call it a “grand†strategy is up to you, but it’s a false statement to say that the budget contains “no goals, no plans†besides climate change and ISS.
The flagship component of the Exploration Technology and Demonstration Program is clearly tasked with demonstrating “in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems†(among other capabilities) via “projects that are generally funded at $0.4-$1.0 billion over lifetimes of less than 5-years.—
Those are great things that we would have been working on with the constellation program and things that we will need in any number of missions. So what is wrong with picking the first place to go after we have developed that technology?
“It’s one thing if you don’t like the strategy. That’s fine. But don’t ignore the budget documents and Bolden’s statements and/or pretend that they say something that they don’t. They clearly articulate a plan and goals.”
I would argue there is an absence of a strategy. All of the things you mentioned would be tactics in a strategy.
I hope you can see what I am getting at. I am not against what is in the budget or the statements so much as I am against what is not in them.
“The President hasn’t presented anything with respect to NASA.”
This is exactly my point and the source of my disappointment.
I think the things you are talking about are important to our future in Space but they should be smaller steps in a larger project.
I predict that all Republicans in the Senate will oppose the Obama NASA policy and nearly all Republicans in the House will also oppose it. I also predict that most House Democrats from the States of Florida, Texas, and Alabama will oppose the president on this. So the president is probably going to end up compromising on this issue!
I don’t think it will mean the return of the flawed Ares architectures but I do think it will probably mean continued funding for the Orion and probably serious funding for a Jupiter HLV.
But, unfortunately, I doubt if it will mean any commitment to return to the Moon!
Wodun
You know what would help that happen? If he said we are developing x, y, z technologies that will allow us to go to w, a, s, d places but we are going to w first….
the gulf that separates us is that I dont think that this is necessary, indeed I think it is worse then useless I think it is counterproductive.
I think that saying “we are sending humans to this or that space place” is about the worst thing that can be said in terms of human spaceflight. I see no evidence that this excites the people, encourages them or even really makes them think anything but “you are nuts”.
Humans going to other “planets or places” in space has become so removed from the rest of American society that it simply is meaningless to most of them. To space advocates it means something “wow we are going to (insert place here)” when really it means “government employees are going”.
I think that we will go back to the Moon and go to other places when it is “easy” to do it. When most of the technology is “in hand” and can be easily adapted from other “things”…much as South Pole expeditions do.
Until then, I see no real value in saying we are doing something that requires a massive government agency to do it and it has no impact on the people.
What should NASA do. Google what NACA did in the 20-50 eara of the last century. That is what NASA should do.
Robert G. Oler
“Those are great things that we would have been working on with the constellation program”
No, we wouldn’t have. Constellation wasn’t funding any of those things. Heck, even Altair had been zeroed out to feed Ares I/Orion. Even Ares V was being funded at only $25 million (with an “M”) per year through the runout.
“I would argue there is an absence of a strategy.”
No, you’re arguing that just because the White House hasn’t given you a target and a date that there’s no strategy.
But the strategy is to stop setting targets and dates — a strategy which has failed repeatedly with NASA post-Apollo Mars plans, SEI, and now Constellation — and start working on capabilities, actual hardware instead of paper targets and dates, that will open up the solar system to human space activities.
The target is the solar system. The date is ASAP.
I’m not directing this at you personally, but it’s time to grow up. We’ve known what the targets are for human exploration are in the solar system for decades now. The White House is proposing to spend big bucks developing the capabilities necessary to reach them. There’s no reason NASA and its partners can’t pursue those targets in as logical, capable, and fast a fashion as possible. We don’t need a President (whom you probably don’t like anyany) to tell us in what order or when. Let the experts, not a lawyer or politician, figure that out.
FWIW…
“Is that an official NASA goal or your speculation? Where is it written or who said it?”
Per Bolden’s budget statement:
“Imagine trips to Mars that take weeks instead of nearly a year; people fanning out across the inner solar system, exploring the Moon, asteroids and Mars nearly simultaneously in a steady stream of “firsts;  That is what the President’s plan for NASA will enable, once we develop the new capabilities to make it a reality.”
See:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420994main_2011_Budget_Administrator_Remarks.pdf
“Frankly, everything that you listed, except closed-loop life support systems, has been going on for years.”
So what? No one has put a human-scale inflatable module in space. There’s been no long-term cryo propellant storage demo. There’s no domestic automated rendezvous and docking system for human space flight. Etc., etc. There are major test milestones that will have to be met before these capabilities make their way onto operational human space exploration missions.
“We don’t know that yet for Constellation.”
Yes, we do. Constellation missed the VSE’s 2014 ISS date by at least 3-5 years and the VSE’s 2020 lunar return date by 10-20 years.
“I’ve heard from quite a few people who saw the reports on Fox and NBC that were a bit upset about it.”
So what? There’s tons of polls like this one where the majority of Americans vote to cut NASA’s budget.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/01/poll-50-of-americans-say-cut-space-spending.html
“Can the sentiment last or translate into support?”
You really think vast majority of Congress, the senators and representatives who don’t represent NASA states and districts, are going to go along with a multi-billion budget increase for NASA over multiple years to go back to the Moon 15-20 years from now in an era of historically high deficits and flat spending in other discretionary accounts that affect their constituencies?
Or that the next three White Houses and ten Congresses would go along?
C’mon…
“That is the President’s job.”
No, it’s not. Especially when there’s no driving reason to pick one target or date over another.
“We need to set our sights higher.”
The solar system isn’t high enough?
“Indecently, R&D and priming the private space companies was already happening.”
Huh? There’s “indecent” R&D in space companies? What the heck are you talking about?
The only “priming” under the prior plan was for ISS cargo. There was no “priming” for crew transport or other capabilities.
“Slight tweaks to to what was already happening is not a revolutionary plan that will shape our destinies. It means we are treading water.”
How is pursuing breakthrough capabilities in cryo storage, closed life support, habitable volume, propulsion, etc. “slight tweaks”?
How is sending robotic precursors to multiple targets or developing an HLV capability when the prior plan didn’t “treading water”?
“Why say we want to visit other planets, moons, asteroids, or Lagrange points if we never pick which we want to do first?
Does it matter what target is first if you visit the next target a couple years later, per Augustine’s Flexible Path options?
“And I think that the President should be the one who chooses where to go.”
Why? Because of his law degree?
In the absence of any driving rationale, why not leave the ordering and timing of targets to the experts?
“I want Obama to speak with the same passion about our manned space program…”
It doesn’t matter what the Presidents says as long as the White House funds and NASA pursues actual human space exploration hardware.
Dollars and actions are worth a lot more than words.
“You know what would help that happen? If he said we are developing x, y, z technologies that will allow us to go to w, a, s, d places”
That’s what Bolden’s budget statement said yesterday.
FWIW…
Bolden’s statement in not a goal nor a plan, it’s a a wish, and I didn’t see “ASAP” in there.
“So what? No one has put a human-scale inflatable module in space.”
No but there’s two test articles and a full scale module to be flown this year. The tests are being done already by private industry. You should be glad about that.
“There’s been no long-term cryo propellant storage demo.”
That’s not what was listed as an objective.
“There’s no domestic automated rendezvous and docking system for human space flight. ”
Not a major milestone or “trasformitive” technology especially if we’ll be working closely with other nations like the Russians and ESA.
” Etc., etc.”
Only one Etc, and that is “advanced inspace propulsion”
That sounds like Vasimer and about a month ago you told me on this blog that Vasimer would never work because of the electrical power it required.
“There are major test milestones that will have to be met before these capabilities make their way onto operational human space exploration missions.”
True………. Only if they are part of a larger plan for space exploration. Seems wasteful to pump money into a technology like Vasimer or Cryo fuel storage if it’s not being used.
“Bolden’s statement in not a goal nor a plan”
I don’t know what else to tell you if you refuse to accept what’s written in black and white in a NASA Administrator’s budget statement.
You may not agree with the goal of developing capabilities to send human exploration missions to multiple targets in the solar system but that is what’s written.
“The tests are being done already by private industry.”
So NASA shouldn’t be allowed to spend the funding necessary to adapt the capability for exploration missions?
“That’s not what was listed as an objective.”
Do you really think that “in-orbit propellant transfer and storage” refers to non-cryo capabilities already in hand?
“Not a major milestone or ‘trasformitive’ technology especially if we’ll be working closely with other nations like the Russians and ESA.”
You really want to rely on other nations for basic and critical subsystems like automated rendezvous and docking?
“That sounds like Vasimer and about a month ago you told me on this blog that Vasimer would never work because of the electrical power it required.”
There are more advanced in-space propulsion technologies than VASIMIR. And I didn’t say that VASIMIR wouldn’t work. I said that it faced large technical and budgetary hurdles associated with its power source when used as propulsion for human missions.
“Only if they are part of a larger plan for space exploration.”
And you need a politician to tell you what those targets and dates should be because his law degree confers expertise in human space exploration?
FWIW…
“And you need a politician to tell you what those targets and dates should be because his law degree confers expertise in human space exploration?”
To amplify:
The VSE for all its good things had artificial dates. I cannot claim there was no experts that belonged to the group that came up with the milestones but I would hope anyone could see the values of such dates in light as to what is happening to Constellation. Is this that difficult to understand? This time around there is no such dates because no one can tell for sure, especially when someone goes for the untried and unproven. The ESAS based Constellation was supposed to used tried and known technologies YET it went over schedule and over budget. So what does any date do for anyone? What is it with the dates? The same as “in my lifetime” story? Would it reassure people they actually had put dates in there? People would rather have bs than reality, is that it?
Oh well…
Firms like SpaceX also love fedral money. And they sure go for it. The problem with HSF is that there is no orbital demand other than the ISS paid for by the taxpayers.
“The problem with HSF is that there is no orbital demand other than the ISS paid for by the taxpayers.”
So what? NASA HSF just proved they could not service the ISS past Shuttle retirement (because of budget AND schedule). Do we leave it to other nations to do it? Or do we try another way?
Why not? It is an international space station, right? Between ATV, HTV, Soyuz we are covered. Why does the delivery have to be American in the first place? Is it the same old d%^& measuring contest?
And there is nothing commercial about SpaceX or other companies struggling to deliver to the ISS, they are just contractors to the US government. We’ve had them for years (USA, ULA)
I am arguing that HSF should show PRIVATE DEMAND, supply will come if there is any demand for private HSF.
@danwithaplan:
You said “the ISS paid for by the taxpayers.†Again what is your point? What contest are you talking about? Who said the delivery “has to be” american. Now I am a taxpayer and as such I would rather see an international facility paid in part for by US tax dollars to be serviced by US vehicles. It does not mean there should ONLY be US vehicles. BUT until the ISS partners come up with an intrenational vehicle to service ISS we need to have other vehicles including US vehicles. BTW the ISS is NOT equal to HSF in the US it only is part of HSF. As to what SpaceX and other commercial firms do I would suggest you get better informed. ISS is NOT their only customer by their own statements.
“And there is nothing commercial about SpaceX or other companies struggling to deliver to the ISS, they are just contractors to the US government. We’ve had them for years (USA, ULA)”
Sorry but you don’t know what you’re talking about. It is not specifically about the delivery process to ISS which iss under government contract but also with how those firms were created in the first place and how they actually operate. Learn the difference bewteen cost-plus and COTS and then you may understand why they are called “commercial” even when contracted by the US government.
BTW Some people will most likely be on their way out soon at CxP high level…
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/02/cxp-fights-back.html
Good article by the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15449787
FWIW…
OSC likes the new program:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30148
FWIW…
Well, I’m never for cancellation but the plan is the plan. I didnt like the many Bush era cancellations either but the new plan looks good to me, assuming it pays off in time. THere have been many potential HSF technologies that NASA has simply had no money to investigate as the Augustine folks pointed out.
It looks like Constellation bet the farm on a very expensive system, and lost.
“OSC likes the new program”
Duh, of course they do. I’m sure SpaceX and the 5 companies that got some of the 50 million stimulus dollars for CCDev like it too…
‘common sense’, give me other than the ISS demand for HSF.
The Souyz, ATV, HTV services the ISS and that’s fine by the American taxpayer.
And sorry, that’s Soyuz, not ‘Souyz’
The thing just works (including Progresses), and who gives a f’k if it’s not ‘American’?
@Loki:
Just to make sure: SpaceX did not win CCDev.
@danwithaplan:
Nope I won’t give you anything. You go and look for yourself what the commercials are saying not what I or you or anyone say about their plans and customers.
“The thing just works (including Progresses), and who gives a f’k if it’s not ‘American’?”
Obviously you don”t. Nice language though. Are you a US citizen? Paying taxes in the US? Just curious. How much money has the US contributed to ISS? How much did the other nations? Hardware allocation should give you an idea, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station In the mean time keep reading.