Yesterday’s House hearing about “Key Issues and Challenges Facing NASA” wasn’t explicitly about the FY2011 budget proposal and the changes it makes to NASA’s human spaceflight programs, and much of the discussion was on other topics. However, the hearing did give members an opportunity to express their opinions on the budget, with most—but not all—opposed to or at least concerned about the plan.
Some committee members, like Reps. Ralph Hall (R-TX), Pete Olson (R-TX), and Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL), had already spoken out against the plan’s core proposal to cancel Constellation. “I can hardly read this damn thing, I’m so mad,” Hall, the ranking member of the full science committee, said at one point after stumbling over his opening statement. “For the life of me, I cannot understand how this administration can rationalize its decision to scrap Constellation and simply start anew, especially given the strong support it’s received from Congress, Republican and Democrats. It’s naive to assume that a do-over will somehow offer a safer, cheaper system faster than the current path we’re on.”
“I am extremely concerned about some of the lack of direction that we might have in the policy as put forth in the President’s budget,” Kosmas said. “I don’t see a vision, I don’t see an inspiration, and I see a major loss of workforce and workforce skills.” Later, she warned, “I think you’re going to see, based on what we’ve heard here, that Congress is going to fill in some of the blanks with what we see as our vision.”
Other members also chimed in. “I do share the concerns expressed by my colleagues about the proposed budget and the impact on human spaceflight, and essentially decimating America’s human spaceflight capacity,” said Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), vice-chair of the space subcommittee. She added she saw an “inconsistency” the President’s desire for technology and jobs development and the decision to end Constellation. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) saw a different contradiction: between NASA’s plans to end Constellation and its mission to explore the universe and inspire the next generation. “We’ve invested a lot of money into NASA, and particularly into the Constellation program, and I would hate to see that completely scrubbed and taken out of this budget.”
The chair of the subcommittee, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), was a little more subtle in her criticism of the budget. “As I reviewed the President’s budget request, I found a quite glaring omission,” she said, that being a lack of a broad vision for the agency. “My concern today is not numbers on a ledger, but rather the fate of the American dream to reach for the stars.”
One exception to this criticism, though, was from Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). “We’re all pretty shocked about the President’s budget, one way or the other. There are some good things in it, there are some things that we really need to discuss,” he said. He took particular aim against Constellation, engaging in debates with one of the witnesses, ASAP chairman Joseph Dyer, about the efficacy of Constellation versus commercial alternatives.
“We have had one test on all of this research that has been done on Constellation,” he said later, referring to the Ares 1-X test flight last October. “One test that had no new technology and hardware… and that brought us to $9 billion that we spent on the program that is now being suggested that we scrap,” he said. “This does not speak well of using our government as the vehicle for getting human beings into space.”
“If we’re going to have human beings in space, which I believe in, we’re got to get serious about this,” he concluded. He didn’t believe in relying on NASA alone to do it, he said, “because obviously it’s not working out.”
If even Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is not entirely happy with the new plan, then it is in serious trouble.
The reality is their is no plan here. Elon Musk stated a couple of days ago that he could have Americans to the space station within 3 years of getting a follow-on contract from NASA, but did we hear anything from NASA on that? No. This Administration has no plans for giving us a goal or even a date when we can expect commercial launch to take over. We’ve all seen these glowing out year budget projections before, but without a goal, let’s see what happens to the out year money. It will be taken by other competing accounts within the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill. There is not enough compelling content in the new “plan.”
There was a proposal for Jupiter project that was presented in June 09. It gave an alternative to the shuttle and would be up and running in18 months using what we already have in place and under budget. They could use the extra money to work on new ideas. Also does anyone know where the Ares V information came from of not being ready until 2025?
I am still optimistic. If we are serious about normal people getting to space, this is the first step. It does look bad on paper but we have to get away from relying on Government for a robust space capability. NASA it too vunerable to political winds. I liken it to if the Government still was in charge of the internet. We would all still be using 14.4 modems and there would only be a few hundred websites.
Constellation is way beyond schedule. Work on Ares V hasn’t even properly started yet and we’ve only had a demo flight of a rocket on which Ares I will be based. No one can seriously say that we would reach the moon before 2020 with Constellation. That is just an absurd claim. And without proper funding it will never get finished. So where was the congress, both democrats and republicans, the last years. Despite requests for additional funding they voted against it. But now, suddenly confronted with possible cancellation, all kind of politicians begin to shout. Come on people, grow up. I just can’t believe what I’m seeing.
Would we not be much more convinced of the veraccity of this new vision for space exploration if on Monday Mr. Bolden had announced boldly that the administratin was putting real money where it’s mouth was and offering a prize of $2 billion to the first commercial outfit that could demonstrate a commercially viable crewed launch capability? (Of course, the “prize” might have to be in the form of a guaranteed contract for $2billion in launch service purchased by uncle sam from the winning company, but you get my drift.)
Instead we get this nebulous statement of support for commercial space with no specifics and no deadlines. I would love to believe that they really intend to do what they are saying, but there is just not enough there and little reason for us to accept as a real indication of intent the pie-in-the-sky statements that were given. I hate to sound so pessimistic, but are we just getting snake oil here? Where’s the beef?
erm, I mean Constellation is way behind schedule. I was so angry that I did not check my previous post.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ February 4th, 2010 at 9:57 am
If even Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is not entirely happy with the new plan, then it is in serious trouble…
lol
the dynamics are that in the end three things are going to push the thing through…1) Ares/Constellation is floundering. Very shortly we are going to start getting stuff out of NASA that shows how over budget and behind schedule the thing is 2) before long the “sweetners” are coming out…ie the actual plan to drive the commercial launch (timetables money etc) and as we speak Boeing and Lockmart are starting to get the word “this is what you lobby for”. and it wont be Ares/Constellation 3) Obama is President and Nancy is speaker and they are tied together….the House leadership has never counted on folks like “Dana or Pete” as a vote and they dont now. All the space “representatives” have been caught in so many contradictions that their comments are useless. the POR needs 3 billion more and it isnt there.
There are some potential pitfalls and plus along the way. The biggest one is SpaceX. As we use to say in the old country “now would be a good time for this to work”.
If Musk gets Falcon9 off the ground and it goes bang…that is going to be a problem although it will happen early enough in the legislative cycle to be countered by either a second test flight that is a success or more bad news from The Vision (there is lots waiting to come out).
If SpaceX goes to orbit well then your viewpoint has died (I find it delicious that you must bet on a commercial company failing!)…the pictures will be grand, the dollars will come out (ie cost comparisions with Ares development operational cost) and the incredible “vision” will deflate just like the Iraq war reasons did.
enjoy the sausage.
Robert G. Oler
Jim D. wrote @ February 4th, 2010 at 10:07 am
The reality is their is no plan here..
it is coming remain calm Robert G. Oler
Based on NASA’s past efforts to “seed industry,” I predict they will spread whatever resources they have way too thin and no one will be able to integrate a capabilitiy to get the job done. The commercial guys have not demonstrated to date that they can play well together within their own commercial community.
Obama has laid down the gauntlet that he intends to radically remake Nasa into a market maker and private capitalists are expected to come up with all kinds of innovations to solve NASA’s age old problems of access to space, LEO or BEO. Clever. The big assumption is that NASA will be funded well enough to make a market. For 2 generations Government wanted human access to space and funded government owned rockets to get it done. Now Obama is saying the Government doesn’t value human access to space as much. Its ok to depend upon the Russians or commercial operators to get us there with no government backup needed. My guess is that once Congress concurs that human access to space isn’t so important to the government it will soon cease all funding to make this “market” that Obama has proposed. Because the Dems control the government for now, I expect Obama’s plan to be the law of the land this year, perhaps with small budget reductions. But next year will be different the steady cuts will start and Nasa will shrink to something we won’t recognize by 2014.
I wonder what will happen to the all the engineers who are let go? Will India offer them jobs? China then? Russia? There will be thousands of highly skilled engineers hitting the street soon. Might be a new market in the making.
Well the first step was to award several companies money to level the playing ground. I don’t think we should focus on a single commercial company that’s what we have done. NASA needs to excite, inspire and finance the commercial space industry as a whole and they took the first step on Monday.
There is a lots of good stuff in the budget but major change takes time. Bolden has the President’s ear and I trust him to do the right thing. I don’t think the long range goals have changed or even the short range goals. Constellation was a structure but it wasn’t the goals themselves and I think the media and others are reading into it. The Augustine report clearly said even if we got to the moon by 2020 we wouldn’t have the equipment to use on the moon. Another thing the commission stated was NASA’s overhead was way too high and that reducing this could add to the space exploration budget.
Which part of Ares is behind schedule? LMCO came out yesterday and said Orion could be ready by 2013-14, ATK’s 1st stage will be ready by 2013-14 as well. I’m not sure where the Upper Stage sits schedule wise but I’ve heard some issues with the J2-X. I agree Ares V has not started yet but that was planned as such.
I seriously don’t believe that Obama really cares enough about the manned space program to be really all that interested in it! In fact, he’s pretty much said nothing about the new direction.
I think this new direction is mostly Bolden’s idea. I don’t think Bolden wanted NASA to return to the Moon because he’s obsessed with going to Mars! I think Bolden was willing to support the Ares architecture if it could get astronauts to Mars. But he finally came to realize that it was impossible. Bolden pretty much said in Israel that there’s no way to protect astronauts from the dangers of radiation on a trip to and from Mars using our current technological know how.
That’s why he wants to focus on developing breakthrough technologies that could get astronauts to Mars much more quickly in order to mitigate the effects of galactic radiation. But I don’t think he ever liked to idea of returning to the Moon because he believes that we’ve already had that adventure already. That’s why he wants us to go to Mars for a brand new adventure!
But I don’t think space adventurism for an elite few is a good long term policy for our space program. We saw what happened towards the end of the Apollo program. People quickly lost interest because they realized that the Apollo program was not designed to pioneer and colonize the Moon but was merely an adventure for an elite few.
If we ever do go to the Moon again or to Mars, we need to go there to stay!
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ February 4th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
I think this new direction is mostly Bolden’s idea. I don’t think Bolden wanted NASA to return to the Moon because he’s obsessed with going to Mars! ..
OK on what do you base that conclusion? Just your viewpoint or do you have some sound basis in fact?
Do you know anything about Charlie or his history? Or are you just making this stuff up as you go?
Robert G. Oler
The battle here is (for what battle it is Obama is going to get his space policy)…between people who are satisfied with “what is” and those who think that we can do better.
(there are those folks whose job is at stake and that is a special case)
Robert G. Oler
@ Set it straight
NASA needs to continue funding the Orion, IMO. But NASA also need to focus on developing a shuttle derived Jupiter rocket. Both could be ready for manned spaceflight by 2015, IMO. In fact, their are rumors that NASA is capable of developing a Jupiter test flight by 2012. This would be give NASA alternate access to LEO if the private companies have problems developing their manned space crafts. This would also give us a heavy lift vehicle capable of at least placing 70 tonnes into orbit (100 tonnes to LEO with an upper stage).
Whether you’re for a return to the Moon or the Flexible Path, none of that is going to happen without a manned space vehicle capable of traveling beyond LEO.
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ February 4th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
again there is no data to support that analysis. “some people” have said a “Jupiter Direct” could be test flown by 2012.
When the guy came on a few days ago and made the statement that this was going to be part of the effort I was skeptical (and said so).
There is no evidence of NASA today being able to prototype and fly something that large that fast…and there is far to much “spade work” to do to get to the point where NASA can manage any kind of prototyping at all.
Sorry…isnt going to happen.
Robert G. Oler
@ Robert G. Oler
So far, all I’ve ever heard Bolden talk about was going to Mars and how great it would be to go to Mars and how he wished he could go to Mars and maybe he might be too old to go to Mars. But I never heard him talk about the wonders of returning to the Moon or establishing a Moon base.
Here’s one example of what I’m talking about in a video interview in Israel:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/135739
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ February 4th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
@ Robert G. Oler
So far, all I’ve ever heard Bolden talk about was going to Mars and how great it would be to go to Mars and how he wished he could go to Mars and maybe he might be too old to go to Mars…
LOL well you need to get deeper. And you dont seem to understand politics.
A few realities
The US, which has the best space technology the world has seen …and has the deep pockets (even though we are printing that money) is SO FAR from going to Mars and going back to the Moon to stay…that if one is remotly informed of the challenges it simply boggles the mind.
I think Mars is a great goal and someday unless either the religious nuts of any of the political movements on the planet win and start us into some sort of theocratic period in our history (and this could as much be the Taliban as it is the religious right in the US) at some point we are going to get there.
But to even think of it as a goal with a timetable is nuts. Not even “the program of record” makes the claim that it could keep people on the Moon in a manner like ISS…the technology is just so far fetched now…It is about like the Vikings trying to settle the new world…they didnt have the technology nor the wealth, neither do we.
But to the point. Charlie is much more a “fixer” then anything else. You really need to go review his tenure as XO of the USNA. spend sometime understanding what he did there and why the USN picked him to do that task…and you will understand what is coming at NASA.
Robert G. Oler
@ Set it straight wrote:
“Which part of Ares is behind schedule? LMCO came out yesterday and said Orion could be ready by 2013-14, ATK’s 1st stage will be ready by 2013-14 as well. I’m not sure where the Upper Stage sits schedule wise but I’ve heard some issues with the J2-X. I agree Ares V has not started yet but that was planned as such.”
J-2X is on schedule.
Jupiter is another can of worms. Where is the analysis a crewed version might work???? Where?
“LMCO came out yesterday and said Orion could be ready by 2013-14″
FYI, LM’s estimate of 2013 is based on analysis that shows with some “streamlining” of the processes we can have Orion ready by 2013 for ISS crew support (no lunar, which doesn’t really matter now anyway). The most significant “streamlining” is, to be perfectly blunt, NASA “backing off” and not giving us more “oversight” then we know what to do with. In other words, without NASA constantly changing or adding/ deleting requirements and just letting LM get on with the job at hand, we could get a vehicle ready for flight by then (in theory).
Also, it’s probable that the press release is somewhat of a posturing effort by LM. Either to try and help drum up support for Orion, or failing that to position us to say that we can get a “commercial” CEV that is fully man-rated and ready to transport astronauts up and running by 2013. If you don’t think LM will try and compete for some of that $6 billion dollars over the next 5 years for commercial crew, think again.
There are two companies in Arizona that will benefit from the commercial focus: Paragon and Orbital. There’s also a growing aerospace sector in and around the Phoenix area.
Orbital’s COTS program is based in Dulles, VA, not Chandler, AZ. It’s unlikely their commercial crew efforts will produce very many, if any jobs in AZ. Sorry.
It does not matter whether LMT can come up with a ISS Orion. The contract is being cancelled. If NASA wants to open a new contract they’ll have to do it with an RFI/RFP and the competing bid thing. I doubt they will sole source to LMT. LMT has received tons of cash for the former Orion, how do they plan to bid a new procurement? Using what has already been done on CEV/Orion vs. everyone else who did not get any government cash? Hmm. Doubt it.
“It does not matter whether LMT can come up with a ISS Orion. The contract is being cancelled.”
Technically no-one’s said the big bad “c” word yet. Since the 2010 appropriations bill included language that requires congressional approval before any changes are made to constellation, they can’t use the words cancellation, or termination, or any other synonym at this point. Although the end result, if the 2011 budget proposal makes it through congress unchanged, is the same.
“If NASA wants to open a new contract they’ll have to do it with an RFI/RFP and the competing bid thing”
Yes that’s true, but unless the RFI/ RFP forbids LM (or any other former constellation contractor for that matter) from bidding on it, there’s not much they can do to stop them (more on that in a minute).
“…how do they plan to bid a new procurement? Using what has already been done on CEV/Orion vs. everyone else who did not get any government cash? Hmm. Doubt it.”
The issue you’re getting at here is a legitimate concern as far as who owns the “data rights” to what LM has developed. Certainly NASA could and probably will claim that any technology LM has developed using government money belongs to them. But that really just means that anyone who wants to use that technology would have to license it from NASA, that includes interestingly enough LM. They would, in a strange kind of twist, license technology from NASA that they helped develop in the first place using NASA’s money.
Also, there are some IRAD projects and other things that LM has developed for CEV using their own capital and they will own the rights to that. The engineering development lab, which is a tested for Avionics and flight software is an example of the latter. An example of the former would probably be the heat shield.
It’s possible that should LM decide to compete they may have to redesign some elements of their “commercialized” CEV due to the data rights issues I described, but unless NASA bars them from bidding on it, there’s really no major showstoppers to keep them from it. Free enterprise and all that…
We shall see how they, LMT and NASA, go about it then. I suspect a lot of opposition, not only from the little guys but also from the big ones…
As to the big bad c-word, do you really think they will backtrack on this one? Do you?
So if Upper Stage is on schedule, where does the reported 2017-2018 1st flight come from? Is the date based on bad assumptions? These dates make no sense!
“Technically no-one’s said the big bad “c†word yet. Since the 2010 appropriations bill included language that requires congressional approval before any changes are made to constellation, they can’t use the words cancellation, or termination, or any other synonym at this point. Although the end result, if the 2011 budget proposal makes it through congress unchanged, is the same.”
Actually, that’s not true. It wasn’t the bill that included that language, but the report language that went along with it. The bill language is public law. The report language is not. The report language just conveys the sense of Congress, and the agency is not legally bound to obey it. Now, they usually do, because it isn’t nice to bite the hand that feeds you, but it has happened before, especially when there are what one might call extenuating circumstances.
If NASA gauges enough congressional support for a new plan, they may just blow off this piece of the FY10 report language. Now that would be bold.
“As to the big bad c-word, do you really think they will backtrack on this one? Do you?”
I’ll put it this way, I’ve already updated my resume
@Doug
Do you have a link to support that? I wouldn’t mind having that; some of the higher ups of the Orion program at LM seem to think that what I said earlier is true, but it seems that’s maybe not the case.
@ Set it straight
“On schedule” is somewhat open to interpretation. According to NASA’s original schedule the first flight was supposed to happen in 2013. Then 2014, then 2015, then 2016 (see a pattern here). The Augustine committee used 2017 because of NASA’s poor track record on getting anything done “on schedule”.
The Obama plan seems basically to end manned space at least that which isn’t dependent on the Russians. Basically scrap the entire Constellation Program just because it was started under Bush. The let’s see what we can do with $19 billion per year. Stupid.
The is no reason to cancel the Orion vehicle at all. What are these commercial companies going to use to transport people to the ISS? The idea that it would be cheaper to have them start from a clean sheet of paper to get into orbit in three years or five years? There is no way that is going to work.
There is nothing about the Constellation elements that is only useful for a moon mission save for the Altair lander. If we can’t afford the whole deal why not build the Orion and the Aries I while postponing the rest for now. This would support continued ISS operations (a stated Obama Adminstration goal) at an afford able cost. Cancellation would waste the $9 billion invested with no return.
The orginal plan was for first flight in 2012 and after award LMT even claiming a possible flight in 2011. Page 3 at http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/aw091106p2.xml
“Under Lockheed Martin’s proposal an Orion could be ready for its first flight with a crew as early as mid-2011, less than two years after the space shuttle fleet is scheduled to retire for good. But the actual date will depend on completion of the J-2X engine that will power the Ares I upper stage (AW&ST Aug. 14, p. 28). Hatfield says that won’t come before sometime in 2012 and will depend on the budget available to develop the upgrade of an old Saturn V upper-stage engine. “
Loki, btw, where does Orion stand today when compared to LMT original proposal?…
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3819353.html
Lockheed Martin says in their press release:
We are keenly disappointed in the Administration’s budget proposal for NASA that would cancel Project Orion as part of an elimination of NASA’s Constellation Program. Orion’s maturity is evident in its readiness for a first test flight in a matter of weeks. In fact, Orion can be ready for crewed flights to low Earth orbit and other exploration missions as early as 2013, thus narrowing the gap in U.S. human space flight capability when the shuttle is retired later this year.
“Do you have a link to support that? I wouldn’t mind having that; some of the higher ups of the Orion program at LM seem to think that what I said earlier is true, but it seems that’s maybe not the case.”
Look, this is about Space Politics. That’s space politics. That’s the way the government works. Take a civics class. I wish more space advocates would take a civics class.
Or just read http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-558.pdf
wherein you will find
“Significantly, report language and managers’ statements do not have statutory force, departments and agencies are not legally bound by their declarations. These documents do, however, explain congressional intent, and executive branch agencies take them seriously because they must justify their budget requests annually to the Appropriations Committees.”
Groan.
According to LM’s press release, 2013.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2010/02_03_Orion.html
That’s assuming that some of the “streamlining” initiatives I alluded to earlier are put into place. Apparently LM management has been looking into those things since May at least (so it’s safe to say they saw the writing on the wall at least as far back as then). I think that date’s also contingent on continued funding, obviously (don’t know if it would require an increase or not).
I’m beginning to think that this new NASA plan is DOA. They are going to get skewered in hearing as this goes forward. The absurdity of this is the idea that these up start space companies can put together a space transportation system in short order.
John: “The Obama plan seems basically to end manned space at least that which isn’t dependent on the Russians.”
No, per the Augustine Committee, Ares/Orion would be ready to support the ISS by about 2017-2019. Commercial transport would be ready to support the ISS by about 2016 in the pessimistic case. Compared to Ares/Orion, that shrinks the Ares I “U.S. HSF gap” and thus dependence on Russia, in spite of Griffin not funding commercial crew for all of the years he should have in parallel with Constellation. Plus, there would be multiple providers under the commercial option, meaning independence from Russia is more robust under the commercial option once it is up and running. Not only that, but we could afford to keep the ISS running long enough to actually support it with the U.S. crew transport services instead of having to dump it in the ocean by 2015. Don’t blame the commercial approach for the HSF gap largely caused by Ares I.
John: “Basically scrap the entire Constellation Program just because it was started under Bush.”
That’s not why Constellation is being scrapped.
In fact, Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration has a lot in common with the current proposal – much more than Constellation does. The VSE and the current proposal both include NASA acquiring commercial launch services including crew transport, overall strong commercial participation, strong international participation, a strong precursor robotics effort (LRO/LCROSS are a good start but not enough by far), an emphasis on new innovative technologies (Griffin actually cut most of what was there instead of expanding it), a sustainable program, and ways to return economic, security, and science benefits (instead of trashing those interests as Griffin and Constellation did).
John: “The is no reason to cancel the Orion vehicle at all.”
I have a certain amount of sympathy there, since Orion seems to have been afflicted with Ares I changes more than anything, but I can also see the reason the decision was made.
John: “What are these commercial companies going to use to transport people to the ISS? The idea that it would be cheaper to have them start from a clean sheet of paper to get into orbit in three years or five years? There is no way that is going to work.”
I wonder if someone is going to pitch something like Orion in the commercial competition. I don’t see why that couldn’t happen. Let Orion stand or fall on its own merits in competition.
Note that ISS support is not as difficult as Orion’s requirements, so other commercial suppliers may (or may not) be able to move faster than an Orion-based competititor. Let the proposals and competition speak for themselves. In addition, some commercial vendors may not be starting from scratch.
John: “If we can’t afford the whole deal why not build the Orion and the Aries I while postponing the rest for now.”
That’s approximately what NASA has already been doing, and it’s still too expensive. It still results in ISS in the ocean in 2015, a late Ares I/Orion with nowhere to go, no technology development effort, and constant budget pressure on NASA’s Science and Aeronautics work.
John: “This would support continued ISS operations (a stated Obama Adminstration goal) at an afford able cost.”
No it wouldn’t – according to the Augustine Committee report. It wouldn’t support the ISS in the schedule, and it wouldn’t be affordable enough to allow ISS operations anyway.
John: “Cancellation would waste the $9 billion invested with no return.”
Personally, I’ve written off the Constellation effort, or at least the Ares rockets, as a waste since about this time in 2006. I didn’t see much chance of them surviving the various budget, political, management, schedule, and technical problems that were sure to hit them. Nothing I’ve seen over the years has changed that assessment. It’s a waste, but it’s a sunk cost. We can’t get the $9 billion back by dumping $100 billion more down the drain. We should just look at where we are and make the best decisions based on that.
@ Doug
What I meant was that I was under the impression that the language in question (that congress must approve any changes to constellation) was in the BILL ITSELF not the REPORT. Yes, I know the difference between a bill and a report, I’m not a moron. I had not read the bill in its entirety because I have better things to do with my time then read 1000’s of pages of congressional diarrhea.
I’d appreciate if you would not be so condescending. All I was asking was a simple question because, I re-iterate, I thought the language in question was in the BILL not the REPORT, which obviously makes a huge difference in what can and cannot transpire.
Who really says that this Augustine date is right anyway? I tend to dismiss this as just an Obama excuse to cancel a Bush program rather than an objective study. What we need to do is to keep the Ares I on schedule. Since there is no technology push this should be possible. The whole thing is a sad show but it is better than ending the entire manned space program.
Where do you get the $100 billion number? The Ares I should be fairly affordable. It’s just an extended shuttle SRB with a modest LH2/LOX upper stage. The real expense is in the Ares V and the Altair.
“I’d appreciate if you would not be so condescending. All I was asking was a simple question because, I re-iterate, I thought the language in question was in the BILL not the REPORT, which obviously makes a huge difference in what can and cannot transpire.”
You did not, in fact, refer to the report in your post. Thats why I didn’t know you understood the distinction. Many people don’t.
Excuse my exasperation, but in this Space Politics forum, there are many people who are clueless about politics, and quite a few who are also clueless about space.
red:
That’s approximately what NASA has already been doing, and it’s still too expensive. It still results in ISS in the ocean in 2015, a late Ares I/Orion with nowhere to go, no technology development effort, and constant budget pressure on NASA’s Science and Aeronautics work.
My thought is if we really are going to do all of this gee whiz stuff about fly to Mars in weeks like Bolden was saying then we are going to need to do a lot of R&D first. So if we are giving up Constellation why not just keep the space shuttle flying for another decade while these great developments are underway. That way we can keep the ISS in the meantime with credible program. Only give up the shuttle when a replacement has been proven by test flight.
Lassiter is correct. The report language is not binding. But agencies generally follow it as they don’t want to upset their appropriators. The clear exception is when having to choose between the President, who they work for, and the appropriators. In this case, NASA will implement the President’s orders.
NOTE: This is similar in nature to a line item veto. The Congress tells the President that it wants the President to do something and the President exercises the ability to say “No” in a narrowly defined way.
BTW, remember the F-22?
Some very powerful congressional appropriators wanted to keep the F-22 going to. The President terminated the program, and when Congress made noises about over-ruling the President, the President threatened a veto of the entire DOD appropriations bill. The President won.
I suspect that the President thinks of Constellation in a manner similar to the F-22. Something he is willing to go to the mat for.
Some other considerations.
1) Mikulski and GSFC do great in this budget. (He has bought off Babs.)
2) Mollihan made sounds as never being that enthusiastic about Constellation. (Mollihan is likely to go along.)
This means that the Chairs of the respective Appropriations subcommittees are unlikely to want to fight on this subject.
Meanwhile, Shelby is fighting a losing battle. Rahm Emanuel will paint the Republican from Alabama as the big government program supporter, and the President as being the pro-free-enterprise supporter. The Republicans (excepting those few from NASA Centers) will not support Shelby. In fact, the more attention this issue gets, the less they will like it. They will want it to go away. All the President needs to do is point out that the Republicans say that they want him to cut spending on big government programs, but when he does, the Republicans are not willing to support him. Perhaps a talking point at his next discussion at the the Republican caucus meeting in a couple months?
In addition, the Democratic leadership (Pelosi & Reid) is going to want to give the President his way. They have bigger priorities than fighting over spending on NASA. This is not going to be an issue they want to fight the President over. In fact, Reid is from Nevada, which is in Bigelow’s state. Anybody care to guess what Bob Bigelow is telling the Senate Majority Leader?
In this environment, particularly where the President is willing to go to a mat, the President and Bolden will win.
FWIW,
– Al
PS — All the sturm & drang from the NON-appropriators is just a show for their constituents. They know that they lose this fight if the President has truly made up his mind. But they need to put on a huge show for the constituents back home or risk losing the next election.
John wrote @ February 4th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
“What are these commercial companies going to use to transport people to the ISS? The idea that it would be cheaper to have them start from a clean sheet of paper to get into orbit in three years or five years? There is no way that is going to work.”
SpaceX will use its 7-person Dragon capsule to transport people to the ISS. It has been under development ever since 2006. The Dragon is being designed as both a cargo transport and a fully human-rated crew transport. By the time SpaceX is ready to start flying personnel it will have already flown many cargo resupply flights to the ISS under the Cargo Resupply Services Agreement of December 2008.
Sierra Nevada’s Dream Chaser craft has been in development even longer, although I doubt that they are as far along as SpaceX. But I could be wrong.
Either way, these two companies, at least, are far beyond the “clean sheet of paper” stage.
I agree with you though that the Orion should not be cancelled. It is being designed for the purpose of deep space exploration, something that none of the LEO transport vehicles will be capable of.
Al:
I think the analogy with F-22 is false. First, the Air Force had been lobotomized and it’s leadership put in the hands of cargo pilot. Second, the JCS was staffed 4 to 2 by Naval Department officers and only one AF guy. Three, the prime contractor was very conflicted because they had the largest defense contract ever on the line, i.e. the F-35 and were offered equal money in the budget. Four, the other big contractor had two large priorities the tanker and the C-17. Finally, McCain led the Republicans against it for his own warped reasons.
This is different. The elements of Constellation are to the main players. McCain may go against Obama to increase his chances of winning his primary challenge. And, this is the end of the U.S. Space Program if it happens. The low-cost commercial alternative is not real.
Curtis Quick wrote @ February 4th, 2010 at 11:06 am
“Would we not be much more convinced of the veraccity of this new vision for space exploration if on Monday Mr. Bolden had announced boldly that the administratin was putting real money where it’s mouth was and offering a prize of $2 billion to the first commercial outfit that could demonstrate a commercially viable crewed launch capability? (Of course, the “prize†might have to be in the form of a guaranteed contract for $2billion in launch service purchased by uncle sam from the winning company, but you get my drift.)”
NASA has already awarded the $3.5 billion Commercial Resupply Services contract to both SpaceX and Orbital Sciences. This contract was negotiated back in December of 2008. That’s about 20 or so flights to fly cargo to the ISS beginning in the next year or so.
“So if we are giving up Constellation why not just keep the space shuttle flying for another decade while these great developments are underway.”
After the last shuttle accident it was determined that the shuttle fleet would be to be recertified if it was going to fly past 2010. That is why that year was choosen for retirement. The cost and time it would take to recertify would be a huge waste of time and money. The whole reason to FINALLY get commercial space operations going is so when nasa has to stop flying for ANY reason, america still has MULTIPLE domestic options for for LEO access.
Everytime the president changes or an accident occurs, nasa invariable goes through a change and slowdown of operations as each president tries for some new legacy move. It is time for America to stop having politicians and there constant turf battles hold up space access for all americans and commercial operations.
The reason no one can make a business case for anything requiring manned flight supplied by nasa is that NASA is a roadblock instead of an enablier.
Obama is clearly trying to destroy the space program. Look at it this way. Obama wants the government to take over health care. He only gave up the “public option” when he could even get his fellow partisans to support it. He is trying to reduce contractors roles in defense support by bring it back in house. He even took over two of the three domestic car companies. But, the one thing he will leave to the private sector is space exploration! Doesn’t seem in line with anything he wants to succeed?
I want to destory NASA and then when the private sector fails it is all over for space. Then the money can be wasted on domestic programs to buy votes. The worst president ever!
John – do you need to take some medication?
Vladislaw – great to see you back
John wrote @ February 4th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
Al:
I think the analogy with F-22 is false. First, the Air Force had been lobotomized and it’s leadership put in the hands of cargo pilot..
what a ridiculous statement.
The F22 went away for a lot of reasons but the first one was the killer…it had no reason for being.
EVerytime an F22 was built what that meant was X number of F-15’s were retired AND worse all the dollars that went into the F22 were not available for those who are fighting “the war”. In the end folks decided that the people who were fighting the war needed the money worse.
The F22 is analogous to the Ares/Constellation in that there is no reason for Ares 1 or even Orion really.
Robert G. Oler
Robert:
“The F22 went away for a lot of reasons but the first one was the killer…it had no reason for being.”
That’s is rediculous. The F-22 is the best fighter in the world. The old F-15s are wearing out and will be retired anyway. It also is the best defense suppression aircraft all in one. The problem is that we won’t have a replacement in production for 30 years. So the small quantity that we have will get smaller with peacetime attrition, etc.
“The F22 is analogous to the Ares/Constellation in that there is no reason for Ares 1 or even Orion really.”
What an absurd statement. I’ll support the Ares or Orion was the only way to save manned space until we get out of the current political/economic down turn. They aren’t nearly as good spacecraft field as the F-22 is as a figher plane. What we really need is a scramjet powered SSTO spaceplane but we have had to been following the right policies for the past 20 years to have that. We didn’t!
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Private_industry_in_space_a_risky_slow_business_experts_999.html
Obama – IS THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER. History will judge him.
Thank you Ferris,
A long illness, still taking it slow, I am only allowed to read space blogs for 60 minutes or my blood pressure starts to rise. ( smiles )
“and then when the private sector fails it is all over for space.” – John
Are are you honestly going to try and argue that american aerospace engineers, out side of NASA, are to stupid to build a rocket and capsule?
That Boeing, after 40 years of manned flight, couldn’t put together a rocket and capsule for LEO?
American aerospace workets and industries, are to ignorant, to dumb, just plain to damn stupid to do that? America is that far gone? American business couldnt even … somehow… cobble together a 1960’s era soviet rocket and capsule?
okay john, the floor is yours, explain to everyone .. just exactly how stupid american commerical aerospace is that it would be impossible for them to build a rocket and capsule for low earth orbit only.
I am not at liberty to discuss but “The F-22 is the best fighter in the world”
is only dependent on the ‘”best space assets in the world” however you interpret it.
Otherwise, it is a fragile, extremely expensive aircraft with low firepower and extreme training for the pilots…. It is a crap expensive plane that only fits an empire.
I’d go back to the solid F18s/16s in our budgetary requirements.
Vladislaw: “It is time for America to stop having politicians and there constant turf battles hold up space access for all americans and commercial operations.”
Absolutely. And since the only mechanism for government spending passes through two branches of government just crammed with (gasp) politicians, you’re calling for either
(1) an end to all government spending on space access: NASA programs, NASA fee-for-service payments to commercial providers, the works.
or
(2) a constitutional amendment mandating $n in government spending on space access, unchangeable by either Presidents or Congress.
Right? Just wanted to make sure I understand your PoV. Or else to get some entertainment watching the wriggles and redefinitions.
“What we really need is a scramjet powered SSTO spaceplane.”
And a pony with rainbow sparkles in its mane. Don’t forget the pony.
Wow! What a debate. What make sense is to extend the Space Shuttle to keep support for the ISS and other missions. That would be lowest program risk with acceptable risks to the astronauts. This would give us time to allow other developments to occur. Since commercial concerns are developing unmanned supply vehicles, let’s have them demonstrate some performace before we have them take over human space flight. This would also solve a lot of the political problems of the congressional supporters of Constellation in that many of the same facilities would support the continued Shuttle operations.
There are only so many ET tanks for one. Only so many SSMEs ready to go… And it is not a constant production line…
Maybe its me but I’m just not seeing why all the predictions of doom and gloom. obvious the current way doesn’t work so maybe it is time to try something else.
But I just don’t understand, maybe someone can explain it.
Nasa doesn’t build spacecraft, never did. Nasa puts together an rfp with the basic requirements it needs. multiple vendors bid on these, Nasa accepts a bid (not always the lowest) and indeally enters into a fixed priced contract with the vendor. Say ATK. (we won’t factor in overruns here, technically fixed priced contracts shouldn’t have these but they do).
The vendor delivers the product to Nasa.
Nasa provides its own facilities for launch and support.
So how might this work in this new world.
From what I’ve been reading…
Nasa puts together an rfp for its basic requirements, station cargo and crew for instance.
The rfp goes to multiple vendors. The rfp now has additional line items ie. launch and maintenance costs.
Companies bid, a bid is selected , or multiple bids. ie dreamchaser, dragon etc.
At least in the early stages of the transition the government provides seed money to these companies. My guess is the seed money is going to small at first, but when reality hits about the rediness of these third party vendors it going to be more likely a billion or more.
Anyway, the Dreamchaser to use an example is delivered to nasa for testing after undergoing initial testing by the vendor. if satisfied NASA contracts for the service. (here’s the difference, NASA does not take ownership of the vehilcle it remains with the vendor)
Launch and support
I’m assuming dreamchaser (I use that an example because its the one positive elememt that comes out of this new plan, an actual reuseable vehicle, wow). Would be launched on an Atlas V heavy, it seems unlikely any of these companies are going to build there own launch facilities. And it seems from the news conferance that at least initially foriegn launch providers ie. russia , ariane Space will not be able to bid.
So the vendor goes back to NASA and leases facilities, and possibly support personal .
So again not a huge difference.
Some have pointed out this has been tried before, not really so, as far as I know this is the first time that some real money is being thrown ito the effort.
If this plan is going to save money its going to be later on , not initially, once these companies can develop a track record and services which they post bids on. Initially I think its not going to look all that different than it does now. Just my opinion.
I oftened wondered what would happen if NASA was allowed to continue with project prometheus, largely as originally conceived it was underfunded and ill conceived. But a better funded program may of involved into something interesting. What will come on expanded research into ion tech, deepspace I erc. mini magnetoplasa research, these are all programs that would of been dropped because the aries was draining all research money.
The bigger issue , no one addresses, it that space funding should be provided in a way that does not need to be reappropiated every year.
So let’s see. Augustine Commission argues for Commercial Crew to ISS even though ESMD was paying for COTS-C and had just asked for COTS-D (Crew) proposals. Members of Commission had ownership ties to XCor and Almaz which lost in COTS, however they were vetted and considered OCI free. HSF commission contracts Aerospace Corp. to do cost and schedule assessments on an entire government agency multi decade program as if they were a ‘prime contractor’ something which they have never done before. Aerospace Team who show rosy numbers for commercial crew are also owners of Paragon Aerospace who just won CCDEV. I wonder if Aerospace team members were screened for OCI before they produced all this ‘data’ that is now being used to determine National Human Spaceflight Policy…..
John wrote @ February 5th, 2010 at 1:00 am
Robert:
“The F22 went away for a lot of reasons but the first one was the killer…it had no reason for being.â€
That’s is rediculous. The F-22 is the best fighter in the world….
not really.
Being “the best fighter plane in the world” is not all that great when 1) one cannot afford them and 2) the current group of “fighter planes” are more then capable of dealing with the opposition and expected opposition.
The absurdity of the F 22 is seen everything the USAF releases a picture of one intercepting a Russian Bomber. I love the picture of an airplane built before I was born, that is barely more capable then an F 100 or 86 or even Arbusto’s old F102 being intercepted by an airplane that cost about as much as the entire squadron of Russian bombers.
The F22 is an Ares in all respects. To expensive, to narrow purposed, a bad commitment of manpower/assets.
There were alternatives to the F22 and how to transition from the current crop of fighters to something else…the decision makers made the wrong ones
Robert G. Oler
Space Shuttle Man wrote @ February 5th, 2010 at 7:27 am
Wow! What a debate. What make sense is to extend the Space Shuttle to keep support for the ISS and other missions. ..
then there is no money…
Robert G. Oler
The bigger issue , no one addresses, it that space funding should be provided in a way that does not need to be reappropiated every year…
everything else in the US government is …why should space be different
Robert G. Oler
“Being “the best fighter plane in the world†is not all that great when 1) one cannot afford them and 2) the current group of “fighter planes†are more then capable of dealing with the opposition and expected opposition.”
The F-22 isn’t all that expensive in a marginal unit cost sense, i.e. $150 million each. The existing planes are old and need to be replaced in the next decade or so. Also, what about there performance against the latest Russian SAMs which are being exported?
Anyway the only point of the F-22 was to illustrate the asymmetry in the political situation. If it had been for the fact that the key players in the F-22 debate all had higher priorities in the military aircraft field that would have turned out dfferent. This isn’t the case with Constellation. This is the big guys against the upstarts. It isn’t being well recieved in Congress and Bolden is no Gates either.
sendtomars:
I think you have the right idea that the alternative look really good on powerpoint but wait until they need to produce. Constellation was going to super in the beginning too. My point it to follow through on our investment rather than throw a fit and start again.
I think it amazing that in every other area Obama is increasing the government footprint but here he wants to reduce it. I think it is a trick to destroy human spaceflight which a welfare advocote he see as a waste.
I just wanted to mention that I’m not posting as John.
I agree that this is not doom and gloom for NASA and it could be the start of something great. I would be really suprised if Lockheed didn’t come up with something to compete in the new plan (Super COTS?). Boeing already has a plan and if Lockheed is smart they are working on one internally. I’m sure none of the engineers would leak that information.
It seems to me that if NASA can refocus on other things and leverage money from the commercial industury, they have a lot more money available for HSF in the long run.
I now agree that Ares was a mistake because our congress never backed it. After the Shuttle fiasco to use it for all American unmanned rockets failed miserly, the unmanned rocket has thrived but I think it’s still cost plus contracts. I think the approch for ISS cargo should be applied to both ISS crew and HLV. Congress could have funded a replacement for Shuttle and COTS years ago but they didn’t and now we are in a mess.
“Absolutely. And since the only mechanism for government spending passes through two branches of government just crammed with (gasp) politicians, you’re calling for either
(1) an end to all government spending on space access: NASA programs, NASA fee-for-service payments to commercial providers, the works.
or
(2) a constitutional amendment mandating $n in government spending on space access, unchangeable by either Presidents or Congress.
Right? Just wanted to make sure I understand your PoV. Or else to get some entertainment watching the wriggles and redefinitions.” + Absolutely. And since the only mechanism for government spending passes through two branches of government just crammed with (gasp) politicians, you’re calling for either
(1) an end to all government spending on space access: NASA programs, NASA fee-for-service payments to commercial providers, the works.
or
(2) a constitutional amendment mandating $n in government spending on space access, unchangeable by either Presidents or Congress.
Right? Just wanted to make sure I understand your PoV. Or else to get some entertainment watching the wriggles and redefinitions.
“Absolutely. And since the only mechanism for government spending passes through two branches of government just crammed with (gasp) politicians, you’re calling for either
(1) an end to all government spending on space access: NASA programs, NASA fee-for-service payments to commercial providers, the works.
or
(2) a constitutional amendment mandating $n in government spending on space access, unchangeable by either Presidents or Congress.
Right? Just wanted to make sure I understand your PoV. Or else to get some entertainment watching the wriggles and redefinitions” – Monte Davis
No, I want NASA to follow their orders, the space act of 1958 says use commerical, nixon in 72 said use more commerical, reagan in 1984 said use more commerical, clinton in 1998 said use more commercial, bush in 2004 said use more commerical. and obama in 2010 said use more commercial… what i am waiting for is NASA astronauts buying commercial tickets to leo when one of their vehicles go down, or a program changes because of politics.
Instead of having artificial “gaps” created then political games about who’s fault it is. ISS will need a crew and their is not a logical reason why commerical companies can’t handle that.
“Members of Commission had ownership ties to XCor and Almaz which lost in COTS”
XCOR (caps, not lowercase) is suborbital, not orbital. They’ve never competed for COTS.
Excalibur Almaz (full name of the company, not the old Russian vehicle) is offering Almaz mission for research missions, not cargo transport. They make a big deal about not having to dock with another vehicle (like ISS) to carry out experiments. They’ve never competed for COTS.
Don’t post lies.
FWIW…
John wrote @ February 5th, 2010 at 11:11 am
the “marginal cost” are what one gets down to when it is the last thing one can argue…it is like “we have to keep Ares to keep large solids, it is a national security matter”.
Your comment implied or stated take your pick that the F22 ran into trouble because the USAF is now run by cargo plane pilots And the undue influence of Naval officers.
Both of those things are bogus, as is the concept of “marginal cost”.
The F 22 is enormously expensive even at the edge of “Marginal cost” and those cost only get the airplane, they dont get the life cycle cost of the vehicle, nor any other cost. It is an incredibly expensive airplane with little or no mission.
As it stands right now there is zero chance that we will go into battle against Russians and I would suggest near zero chance that we would go into battle against the PL Air Force (or Army) …and I dont care if you imported Akula class subs to say Iran…it is not the weapon system that makes the armed force it is the armed force that makes the weapon system. Here is a thing. You take any non PLA or Russian air arm in the world, I will take any of the jet flying air arms of the US military or the Air Force…and at the end of it no matter what “your” country is flying or shooting…I will emerge victorious. And I’ll leave the F22’s parked. and I wont come with any more planes then you have.
If you doubt that then you are not following reality. Hence there is no need for the F-22…
as there is no need for Ares. We can do right now for a far cheaper price man rating (with reasonable human rating standards not the junk NASA pushes out) an Atlas or Delta, then we can finish building Ares…and that doesnt even come close to flying it.
Everything else supporting Ares is “marginal arguments”.
Robert G. Oler
“as there is no need for Ares. We can do right now for a far cheaper price man rating (with reasonable human rating standards not the junk NASA pushes out) an Atlas or Delta, then we can finish building Ares…and that doesnt even come close to flying it.”
If NASA is the only company willing to pay for development cost of a commercial rocket (since no company would be strategically wise to build something on their own dime for (assuming) 1 customer (unless costs were so low that a normal person could afford it), let alone multiple companies willing to do this for a chance at one customer) they would have the leverage to put onto commercial companies their standards of design, qualification, safety margins, LOV numbers, etc… What this will turn into is exactly what is happening today minus the oversight NASA has at the vehicle management level (which will likely cost more at a commercial company since wages are in general more than what the government pays). Then, you have to put profit on the whole thing where NASA doesn’t… Costs will go up not down! Atlas or Delta will have to be redesigned to the NASA standards and loads to put onto a manned capsule on it… Oh look now! A complete redesign and assessment! That translates into longer schedules and “gap”. Remember, EELV was based on military requirements for cargo only.
Set it straight wrote @ February 5th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
but this is/has to be part of the “fix”. The reality is that most of the requirements for human spaceflight are arbitrary set down by an agency/group which 1) killed 14 astronauts by its incompetence and lost two vehicles and 2) had zero concerns about cost.
that they managed to blow up two shuttles in an operation that never met a cost figure it couldnt exceed is always somewhat frustrating to me…but what is needed is in my view some review board which is composed of people from “the real world” ie ones where things have to be accomplished…and they set the levels of safety needed for the vehicle ie the various abort criteria.
For NASA to talk about how “abort modes” are needed when LOV ends all abort modes in the orbiter is to me silly. Plus I guess I am not convinced that a LES (launch escape system) can be built (or should be) for all launch phase possibilities.
Gemini comes to mind. That level of risk strikes me as “doable”
Robert G. Oler
But, how do you get around the fact that there is 1 customer willing to put money into something that will dictate requirements?
Also, because safety is such a concern for NASA, if a safety group is created to create the safety levels and regulatory documentation, then there will be at a minimum 2 year debate, requirements creation and approval time frame. Then you have to have a regulatory group monitor that system just like the FAA does for commercial aircraft.
This approach at this time (because no foundation currently exists will delay commercial (man-rated) rockets for an unknown amount of time. There will ALWAYS be some form of government oversight. The cost of space flight will not go down. It will just be spread around (commercial and government entities) and increased just like the aviation business.
“As it stands right now there is zero chance that we will go into battle against Russians and I would suggest near zero chance that we would go into battle against the PL Air Force (or Army)”
No prudent strategist would make that assumption over a thirty year time frame. Being prepared for this is the best way to insure that it won’t happen.
“I just wanted to mention that I’m not posting as John.”
You don’t want to be mistaken for the smartest man on the board, huh?
Cheap alternative advocates:
The point is that your systems are a complete dead end. Ares I and Orion are foot in the door to the possibility of expanding to the full Constellation Program later once the current economic down turn is over and the current president is back to community organizing.
Exactly John. Ares is a platform to get Astronauts into space. The first stage is the lowest cost / thrust engine out there. Constellation doesn’t need to be fully funded at this point in my mind. Let’s focus on safety/reliablility and just having the ability to get people into space without depending on foreign countries. That’s a feather in the cap so to speak. Ares architecture (I/V) can do the flexible path and anything else this other pony show is promising.
John wrote @ February 5th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
“As it stands right now there is zero chance that we will go into battle against Russians and I would suggest near zero chance that we would go into battle against the PL Air Force (or Army)â€
No prudent strategist would make that assumption over a thirty year time frame..
sure they would.
particularly when making that assumption meant that actual problems related to actual combat were being pushed aside…
The F-22 (and F-35 and a lot of other “systems” ) illustrate what is wrong with American procurement…as one Marine said in frustration over the Lockheed combat vehicle “If you want to stop AQ dead in their tracks, give them our procurement system”
The F-22 (and others) are projects that go on so long that as they are going on, the requirements change out from under them. Now I would argue when the F22 started that one could make a legitimate question as to its need (the need was to moderinze F15 and at the time F14 systems). Instead we have a multi decade program that has lost all relevance to the issues that it started on.
There is no chance that we will be engaged in a conventional shooting war with the PRC or Russia that would require the F22.. we do need F-35’s simply because if the naval version of that aircraft does not come, well there is no use in building any more flattops.
Ares is the same way…it is a vehicle with no mission, or a mission that something else can do more realistically and for a far cheaper cost.
Robert G. Oler
Where is the detailed cost estimates that show something else can do the job for less?
But, how do you get around the fact that there is 1 customer willing to put money into something that will dictate requirements?
That’s not a fact. Bob Bigelow is a customer as well. There will be others.
Where is the detailed cost estimates that show something else can do the job for less?
It’s hard to imagine any way to do it that would be more expensive.
richardb wrote @
Now Obama is saying the Government doesn’t value human access to space as much. Its ok to depend upon the Russians or commercial operators to get us there with no government backup needed.
Gee, I guess that means that the government also doesn’t value air flight, automobiles and computers. After all, the government feels that it’s ok to depend on commercial operators for these things.
Btw, your comment about Russians is falsehood. The US was going to depend on the Russians for a while, whether Constellation is funded or not. If anything, the Augustine Panel found that commercial operators could deliver space access sooner than Constellation for a given budget. In particular, the Augustine Panel found that the Ares I and Orion cannot be completed fast enough to get to the ISS, but commercial operators can.
Marcel F. Williams wrote @
I think this new direction is mostly Bolden’s idea. I don’t think Bolden wanted NASA to return to the Moon because he’s obsessed with going to Mars! I think Bolden was willing to support the Ares architecture if it could get astronauts to Mars. But he finally came to realize that it was impossible. Bolden pretty much said in Israel that there’s no way to protect astronauts from the dangers of radiation on a trip to and from Mars using our current technological know how.
I wouldn’t speculate about what Bolden might be thinking, but if Bolden really thinks that, then I agree with him completely. The moon is not very scientifically interesting. We know it pretty well, and all the most interesting scientific questions are to be found in Mars (search for life) and asteroids (origin of planetary systems). I also don’t think that the moon is particularly exciting even from a non-scientific point of view. We were there 40 years ago for crying out loud. Asteroids are at least something new and something much further away than the moon.
Sorry, Bigelow is not a guranteed customer, or else he would have fronted the money to build a LV in the first place. There is no demand by the majority of the public. Without demand, there is no supply. In the last decade, how many people paid for tickets to the ISS? 6? Either way, it hasn’t been more than a handful. I wouldn’t consider that a bonafide large market. It’s a spurge just like your very expensive cars. It doesn’t make any sense to a business to do this on their own.
Government ran airplanes before commercial (for the USPS) but, the difference was that airplanes actually had a destination spot (not just a joy ride). There needs to be a place to go. So, where is the destination for tourists? The ISS is not the greatest of vacation spots so to speak.
The moon? How long will that take to build an infrastructure there? A space hotel? Not there either..
John wrote @
Basically scrap the entire Constellation Program just because it was started under Bush.
How about scraping it because it is a bad program? It was never properly funded. Bush just made empty promises and tossed the can down to the next administration. An independent panel found that Constellation was the worst option of all the alternatives they evaluated.
The is no reason to cancel the Orion vehicle at all. What are these commercial companies going to use to transport people to the ISS?
Orion would not be a good choice for a taxi to the ISS. Orion is designed for much longer trips, outside earth’s magnetic field. It is hugely overbuilt for a trip to the ISS. It’s like using a motorhome for your weekly grocery shopping.
John wrote @
There is nothing about the Constellation elements that is only useful for a moon mission save for the Altair lander. If we can’t afford the whole deal why not build the Orion and the Aries I while postponing the rest for now.
That’s exactly what NASA has been doing, and they are still way behind schedule.
This would support continued ISS operations (a stated Obama Adminstration goal)
No it wouldn’t. The Augustine Panel found that there is no way in hell that the Ares I can be ready in time to make a single trip to the ISS. The damn thing is too expensive and too far behind schedule. On the other hand, the panel found that commercial operators would be ready soon enough, and cheaply enough, to service the ISS for a few years. So if the goal is to support ISS operations, then the Ares I is out.
John wrote @
Obama is clearly trying to destroy the space program.
I beg to differ.
Obama wants the government to take over health care.
(1) Not true. (2) The US has the highest health care costs of any country, it has one of the lowest life expectancies of any developed country, and it has one of the highest infant mortality rates of any developed country. That should give you a hint that your system is not working out well. Obama is looking for a market-driven solution that sets a minimum set of standards. The public option is a good idea, as it provides a minimum of competition in the market. But hey, if you want to be close-minded about this and paint Obama the spawn of the devil be my guest. It’s your country you are running, not mine.
John wrote @
[Obama] even took over two of the three domestic car companies. But, the one thing he will leave to the private sector is space exploration!
Of course, having the deepest recession in decades had nothing to do with the car companies, right? Ah, but who wants context? A half made up story is a far more interesting read.
MoonExploration wrote @
Obama – IS THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER. History will judge him.
History might see him as the first president that finally created a private free-market space industry.
Marcel Williams:
I think this new direction is mostly Bolden’s idea. I don’t think Bolden wanted NASA to return to the Moon because he’s obsessed with going to Mars! I think Bolden was willing to support the Ares architecture if it could get astronauts to Mars. But he finally came to realize that it was impossible. Bolden pretty much said in Israel that there’s no way to protect astronauts from the dangers of radiation on a trip to and from Mars using our current technological know how.
Reference:
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,” Bolden said.
This part is really interesting. The only technologies that would allow trips to Mars taking weeks would require the development of true advance propulsion. Chemical would gvie you this and solid core nuclear thermal can’t either. The only thing that can give us this would be a VASIMR system driven by nuclear reactors. Can you really believe that the Obama Administration is prepared to go there? Also, how long would it take to develop this?
Gemini comes to mind. That level of risk strikes me as “doableâ€
Note that Gemini flew on top of a hypergolic upper stage. Doesn’t necessarily invalidate your conclusion, but AIUI it was a consideration at the time.
“That’s exactly what NASA has been doing, and they are still way behind schedule.”
Since when does schedule slip mean cancel project and throwaway billion of dollars worth of work? As I recall the Apollo project had a little schedule delay, i.e. Apollo 1 fire. We we had done things the way some of you and Obama want we’d have cancelled it right there. We would never have gone to the Moon, done Skylab. Or built the Shuttle and the ISS. So we would even be here discussing these alternatives because space flight is just too expensive not worth doing.
John: “Who really says that this Augustine date is right anyway?”
We don’t know with certainty if they’re right, but we have to use some independent assessment. Augustine used the independent Aerospace Corporation. The history of the Constellation project and others like it make it seem like a reasonable estimate.
John: “I tend to dismiss this as just an Obama excuse to cancel a Bush program rather than an objective study.”
If they wanted to cancel a Bush program, why not just cancel it instead of having a diverse committee of space experts analyze the program? How would they be able to control what conclusions the committee came up with? I find the Augustine Committee to be a pretty good independent assessment, even in cases where my preconceived notions don’t agree with their conclusions (eg: that heavy lift is needed, that Mars should be our long-term goal, etc).
The fact that Augustine’s recommendations match so closely with Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration and with the Aldgridge Commission on so many points (eg: focus on innovation and new technology, emphasis on commercial and international participation, need for a strong robotic precursor program — i.e. the things the new NASA policy brings about) also speaks against it being some sort of scheme to get rid of a Bush program.
John: “What we need to do is to keep the Ares I on schedule.”
Ares I is already far off schedule. Since it started it has been slipping its schedule faster than time has been passing.
John: “Where do you get the $100 billion number?”
That was just a very rough figure for getting the Constellation lunar transport system going (not just Ares I/Orion).
John: “The Ares I should be fairly affordable. It’s just an extended shuttle SRB with a modest LH2/LOX upper stage. The real expense is in the Ares V and the Altair.”
The GAO states the following: “NASA estimates that Ares I and Orion represent up to $49 billion of the over $97 billion estimated to be spent on the Constellation program through 2020. While the agency has already obligated more than $10 billion in contracts, at this point NASA does not know how much Ares I and Orion will ultimately cost, and will not know until technical and design challenges have been addressed.”
$49B is a huge amount of money. Even if ~$10B of it has already been spent, the remainder makes a huge difference in what NASA can do, such as:
– multiple commercial crew solutions for ISS, likely shortening the gap
– incentives for more commercial cargo support for ISS
– ISS to 2020+
– actual use of ISS
– a very strong technology program that had practically been removed from NASA
– a strong (and essential) HSF robotic precursor program
– additional buffer for possible Shuttle delays
– patching up other NASA areas damaged by HSF (eg: Aeronautics, Earth Observations, etc)
– there should be more left over for other things, too (especially past 2015)
The way I see it if the NASA budget is $19 billion per year then we will spend at least $190 billion through 2020. Taking the GAO number of $49 billion for Ares I and Orion. Then subtracting the $10 billion in sunk costs we have $49B – $10B = $39 B over the ten year period or $3.9 billon per year. That averages 21% of the NASA budget. Since this is the principal HSF capability it doesn’t sound too much to me.
This isn’t develpment but also production and operations. How much will the alternative cost? How certain are their performance and schedules? It seem to me that NASA need to get a top notch manage to run this thing and we can whip it into shape.
John, looks like you and I are on the same page. In addition. I believe the Ares contracts are Firm Fixed Price. Not cost plus. In my mind, due to supply and demand, the private companies will not be able to afford having the single user. That in turn will lead us back to right where we are now. Like I said before, the 5 stage solid is still the best thrust/dollar capable motor out there.
Remember, Augustine was commissioned by Obama, for Obama.
I’m not so worried about the Ares I. There’s lots of rockets out there that can replace it. Whether, or not Falcon 9, or Delta IV would be as safe remains to be proven. Liquid performance may not be as solid (pardon the pun), but they will get to the space station. They don’t need to get all the way to LTO in one shot if there is LEO refueling and other exotic mechanisms like plasma rockets. The plasma rockets, by the way, are almost ready to be tested to boost the ISS into higher orbit (in answer to John’s earlier question).
What I’m worried about is the HLV plans. What are they and will we even have them? There’s a lot of big stuff I’d like to see blasted up there, specifically those huge telescopes. I don’t care so much about how advanced the HLV is – I care more about what its putting up there. Too advanced and I’m afraid there will be a lot of cost overruns and delays.
I would feel so grateful if the Obama administration would just get the HLV finished asap. NASA’s charter concerning spaceflight should be re-written so as to come around the unifying and overarching goal of achieving eventual star flight, so that humanity can get started with the monumental task of discovering, and then exploring habitable planets around neighboring solar systems. We shouldn’t keep re-tooling all the time while we have no HLV.
Set it straight:
“If NASA is the only company willing to pay for development cost of a commercial rocket (since no company would be strategically wise to build something on their own dime”
I suspect that something like the COTS model will be used. In other words, no company is willing to pay for all of the development cost of a commercial rocket without knowing that NASA will definitely buy their services, since the development costs are high and the chance that NASA, a large potential customer, will use something in-house like Ares if given the chance are also high. However, if NASA and the commercial companies both pitch in development funding as in COTS, NASA pays as development milestones are reached, and NASA commits to buying a certain amount of services if the services meet the specifications, both parties can come out ahead.
Set it straight: “for (assuming) 1 customer (unless costs were so low that a normal person could afford it)”
I wouldn’t assume NASA would be the only customer. If by “a normal person” you mean a single middle class potential space tourist, I don’t think the price needs to be that low for the business case to close for non-NASA customers. Some potential markets including NASA ISS, other NASA, other U.S. government, other governments, and non-government markets:
– NASA ISS crew support (of course)
– Space tourism/ personal spaceflight to ISS (as we have seen already)
– Personal spaceflight to non-ISS space stations (eg: Bigelow, etc)
– Corporate/national spaceflight to ISS or non-ISS space stations
– ISS (or other) cargo support
– ISS (or other) emergency crew return vehicle support
– Use of the rockets for non-HSF or non-station purposes (eg: launching government or commercial satellites, launching propellant for depots)
– Use of the spacecraft for non-HSF or non-station purposes (eg: space tug, something like the SpaceX DragonLab, etc)
– Other NASA (or other government agency) HSF uses (eg: transport crew to meet in-space beyond-LEO spacecraft)
Set it straight: “(which will likely cost more at a commercial company since wages are in general more than what the government pays). Then, you have to put profit on the whole thing where NASA doesn’t… Costs will go up not down!”
Are you saying NASA pays less than commercial operators? Does that include NASA’s contractors? Are you saying that NASA’s current contractors don’t need to make a profit? Why do you think costs will go up, not down, when with the existing method
– NASA has to pay for oversight of its contractors, not just for safety, but for everything else as well
– The contractors have to pay for interfaces with the contractor oversight (beyond oversight for safety which commercial crew will also have)
– NASA has to pay for the NASA staff (which is small for commercial crew) and the contractor staff
– Contractors are less motivated towards low cost and meeting schedules, since they get paid more if the cost is high and the schedule drags out, whereas commercial COTS-style vendors need low cost to make a profit and to attract other customers, and they need to meet their milestones to get paid by NASA
– Contractors don’t pitch in funding for the effort, while commercial vendors in the COTS approach contribute significant funding (which is appropriate since they will be able to sell their services beyond NASA)
– Comparisons of the NASA $500M COTS cargo investment for 2(!) solutions involving new rockets and spacecraft to the ISS to the ~100(!) times greater cost for the single Ares I/Orion ISS crew solution show that even though the NASA investment is much much less for COTS cargo, and the COTS effort started later (much later for Orbital), COTS cargo seems to be making much more progress. Note that commercial crew does not need to use brand new rockets (eg: it can use EELVs, COTS cargo rockets, possibly offshoots of NASA Constellation or Shuttle work, etc)
– As current news shows, NASA is clearly in a political environment that encourages higher costs (i.e. the Congressional “jobs in my district” issue we read about in Space Politics).
Set It Straight:
I guess we are on the same side on this one. I wasn’t originally a big fan of the “Griffin Approch” but since it is likely that keeping the lead components of it is the only high confidence way to save the U.S. manned space effort, I’m on board. Also, I don’t think the enabling technologies are advanced enough nor the budget large enough to do anything better right now. To try to leap forward now would leave us with a lot technology research and no space flight. The the vultures on here would be wanting to cancel it because it wasn’t on schedule or over some sales pitch budget that everyone know wasn’t real.
Storm:
“They don’t need to get all the way to LTO in one shot if there is LEO refueling and other exotic mechanisms like plasma rockets. The plasma rockets, by the way, are almost ready to be tested to boost the ISS into higher orbit (in answer to John’s earlier question).”
I well aware of VASIMR and am a big time advocate. But, if you are going to Mars in weeks (and back) you need a nuclear reactor in the 200MW range. Do I really believe the Obama and Congress are really going all the way this this? And, based on hints not firm commitments? No way.
I salute the efforts of Dr. Chang-Diaz and the Ad Astra company but right now they close to a truster that can be use for orbital maintaince on the ISS. There is a LONG way to go before we are fly a device that will go to Mars in weeks. I do support a greater commitment to developing these technologies but operations on the scale Bolden is talking about are way off. I don’t we are advance enough to hold this to a firm cost/schedule program.
Red:
“I suspect that something like the COTS model will be used. In other words, no company is willing to pay for all of the development cost of a commercial rocket without knowing that NASA will definitely buy their services, since the development costs are high and the chance that NASA, a large potential customer, will use something in-house like Ares if given the chance are also high. However, if NASA and the commercial companies both pitch in development funding as in COTS, NASA pays as development milestones are reached, and NASA commits to buying a certain amount of services if the services meet the specifications, both parties can come out ahead.”
If NASA pays for the majority of cost, which is what I expect will happen, they will be able to dictate the needs of the vehicle. Contracts on Ares are firm fixed price not cost plus like Shuttle. In order for COTS to be viable, there needs to be requirements and expectations written down. Currently, these do not exist. This will take a couple years to put together minimum since most of the knowledge for human rating is tribal knowledge within NASA. The the contractors will know what they are getting into in order to bid it. This is why it takes every engineering project a lot of time just to get started.
Set it straight: “for (assuming) 1 customer (unless costs were so low that a normal person could afford it)â€
I wouldn’t assume NASA would be the only customer. If by “a normal person†you mean a single middle class potential space tourist, I don’t think the price needs to be that low for the business case to close for non-NASA customers. Some potential markets including NASA ISS, other NASA, other U.S. government, other governments, and non-government markets:
– NASA ISS crew support (of course)
– Space tourism/ personal spaceflight to ISS (as we have seen already)- only a handful of people have done this and it’s not considered a true market
– Personal spaceflight to non-ISS space stations (eg: Bigelow, etc)
– Corporate/national spaceflight to ISS or non-ISS space stations
– ISS (or other) cargo support
– ISS (or other) emergency crew return vehicle support
– Use of the rockets for non-HSF or non-station purposes (eg: launching government or commercial satellites, launching propellant for depots)
– Use of the spacecraft for non-HSF or non-station purposes (eg: space tug, something like the SpaceX DragonLab, etc)
– Other NASA (or other government agency) HSF uses (eg: transport crew to meet in-space beyond-LEO spacecraft)
I won’t argue that point except that it is not in the foreable future for most of those things to exist or be viable which is what we have now. If commercial truly sees these things as a market, why hasn’t any commercial contractor built something? Regulatory commissions, lack of capital, lack of market… SpaceShipTwo doesn’t count since it is strictly sub-orbital.
Set it straight: “(which will likely cost more at a commercial company since wages are in general more than what the government pays). Then, you have to put profit on the whole thing where NASA doesn’t… Costs will go up not down!â€
Are you saying NASA pays less than commercial operators? Does that include NASA’s contractors? Are you saying that NASA’s current contractors don’t need to make a profit? Why do you think costs will go up, not down, when with the existing method
Well, on average, they do except their benefits are much better. NASA contractors pay more than NASA employees but don’t receive the benefits.
– NASA has to pay for oversight of its contractors, not just for safety, but for everything else as well
– This will happen as well since it will still be their product since they will pay for most of it.
– The contractors have to pay for interfaces with the contractor oversight (beyond oversight for safety which commercial crew will also have).
This happens today already.
– NASA has to pay for the NASA staff (which is small for commercial crew) and the contractor staff
Wrong, NASA would not allow their astronauts to fly without strict oversight and therefore would be in the shorts of the contractors like they are today.
– Contractors are less motivated towards low cost and meeting schedules, since they get paid more if the cost is high and the schedule drags out, whereas commercial COTS-style vendors need low cost to make a profit and to attract other customers, and they need to meet their milestones to get paid by NASA
Not true. Any good business would focus on how to lower costs. It’s good business practice. Especially for Fixed price contracts which are what the Ares contracts are. The contractors for Ares are paid by milestones as well and are dinged when they don’t perform in certain areas.
– Contractors don’t pitch in funding for the effort, while commercial vendors in the COTS approach contribute significant funding (which is appropriate since they will be able to sell their services beyond NASA)
– Comparisons of the NASA $500M COTS cargo investment for 2(!) solutions involving new rockets and spacecraft to the ISS to the ~100(!) times greater cost for the single Ares I/Orion ISS crew solution show that even though the NASA investment is much much less for COTS cargo, and the COTS effort started later (much later for Orbital), COTS cargo seems to be making much more progress. Note that commercial crew does not need to use brand new rockets (eg: it can use EELVs, COTS cargo rockets, possibly offshoots of NASA Constellation or Shuttle work, etc)
You do realize that it costs significantly more to design a human rated vehicle? You have to bring people home safely. Any existing rocket will have to go through redesigns, qualifications and safety tests to meet new human rated requirements. The requirements don’t currently exist so, when will they be ready? I’m not saying it can’t be done but, we are not there yet nor will be ready in the short term time-frame.
– As current news shows, NASA is clearly in a political environment that encourages higher costs (i.e. the Congressional “jobs in my district†issue we read about in Space Politics). How can you say that? Each and every year for as long as I can remember, they’ve had to do more with less forcing them to reduce costs… Compare NASA to the Air Force and see what you find. The Air Force in my mind is probably the worst cost management government entity we have.
“Sorry, Bigelow is not a guranteed customer, or else he would have fronted the money to build a LV in the first place. There is no demand by the majority of the public. Without demand, there is no supply. In the last decade, how many people paid for tickets to the ISS? 6?”
There has only been 6 because that is all the seats the russians had available. But over three hundred have asked the russians about going up. There have been two studies on space flight parcipitation and the numbers are closer to a few hundred per year at 20 million a seat.
You should read the Futron and Zogby studies on human spaceflight.
Daniel C made this statement: “Gee, I guess that means that the government also doesn’t value air flight, automobiles and computers. After all, the government feels that it’s ok to depend on commercial operators for these things.”
Gosh darn DC, why didn’t I think of that? Maybe because in the case of planes, trains and automobiles there are abundant markets with lots of choices. In the case of commercial human access to space there is NOT ONE choice today nor one in the intermediate future that isn’t nearly totally dependent upon the USG creating and funding that market. Don’t forget, the USG pre-Obama had the Ares I backed up by COTS-D with long term funding in place for Space X. That government obviously felt that US manned access to space was a national priority and made sure it had the hardware in place to guarantee it. Don’t forget, despite what many axe grinders were saying, Ares I was sound engineering and likely to succeed so said the Augustine commission.
Given that, the Obama Administration is saying its ok to rely on the Russians if the commercial guys fail. Or he’s saying it’s ok if both the commercial guys fail and the Russians embargo their services. Don’t forget the story from former Treasury Sec Hank Paulson when he asserted the Russian government tried to enlist the Chinese in dumping billions of dollars of mortgage backed bonds, guaranteed by the US Treasury, during the height of the financial meltdown during 2008. In short they ain’t our friends. But in Obama’s world, its ok depending upon them for US access to space.
One final point, Bolden gave a presser a couple days ago. I read the transcript. He was as unfocused in his Q&A as the administration’s new space policy. Makes me wonder if most of NASA’s sharpest critics will long for the good old days of Mike Griffin, O’Keefe or Goldin. One thing I do find ironic, the VSE that was whipped out after Columbia, it was handled with great skill as congressional support was built for it long before it was presented to the public. It was coherent in outlook and presented a clear roadmap on making the big decisions needed to implement it. Compare and contrast its handling to the Amateur Hour this team is playing in designing an alternative. Wait, that’s an insult to amatuers. With the VSE it was implemented by Congress in almost complete form as laid out by Cheney and O’Keefe and then overwhelmingly supported by 5 Congresses. Does anyone think that Obama’s plan will be implemented the way Bolden is presenting it by even one Congress?
“Ares I was sound engineering and likely to succeed so said the Augustine commission”
No they didn’t. The phrases “sound engineering” and “likely to succeed” don’t even appear in the Augustine Committee’s final report. The report’s finding on Ares I states that “Ares I is currently dealing with technical problems… that should be resolvable with commensurate cost and schedule impacts. Its ultimate utility is diminished by schedule delays, which cause a mismatch with the programs it is intended to serve.”
And it’s the Augustine Committee, not “commission”. If you’re going to misrepresent the work of a White House blue ribbon panel, at least correctly name the panel.
“… its ok to rely on the Russians if the commercial guys fail… it’s ok if both the commercial guys fail and the Russians embargo their services”
That’s no different than the old program. Orion overruns forced Constellation to drop its ISS cargo variant. If COTS failed, ISS would have had to rely on foreign vehicles for ISS cargo transport.
Orion’s ISS crew variant wouldn’t have been ready for at least seven more years, likely nine more years, per Augustine. And there was no funded commercial crew alternative — Constellation ate that funding out of the starting gate. Soyuz would have been the only crew transport to ISS for almost a decade.
Under the new program, there’s a commercial crew program aiming to deliver at least two domestic crew transport providers.
“the VSE that was whipped out after Columbia, it was handled with great skill as congressional support was built for it long before it was presented to the public”
Wrong. Congressmen from both sides of the aisle criticized the VSE in multiple hearing statements and Q&A.
For example, McCain warned in his statements:
“It has been reported that the President’s new proposal could cost between $170 and $600 billion. Needless to say, the $12 billion the President has suggested be spent over the next 5 years, falls far short of what might be required to actually return to the moon and reach for Mars and beyond. We must acknowledge that space exploration, particularly manned exploration, is costly. We have existing obligations relating to the safe operation of the Shuttles and the International Space Station. I think the American public is justifiably apprehensive about starting another major space initiative for fear that they will learn later that it will require far more sacrifice, or taxpayer dollars, than originally discussed or estimated.”
“As I mentioned during Administrator O’Keefe’s confirmation hearing, a vision without a strategy is just an illusion. The country is not interested in, nor can it afford, another space illusion.”
Mollohan was concerned that the VSE was “too much, too fast” and that “many facets are still very unclear”.
Breaux had concerns about “relying on other countries’ vehicles” to reach ISS during VSE hearings.
Wyden repeatedly called for “a cost-benefit analysis of the relative merits of manned versus unmanned space exploration” during VSE hearings.
Etc., etc.
The upshot of all this criticism is that both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees recommended cuts to the first year of VSE spending in their bills, large enough that the Bush II Administration threatened to veto the VA/HUD/IA appropriations bill if those cuts were sustained.
Don’t make up history.