The first opportunity for members of Congress—well, one member of Congress—to grill the administration about NASA’s new direction came Tuesday at a hearing by the Senate Budget Committee about the FY2011 budget featuring OMB director Peter Orszag. (The video of the hearing is available on the committee’s hearing page; skip ahead to about the 68:40 mark.) Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) told Orszag that “I want to ask you a friendly question, and I want to ask you an unfriendly question.” The first question—the “friendly” one—dealy with NASA’s overall funding levels. Nelson said that the budget “accepted the recommendations” of the Augustine Committee “with the exception of what they said for meaningful human spaceflight for the future for what you had to spend,” that is, its options which increased NASA’s budget by up to $3 billion a year. “Do you want to explain?”
Orszag noted the $6-billion increase in the next five years, and that Norm Augustine himself issued a statement supporting the new plan. “I choose to disagree with that characterization,” Nelson responded, referring to Augustine’s memo. “It was a namby-pamby watered-down statement that was oblique at best.”
Orszag defended the budget, saying that it wasn’t necessarily a case of not being able to afford a $3-billion increase but instead reflected the change in course for NASA, with greater emphasis on technology development and related efforts to “leapfrog existing technologies and allow us to have human spaceflight to different parts of the solar system.”
Nelson then turned to his “unfriendly” question, which wasn’t really a question at all but instead a criticism of the plan to rely on commercial crew transportation providers. “The problem is that you have put all the eggs in the basket of assuming that those commercial rockets are going to work,” he said, ending the “testing and development of an alternative rocket”, presumably a reference to the Ares 1. “If those commercial rockets don’t work, then for the foreseeable future of the next decade or so we’re going to be relying on the Russians just to get to and from our space station.”
“I want you to take that for consideration,” Nelson concluded, “and that’s got to be changed, Dr. Orszag.” Orszag didn’t have a chance to respond before Nelson’s time expired and the committee moved on to other topics.
Senator Nelson
Would that you would’ve been concerned a few years back when we all saw this coming
It’s no surprise that our members of congress are also under the failed illusion that NASA builds rockets or that Ares had more of a chance of flying than the commercial rockets do. We will be paying the Russians for access to space for at least five and more like seven years under the former plan. In the new plan a half dozen companies, some established some new and some former contractors from constellation, will be developing projects mostly already in progress by as early as 2013. On the contrary, Constellation was the plan that was an all or nothing bet on one unproven commercial product.
Let me support Ferris’ comment – Sen Nelson has just woken up from a long nap. Our Constellation direction was imperfect but should we just keep shoveling money into it, and then just cancel the whole thing overnight? For an efficient program, it is better to ramp up and down. There will be fewer mistakes that way.
It’s interesting that Ares isn’t being put forth in the competition against the other commercial options. Doesn’t ATK think it could compete?
Even if Constellation was a perfectly conceived and managed program, simple probability and common sense should tell Nelson (or someone with half a brain on his staff) that two or three crew transport development programs (commercial or otherwise) have a greater chance of producing at least one domestic crew transport capability than one crew transport development program (Ares I/Orion or otherwise) does.
Forget government versus private sector or technical issues associated with various vehicles — at some point, sheer numbers and probabilities take over.
FWIW…
“It’s interesting that Ares isn’t being put forth in the competition against the other commercial options. Doesn’t ATK think it could compete?”
Ah very good question indeed? So what do you think they don’t? Could it be astronomical cost thaat can’t compete with anything else in a competing bid? Let me remind you they were sole source on Constellation: No competition accepted!
@Sen. Nelson:
““The problem is that you have put all the eggs in the basket of assuming that those commercial rockets are going to work,†he said, ending the “testing and development of an alternative rocketâ€, ”
There was NO testing of an “alternative” rocket. When I think what it takes someone to make it to the astronaut corps and that some are given the opportunity to fly just because I find it very, very annoying. Is that it? Is he afraid other people might experience space too without going through NASA astronaut selection?
““If those commercial rockets don’t work, then for the foreseeable future of the next decade or so we’re going to be relying on the Russians just to get to and from our space station.—
Sen Nelson is being very obtuse! Assume we keep on with Ares, who are we going to rely upon to go to ISS??? WHO????
On great takeaway from this exchange, which no doubt Nelson was looking for, was that the OMB Director has admitted that the “program of record” was neither unaffordable or unsustainable.
The Constellation program has nothing to do with the ISS and private commercial space launches. Its a Moon program.
Nelson’s concerns were about a back up plan to reach orbit just in case the private companies can’t get their act together as far as reliability and safety. And that’s a legitimate concern! If we already had a reliable manned space vehicle that private industry wanted to start operating, then there would be no concern. But right now, there is no such vehicle– at least not in the US.
That’s why NASA needs to develop its own manned launch vehicle– just in case. And that’s why we probably need to develop the Jupiter HLV which could be used as a crew launch vehicle and as a heavy lifter. Then we could focus of developing the beyond LEO technologies that will also be required to be launched into orbit by an HLV in order to be properly tested.
Marcel F. Williams
“And that’s why we probably need to develop the Jupiter HLV which could be used as a crew launch vehicle and as a heavy lifter. ”
I thought you liked the Sidemount? Anyway, Jupiter won’t happen either.
Get on with the program or feel sorry being left behind, your choice. Don’t be like some at NASA (!) who obviously did not get the memo and will be left back…
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/02/cxp-fights-back.html
“the OMB Director has admitted that the ‘program of record’ was neither unaffordable or unsustainable.”
That’s not what’s on the recording.
Nelson asked whether the Administration decided it couldn’t “afford” Constellation, and Orszag said that he wouldn’t characterize the Administration’s decision that way and that instead the Administration was choosing a better program over a worse one. Orszag then went through some of those factors (to the extent he could as a non-expert) that made the new program a better one.
Orszag said nothing about sustainability, and he only said that affordability wasn’t the basis of the Administration’s decision. That doesn’t mean that Orszag thinks that Constellation is affordable or sustainable. The affordability or sustainability of Constellation just wasn’t a factor in the Administration’s decisionmaking.
And even if he did believe or state that Constellation is affordable or sustainable, as Orszag points out, there’s more to consider than just costs. For example, I can afford to buy a hundred thousand dollar diamond necklace for my wife. But should I? Is that really the best use of our family’s finances?
FWIW…
“That’s why NASA needs to develop its own manned launch vehicle…”
That’s not a good reason. The backup to a commercial service is another commercial service. It’s not a parallel, multi-billion dollar, exclusive government capability developed at great expense to the taxpayer that rarely, if ever, gets used. The U.S. government doesn’t run a backup to United Airlines or Greyhound Bus Lines.
NASA needs to focus its limited resources on exploration beyond LEO, not reinventing and competing with the private sector for LEO launch. U.S. taxpayers don’t need to pay for the nation’s fourth intermediate lift LV.
“And that’s why we probably need to develop the Jupiter HLV which could be used as a crew launch vehicle and as a heavy lifter.”
An HLV needs to be justified on the basis of heavy lift, not crew transport. It’s an incredibly expensive way to launch crew.
FWIW..
$6B additional over the next five years raises the annual budget $1.2B by 2015. Augustine said you can’t have a meaningful HSF program without a $3B increase in the annual budget via any option he was able to identify (Constellation, Flexible Path, EELV, what have you).
And, Orszag said it was not a matter of being unable to afford the $3B, it was a decision to change NASA’s direction.
Is it not a logical conclusion, then, that this administration has chosen not to pursue a meaningful human spaceflight program?
During the campaign, Obama said, “Barack Obama will support renewed human exploration beyond low earth orbit. He endorses the goal of
sending human missions to the Moon by 2020, as a precursor in an orderly progression to missions to more distant destinations, including Mars.”
Obama endorsed it, and his budget director says we could afford it, so what the hell happened?
It is amusing (to be polite about it) to continue to watch those that have been so far off the mark over the past few years posting here (and elsewhere) continue to assert that they know what will happen and that some other individual posting has it completely wrong.
It seems to me that savvy humans learn from their past errors of judgement and adjust their ego strutting accordingly. I just don’t seem to see much of that here. Maybe in the near future.
BTW, I am a fairly “warm” Direct fan since it seeems like the most rational choice but I do understand that the most rational choice seldom has been the winner. That is what has passed for American politics for the last few decades.
We shall see how it all works out.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ February 3rd, 2010 at 2:34 pm
On great takeaway from this exchange, which no doubt Nelson was looking for, was that the OMB Director has admitted that the “program of record†was neither unaffordable or unsustainable…
you keep saying that. In some form or fashion the entire defense you mount of the program of record is that no one will say it is unaffordable or unsustainable.
you keep saying it as if saying it will make it accurate. I realize that they do this on Fox News all the time, and that the right wing just babbles stuff as if babbling it could make it accurate but it does not.
Major Tom has dealt with most of the hearings…I’ll just say this.
“Unaffordable” is of course in the eye of the beholder and associated with affordability should be worth.
We could as a nation afford to do anything we have to do (after all we are simply printing a lot of money right now and have been since Bush the last took Clinton’s surplus and turned them into endless deficits)…but the question is 1) is the por needed and 2) are there alternatives to what needs to be done which are cheaper.
You place a lot of stock in “returning to the Moon” and yet you cannot articulate a single reason to do so other then ones which are as solid reasons as the ones Bush the last threw out to invade Iraq. He could not present solid evidence that any of his claims were accurate and neither can you. “The Chinese are going” is about as ephemeral a statement as “dangers gather near our shores”.
Name one reason, just one that we should return to the Moon?
And then when you conjur that up out of the dark pit of right wing rhetoric then explain to us why Ares/Constellation is the reason to do it.
Right now Ares has the distinction of having consumed far more money then Musk has to get to a rocket on/near the pad which can go to orbit…and it has consumed far more money then was spent to get the current Atlas and Delta to flying. And it is no where near doing it.
All the rhetoric including the babble from Shelby (who likes commercial spending when he is beating up on Obama but hates it as he protects the pork in his district) or this stuff from Nelson who is in large measure just repeating things like you as if there were facts completly ignores that the “gap” which exist in human spaceflight in the US is the fault of A) NASA for this cocked up program or B) them for not spending whatever it took to make Ares work.
We are as a nation Mark in this sorted mess because the administration before this one felt it could “afford” anything. And it refused to remotly tax people for the things that they wanted to afford.
Sorry…the arguments you make might play on Fox News where insantity is a preexisting condition…but not in the world of the rest of us
Robert G. Oler
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ February 3rd, 2010 at 2:34 pm
at least you are consistent Mark…you have not gotten one thing correct about “the Vision” yet Robert G. Oler
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ February 3rd, 2010 at 3:12 pm
That’s why NASA needs to develop its own manned launch vehicle– just in case. ..
not a good enough reason, particularly in light of the cost of the effort
Robert G. Oler
I really feel you are all missing the point. Whether the “program of record” was affordable/executable or not is a side issue. The Augustine Committee determined that $3B a year was needed *no matter which* option was picked, whether it was a reworked, rebudgeted, delayed Constellation, or any of the other options they came up with. And the $3B is not there. Now, unless you are smarter than Augustine and his colleagues and can come up with a cheaper option, do you not have to conclude that HSF beyond LEO is done for?
“Augustine said you can’t have a meaningful HSF program without a $3B increase in the annual budget via any option”
The final report of the Augustine Committee doesn’t state that. It states:
“Human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit is not viable under the FY 2010 budget guideline. Meaningful human exploration is possible under a less-constrained budget, ramping up to approximately $3 billion per year in real purchasing power above the FY 2010 guidance in total resources.”
The report states that the NASA budget has to come up to do exploration, and NASA can do “meaningful human exploration” under a budget that hits a $3B increase at the end of the runout. But the report does _not_ state that the $3B increase is the _only_ threshold at which NASA can do exploration, “meaningful” or otherwise.
It’s also important to point out that the $3B figure doesn’t make the report’s concluding findings, but those findings do state:
“The right mission and the right size: NASA’s budget should match its mission and goals. Further, NASA should be given the ability to shape its organization and infrastructure accordingly, while maintaining facilities
deemed to be of national importance.”
More important than the specific budget figure is whether program content matches the budget and whether NASA has the flexibility to manage efficieintly. That’s born out by Augustine’s endorsement of the new program.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=33369
“Obama endorsed it, and his budget director says we could afford it, so what the hell happened?”
Two things:
1) Even with the extra $3B, the Augustine report pointed out that the POR couldn’t get to the Moon until the mid-2020s and even that delayed schedule would still require sacrifices, specifically ISS deorbit in 2016 and no investment in a broad-based technology program. It wasn’t a desirable option.
2) As is pretty obvious from Orzsag’s comments — the Administration decided to pursue a program to develop capabilities to open up lots of destinations in the solar system to human space flight, versus a program that focused on the Moon (e.g., the Moon First options from the Augustine report). No doubt about it — the President endorsed the Moon during the campaign. But he (or the Administration as a whole) has since decided to do more. That decision is supported by the Augustine report, which scored the Flexible Path options (especially the commercial Flexible Path option) the highest/best of any of the options considered.
“The Augustine Committee determined that $3B a year was needed *no matter which* option was picked”
No, that’s not what the report states. See above.
“… do you not have to conclude that HSF beyond LEO is done for?”
No. See above.
FWIW…
Artemus wrote @ February 3rd, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Now, unless you are smarter than Augustine and his colleagues and can come up with a cheaper option, do you not have to conclude that HSF beyond LEO is done for?..
not in my thinking.
This is why I dont understand the Ares huggers.
The battle (and I ignore the ones who are fighting for their jobs, their reaction is perfectly understandable and reasonable…) here is between people who see a future different then the present and people who see the future looking a lot like the past.
If you support Ares/Constellation/the vision…the world you believe in is one that is at best trying to be 1969 all over again. It is where government does the project from “cradle to the grave” from liftoff to getting the tiny capsule with the people back and everything expended in between.
My world, and I suspect General Boldens is where “things are done” because they are easy not because they are hard. Imagine a world where R&D has made refueling commonplace in space, imagine a world where ISS like assembly of large platforms has gotten even easier and is commonplace…imagine a world where space taxis go from LEO to GEO on routine satellite platform service missions…imagine a world where some type of ion propulsion takes large platforms from LEO to GEO…
that is a world that 1) is as possible as today’s world was when NASA experimented with Syncom satellites and 2) has almost everything that is needed to go to the lunar surface and stay …with not much additional cost.
I dont think that world happens overnight…but I think it happens far faster then “the vision” is planning today to get us back to the moon (2030 or so)…
Imagine if one is around at the launch of Syncom and trying to project the GEO satellite market twenty years ahead…
right now the only part of spaceflight where what is going to happen is predictable is human spaceflight. to me that is not supportable.
Robert G. Oler
“BTW, I am a fairly “warm†Direct fan since it seeems like the most rational choice but I do understand that the most rational choice seldom has been the winner. ”
Not it is NOT, or provide the “rational” in your rational choice.
“Now, unless you are smarter than Augustine and his colleagues and can come up with a cheaper option, do you not have to conclude that HSF beyond LEO is done for?..”
Augustine did come up with a cheaper option! No need to be smarter, it’s calle commercial. And if you cannot see why and how then please go and read over and over agin the report until it becomes clear.
I see Paul Spudis doesnt like the new plan. What he and others who are Ares huggers cannot figure out is that the rationale for “the vision” is one not supported by the American people. sorry
Robert G. Oler
@Robert G. Oler:
Don’t confuse the “vision” (VSE) and Constellation. The current plan is much closer to the VSE than the former Constellation ever was.
The administration and it’s appointees are notorious for not considering the industrial workforce impacts of their decisions. I feel sorry for the ATK folks. There probably won’t be a whole lot of demand for large solid rocket motor design/manufacturing expertise for many years. Not until we actually decide to leave earth again and need a heavy lift vehicle. If NASA undertakes the development of an F1 like engine, solids would not be needed even then. So by the time the NAVY/airforce gets around to replace/upgrade their long range missiles and ICBMS, they may end up having to shell out enormous sums of money to recreate capabilities we decided not to sustain.
@Robert G. Oler:
You may be right after all about Charles Bolden leadership:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=33391
“So by the time the NAVY/airforce gets around to replace/upgrade their long range missiles and ICBMS, they may end up having to shell out enormous sums of money to recreate capabilities we decided not to sustain.”
Then the Navy and Air Force should pay for the capabilities, NOT NASA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you loved the bailout of Wall Street, you will love this plan to pump more dollars into the pockets of Musk and Bezos. Yesterday Musk questioned the motivations of politicians who want to fight for jobs in their States and Districts — jobs that pay 5 and 6 figures. Of course, he found no problems at all with a plan that will pump millions more into his pockets.
@Jim D.
Are you on Constellation? You MUST be. If you’re good at what you do there’ll be work for you if not… Especially if you are in the 5 to 6 figure salary range. You clearly have no problem with this kind of money being pumped in States that accomplish nothing, do you?
Oler wrote:
This is why I dont understand the Ares huggers.
The battle (and I ignore the ones who are fighting for their jobs, their reaction is perfectly understandable and reasonable…) here is between people who see a future different then the present and people who see the future looking a lot like the past.
If you support Ares/Constellation/the vision…the world you believe in is one that is at best trying to be 1969 all over again. It is where government does the project from “cradle to the grave†from liftoff to getting the tiny capsule with the people back and everything expended in between.
My world, and I suspect General Boldens is where “things are done†because they are easy not because they are hard. Imagine a world where R&D has made refueling commonplace in space, imagine a world where ISS like assembly of large platforms has gotten even easier and is commonplace…imagine a world where space taxis go from LEO to GEO on routine satellite platform service missions…imagine a world where some type of ion propulsion takes large platforms from LEO to GEO…
—————
I have no dog in the fight over which Augustine option to pick, so I am in no sense an Ares hugger. When I saw the I-X upper stage do a cartwheel, I wasn’t all that surprised (nor was I surprised when NASA declared it a complete success).
You say “If you support Ares etc…” you want to go back to 1969. I and everyone else wish Constellation had loftier goals, but in fact those goals were bought into by multiple congresses as well as candidate Obama himself.
What I am getting at is that the Obama budget is consistent with neither his campaign statement nor any of the options Augustine came up with. All of Augustine’s options included specific HSF goals. If a technology development option was on the table, why wasn’t Augustine directed to consider it? I would argue that the reason is that the technology development option is not serious. Obama read too many of the $500 billion horror stories about Constellation and became afraid that if he let it go on, it would turn into a juggernaut and eat up the budget. I know there are many alarmists who think that would have happened, but Augustine was not one of them.
I am having a very hard time seeing this budget as anything other than a kiss-off for HSF.
“I am having a very hard time seeing this budget as anything other than a kiss-off for HSF.”
You may want to rest for a while then and reflect. Constellation is the kiss-off for HSF. Many people working it from the onset knew it was a make or break it kind of deal. NASA chose the break option. Too bad. Now they are giving yet a new lease on HSF but they will have to adapt to the harsh reality of budget and schedule. It will force them into new more innovative ways or yes you’re right HSF will be over.
@ common sense
“Get on with the program or feel sorry being left behind, your choice. Don’t be like some at NASA (!) who obviously did not get the memo and will be left back…”
Unfortunately, studying something to death doesn’t turn it into reality. Real progress is made by actually developing and deploying new systems– not just by dreaming about them!That’s how you learn. And that’s how you progress.
If Congress accepts Obama’s plan not to develop and deploy any new manned space flight systems then the US space program will be set back at least another decade. And the worse news about this plan is that it pumps even more billions into the ISS white elephant with the ISS budget rising to over $3 billion a year by 2013.
The only good news in this plan is that private industry will receive a small amount of NASA money to develop their own programs since NASA won’t have much of a program at all!
Its also good news for Russia, China, India, Europe and Japan since it could allow these nations to achieve technological parity and maybe even surpass the US as space faring nations. But we chose to give up our lead in space just as we chose to give up our lead in nuclear energy technology and we’ll probably have to suffer the consequences for it!
“Obama’s plan not to develop and deploy any new manned space flight systems”
By definition, commercial crew will produce a couple “new manned space flight systems”.
FWIW…
“The administration and it’s appointees are notorious for not considering the industrial workforce impacts of their decisions. I feel sorry for the ATK folks.”
It’s okay to feel sorry about displaced workers, but programs can’t be ruled by institutional compromises the way Constellation was. No space program can afford to keep every old capability intact for the sake of the workforce, and still move forward on new capabilities in an affordable, capable, and timely way. Institution has to follow program, not the other way around.
“So by the time the NAVY/airforce gets around to replace/upgrade their long range missiles and ICBMS, they may end up having to shell out enormous sums of money to recreate capabilities we decided not to sustain.”
Well then the $708 billion budget at DOD should pay it. A civilian agency with a $19 billion budget should not be carrying the burden of a military capability it does not need.
FWIW…
“If a technology development option was on the table, why wasn’t Augustine directed to consider it? I would argue that the reason is that the technology development option is not serious.”
You do realize that the Augustine report dedicated a whole chapter to needed technology investments, right? Or are you saying that the White House should ignore the advice in that chapter?
“I am having a very hard time seeing this budget as anything other than a kiss-off for HSF.”
How can a $9 billion budget request for human space flight (STS, ISS, HLV, exploration technology, etc.) be a “kiss-off for HSF”?
It’s fine to disagree with the details of the proposal. (I don’t agree with the HLV, for example.) But we shouldn’t pretend that the entire proposal is something it’s not. Hyperbole doesn’t move a debate forward.
FWIW…
Artemus wrote @ February 3rd, 2010 at 7:05 pm
interesting post.
A couple of points
First off it does not surprise me that Obama’s statements in the campaign are not relevant to his current space policy.
Politics at a national level consist of issues that have national importance and are viewed by large groups of voters as national issues. Despite all the sound and fury human spaceflight is a “niche” issue and one can tell this by WHERE the issue of human spaceflight comes up in a campaign. Politicians talk about Afghanistan policy in Terrel Texas or Lima Ohio, they talk about human spaceflight ONLY in places like Clear Lake City, Huntsville, Titusville…
This dictates what gets up to the national policy shop in a campaign and gets decided at the national policy shop level. Someone (probably Garver) was feeding the Obama campaign raw boilerplate for him to use at the various space stops…and I’ve listen to “most” of his statements and they are not “consistent” with what he is doing now, but they are also not inconsistent with what he is doing now.
Nor am I surprised that the effort being pushed now mimics any of the Augustine options. In fact “I” am personally glad that they do not.
What should have (and to be fair I SAID SO AT THE TIME) tip off to space activist about where Obama was going was the Augustine Commission (which was called into kill the program of record because it was dying) and the appointment of Charlie Bolden. At the time he was appointed I said in various places that this boded poorly for the current state of affairs for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is that Charlie has never been one since being a strow and/or assuming flag rank…to merely watch the world go by and not take failing institutions and make them work.
There is in my view, and I suspect that it is Charlies as well…no way to make “the vision” in general suceed nor Constellation/Ares turn into something useful. Charlie comes on the deck with to many of the decisions already badly made and all the trends going the wrong direction. The vehicle choices under Griffin were simply flawed and it is not Bolden’s nature (as a Marine Flag officer) to deal kindly with those.
I see (and I suspect Charlie does as well…although I AM NOT SPEAKING FOR HIM nor claiming to be!) a 100 billion dollar horror story which is Ares/Constellation. I dont understand why the former cost so much and I dont see at all the need for the later. None.
The Vision was “bought into by multiple Congress” because it was the program of record…not because there is some overriding gesture in support of a Lunar effort.
How this is going to work is that Obama is going to get his space program….and three years from now it will be the “program of record” supported at almost every vote.
Why? Go back to paragraph one of this post…my sentence “Politics at a national level consist of issues that have national importance and are viewed by large groups of voters as national issues”
space is not one of them
Robert G. Oler
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ February 3rd, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Its also good news for Russia, China, India, Europe and Japan since it could allow these nations to achieve technological parity and maybe even surpass the US as space faring nations..
that seems unlikely on the new course and seems very likely on the current course.
What you dont understand (and neither do folks like Whittington so dont feel bad) is that America doesnt make technological advances because of its government it makes them because of its free enterprise.
As it stands right now what we have is NASA as a government entity treating private enterprise as a design bureaus,,so right now we are seeing American government efforts against European/etc government efforts…and for the most part we are winning because we have so many more dollars to throw at the effort then they do.
Problem is that trend is changing. Apparantly we could not build several modules of the space station for anything approaching an affordable price, the European and Japanese cargo ships are impressive…Even Russian technology is slowly advancing.
The US has poured MOST if not all of its “money” not on the shuttle or station into Ares/Constellation (about 11 to 12 billion dollars) …all efforts that will not see “working” until 2017 or later.
If the same money goes into private enterprise which does things like you know build great commercial airliners and the best medical system known to man …etc it is hard for me to imagine how the rest of the world will keep up.
Robert G. oler
“How can a $9 billion budget request for human space flight (STS, ISS, HLV, exploration technology, etc.) be a “kiss-off for HSFâ€?”
Because there is no vision. Like I have said before, a budget with no vision is worse than a vision with no budget. After Apollo, and again after Columbia, there was a broad consensus that NASA’s problem was the lack of a vision or overarching goal. A vision doesn’t guarantee success, but without a vision it is a guarantee of failure. We are talking about the government here. Many NASA managers have built very successful careers flushing millions of dollars down the toilet, year after year after year. It is far easier to get away with that when you are not expected to achieve something concrete.
A serious R&D program would say, for example: We are going to launch an empty tank, then robotically fuel it on orbit, by 2015. Then if they don’t do it, the program has failed, period. A not-serious R&D program says things like “investigate a broad scope of propulsion R&D activities to support next-generation space launch propulsion technologies.” You can guess which one of those came from the budget proposal. It sounds like the son of IHPRPT. It’ll no doubt build advanced propulsion capabilities for sustainable future high-value-added technology applications; in other words, produce a bunch of data and codes that nobody will ever use.
Artemus wrote @ February 3rd, 2010 at 8:51 pm
A serious R&D program would say, for example: We are going to launch an empty tank, then robotically fuel it on orbit, by 2015…
I suspect some of that will come.
This is day 3 of the new reality and it took The Almighty six days (of some time period) to make the world so I wouldnt get all hung up on where things are at day 3.
If “I” were doing this (ie Charlie B’s job) I would do my reorg of the agency before I started a lot of programs. Part of the problem at NASA is frankly that some senior managers, the people who will flock to yet another project that they can screw up…need to be “removed”
Robert G. Oler
“If a technology development option was on the table, why wasn’t Augustine directed to consider it?”
From the Commitee Charter’s “Scope and Objectives”:
“In addition to the objectives described above, the review should examine the appropriate amount of research and development and complementary robotic activities needed to make human space flight activities most productive and affordable over the long term…”
“A serious R&D program would say, for example: We are going to launch an empty tank, then robotically fuel it on orbit, by 2015. Then if they don’t do it, the program has failed, period. A not-serious R&D program says things like “investigate a broad scope of propulsion R&D activities to support next-generation space launch propulsion technologies.â€
It’s a bit early to know all the details, but I suspect there will be a mixture of both. A certain amount of broad basic and applied research is needed. Technology demonstrations of various sorts, including in space, are also needed as results look more promising. The budget information makes it pretty clear that real technology demonstrations are part of the mixture. For example:
“Flagship demonstration program: … Demonstrates critical technologies such as in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems, and other next-generation capabilities.”
My interpretation of this is that there would be work on in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, including technology demonstration(s) in orbit.
Technology demonstrations are also part of the “Heavy-Lift and Propulsion” line that contains the quote you mentioned.
The ISS work looks like it will be the location for some of the technology demonstrations.
The “Space Technology” line includes mechanisms like prizes that typically involve demonstrations of meeting specified technology goals.
@ Artemusa budget
“…with no vision is worse than a vision with no budget”
Exactly! And 10 years from now when the tax payers ask what have you produced with the billions we gave you for R&D, NASA will say what they’ve pretty much been saying about the ISS, a lot of good science and a lot of good possibilities for the future. But we really can’t develop anything right now because that would hurt our endless R&D budget plus its time to extend our $3 billion a year ISS program to 2028:-)
“Because there is no vision.”
Sending astronauts throughout the inner solar system is not a vision?
“A vision doesn’t guarantee success, but without a vision it is a guarantee of failure.”
History doesn’t bear this out. Despite suppossedly following a “Vision for Space Exploration” for six years, NASA has no actual exploration hardware to show for it. Despite setting targets, dates, and extensive architectural plans, the Space Exploration Initiative died at the study stage. Same goes for NASA’s post-Apollo Mars vision.
“Vision” is secondary to funding and hardware. None of these prior efforts got substantial, or any, actual exploration hardware under development despite extensive vision documents, targets, dates, and plans. The new budget promises to get actual exploration hardware under development right out of the gate. I’ll take that over a paper “vision” any day.
“We are talking about the government here. Many NASA managers have built very successful careers flushing millions of dollars down the toilet, year after year after year.”
Like spending billions of dollars on the nation’s fourth intermediate-lift LEO launch vehicle and practically nothing on actual exploration hardware, despite having a “Vision for Space Exploration” that directed to the NASA Administrator to do otherwise?
“A serious R&D program would say, for example: We are going to launch an empty tank, then robotically fuel it on orbit, by 2015. Then if they don’t do it, the program has failed, period.”
Read the budget documents. They include references to schedule and budget caps like:
“…funded at $0.4-$1.0 billion over lifetimes of less than 5-years”
“…smaller scale (less than $100 million generally) and shorter duration projects that are competitively selected”
“…missions that are less than $800 million in life-cycle cost”
They also include technical details like:
“…in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems”
“…in-situ resource utilization and advanced in-space propulsion”
“…New approaches to first-stage launch propulsion; In-space advanced engine technology development and demonstrations”
“…robotic precursor missions to the Moon Mars and its moons Lagrange points Moon, moons, points, and nearby asteroids to scout targets for
future human activities, and identify the hazards and resources”
“…Demonstrating a factory to process lunar or asteroid materials”
FWIW…
John Malkin wrote @ February 3rd, 2010 at 1:03 pm
“It’s interesting that Ares isn’t being put forth in the competition against the other commercial options. Doesn’t ATK think it could compete?”
ATK knows they can’t and they know it extremely well, I think they’ll also be smart enough not to make too much noise. ATK are good at what they do, extremely good, but what they do is useful as boosters while being completely unusable as first stages for anything delicate be it humans or technology (it’s simply not something current solid rocketry technology lends itself to at the scale we’re talking about).
Robert G. Oler I have to correct you about Dr. Paul Spudis: he is no way conceivable any kind of Ares or Constellation hugger. Quite the opposite he has tirelessly for many years pointed out that ESAS/Constellation/Ares does not follow the VSE at all.
(I see others too have again pointed out to you that ESAS/Constellation etc. are not the VSE, I wish you would grasp that point Robert because you don’t do anyone any favors by equating the two, it just confuses those who don’t know better).
Not even NASA under Griffin was bold enough to call what they were doing the VSE hence the various names they made up in its place (can’t remember them right now, they’re seldom used since they focused everything on Constellation).
The Obama administration’s approach realigns NASA with the ideals of the VSE and does it extremely well, what makes Dr. Paul Spudis worried as far as I can tell is that Flexible Path seems a bit woolly and yes it is a bit woolly and ambiguous but given time I think he’ll come to see that it’s actually a benefit and improvement upon the VSE because if there was anything that more than anything else enabled NASA under Griffin to subvert and defecate all over the VSE as it was intended it was the date for a return to the moon.
As for the strange people that are trying to defend Constellation by putting the new approach in a bad light using all sorts of insane logic; the rest of this comment is for you.
The simple facts that have been proven over and over again are that under Constellation NASA decided to pour everything into NASA-internal LEO access with cost-plus contracting to big aerospace, quickly ran out of cash trying to make some obscene designs work (only the smallest of them actually, the Ares V wasn’t even truly on the go yet but still ran into difficulties), quickly failed to meet any and all reasonable deadlines, quickly scrapped, delayed, or outright deleted (like NIAC) many other parts of NASA in a vain useless attempt to fund Constellation, and quickly scrapped or delayed all the bits and pieces needed to actually have a purpose for the obscene launchers such as the majority of robotic precursor missions to the moon and initial work on the Altair lunar lander not to speak of the majority of the actual hardware to be used by manned missions on the moon. It was all gone, and fast.
I bet none of you cried much over the loss of those jobs.
And I’ll add that the VSE was never intended to require a rise in funding for NASA, the VSE said straight out that it was intended to make NASA make it all work under the existing budget level using if they absolutely had to whatever time they required to do so and where it not for the obscene designs pushed by Griffin when he became administrator it would have been perfectly possible to achieve. In fact NASA already had a plan in place to do just that before Griffin arrived.
So to those this is aimed at: please stop trying to act like Constellation was a good thing or even truly attempted to do any of the things you claim: it didn’t and that’s why it failed and failed hard. That is not opinion it is fact.
@ Robert G. Oler
“If the same money goes into private enterprise which does things like you know build great commercial airliners and the best medical system known to man …etc it is hard for me to imagine how the rest of the world will keep up.”
Yeah right. Is this the same private industry that can’t wait to send our jobs over to China for the cheap labor? The same private industry that hasn’t built a new nuclear power plant in this country in decades? The same private industry that is crippling our ability to compete around the world thanks to the fact that they provide the most expensive and inefficient private health insurance system in the world resulting in the US having one the highest infant mortality rates of any industrialized country? Somethings are done more efficiently by private industry and some things are done more efficiently by government.
If we had waited around for private industry to decide to launch the first satellite into orbit, we’d probably still be waiting!
Habitat Hermit wrote @ February 3rd, 2010 at 10:55 pm
sorry if you thought I had implied that Spudis was a Ares hugger…he clearly is not.
My point was that the American people dont buy the VSE’s explanation of why we should return to the Moon.
Really neither do I.
It is dangerous to write history while the events are still playing out, but the first read on history is the viewpoints of current observers and in my view the space station will be viewed as the “last great NASA project”.
What NASA got use to with Apollo and has since spent four decades trying to recreate is something “wonderful” in space that accomplishes heroic kind of massive herioc “Leap” that changes everything.
I no longer think that is possible. We have spent over a couple of 100 billion trying desperatly to “do this or that” which opens space….we finally got the station and that is what we ought to try and use…and just put the cap on trying to do things like “live on the Moon” or whatever. At some point if the station works the technology will grow (with some R&D efforts) that will take us to the Moon …until then we should explore with our machines.
Robert G. Oler
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ February 3rd, 2010 at 11:03 pm
lol
there is a trick in a government where free enterprise rules, but with government interaction in the form of R&D and regulation to making it all work.
We have followed the “government only path” for 40 years and go nowhere. Time to try something different.
Robert G. Oler
I really think we are going to largely reverse this decision.
For those of you in the know, what constitutes a ‘commercial’ company. The Space Shuttle was built by lots of ‘commercial’ companies. We talk a lot about all these fledgling commercial rocket companies, but when they’re all taking money from NASA to develop their earth-to-ISS rockets – what’s the difference between them and the commercial companies that built the Space Station. Is it the lack of NASA oversight or configuration management control? Will they absorb any and all cost overruns without passing those on to NASA? Will they guarantee a fixed price per launch? Will they be legally and financially responsible for any launch incident or failure to deliver supplies to the ISS? If the answer to any of these questions is ‘no’, then I question whether they’re any different than the current commercial companies putting up the Space Shuttle. And, if they’re not any different, why do we expect a different result. And, if there’s 6 or 7 of them, why wouldn’t we expect the majority of them to overrun their budgets and be behind on their schedule – and the end, cost NASA a lot more than the current Constellation project is costing? And if not cost NASA in dollars, cost NASA is a lot of money spent without any benefit gained.
“For those of you in the know, what constitutes a ‘commercial’ company.”
Several things constitute a “commercial” contract:
— Payment on delivery of product (whether hardware or service)
— Fixed price
— Substantial contractor cost-sharing
Typical defense contracting, which is what NASA and most other government contracting is modeled on, involves none of these things. The government pays up front and incrementally for work completed, not product delivered. The government pays for the cost of the product plus some modest profit fee, even when the cost goes through the roof. And the contractor invests little of their own funds.
Note that some big, old defense contractors have undertaken projects like EELV and even experimental LV demos that involved some of these attributes and thus acted “commercially”. So it’s not a question size or age of the company. It’s a question of whether the government is acting like a commercial customer and whether the company in question (big or small) is willing to work on those terms.
FWIW…