As Washington hunkers down for a snowstorm of epic proportions (20-30 inches of snow forecast through Saturday), some reading material to help you to put off the shoveling:
When word came yesterday that Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) had placed a hold on all current Obama Administration nominees awaiting Senate confirmation, some wondered if this was a hardball tactic to overturn the administration’s plans to cancel Constellation, given his outspoken opposition to the budget proposal immediately after it was released. Not so: Shelby is instead protesting the bidding process for the KC-X tanker as well as funds for an FBI center that would be built in the state. It raises the question of whether this battle will enhance or diminish his effectiveness in later attempts to overturn the administration’s new plans for NASA.
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), meanwhile, “tempered” his criticism of that plan during a speech at the University of Florida on Friday, the Gainesville Sun reports. The real problem with the plan, Nelson claimed, “is he did not set a goal for NASA.” And what should that goal be? Not the Moon, Nelson argued. “We know where we want to go — we want to go to Mars.”
Congressman Parker Griffith (R-AL), who switched parties in December and as a result gave up his post on the House Science and Technology Committee, won’t be returning as a GOP member. Griffith instead will be assigned to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which deals in issues ranging from healthcare to technology, but not space. Griffith tried to put a positive spin on the assignment, but others criticized the appointment in a Huntsville Times report. “When North Alabama’s pressing need is job protection for NASA, Parker can spend his time dealing with the Toyota recall,” said Doug Dermody, chair of the Madison County Democratic Party.
Homer Hickam is so unhappy with NASA’s new direction he’s asking for key officials to resign. In a letter Friday to the House Science and Technology Committee the Rocket Boys author said he had written to OSTP director John Holdren and NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver, asking each to resign. “They are the principle [sic] architects of the decision to cancel the American lunar spaceflight program known as Constellation,” he states. “Garver and Holdren are political activists and gadflys who have no business making serious space policy. They should leave.” Curiously, he makes no mention of NASA administrator Charles Bolden at all in his letter: perhaps he doesn’t classify him with Garver and Holdren as “political activists and gadflys”, but that would seem to imply that he thinks Bolden is more of a figurehead—which doesn’t seem any more flattering.
Mr. Hickam must be taking his cues from that other Homer these days.
Homer Simpson or the ancient bard?
Homer Hickam really understands who the “players” are and who the “played” are.
I just wish he would write next, to all of the senior Senators and House Reps and share his opinions with them too.
Well done to him for continuing to have the courage of his convictions. He continues to earn admiration from me.
I am sorry, but Mr. Hickem is wrong, and should resign.
What he should resign from, I’ll leave up to him.
This thing is beginning to unravel. I have to concur with Homer Hickam, except that Holdren and Garver should never have been given their jobs to start with.
Hickam needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Yeah, we got so far with Constellation so fast by trying to repeat all the excess cost of Apollo.
If I hear another person say, “if they only spent the right amount of money, we could get to the moon with constellation just fine,” my head will explode. The money ain’t there, and Apollo-style isn’t the way to do it anyway.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ February 6th, 2010 at 12:20 am
This thing is beginning to unravel…
LOL
really Mark you use to seriously analyze politics and now you are stuck with babble
Nelson is showing how on track things are…
I called “the vision” correct, this thing will more or less emerge intact…
Robert G. Oler
Who cares what HH thinks? He is a writer…that is his claim to fame…thats it
end of ride how irrelevant he is is that he thinks we were really going back to the Moon.
LOL
Robert G. Oler
If you want a chuckle…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/08/china-eyes-high-ground//print/
it really is no speculation left behind…
and the right wing laps it up…
Robert G. Oler
Shelby = Corruption
Good morning
one of the things I WOULD be interested in Homer sharing (or anyone for that matter) is the notion that Bolden is a figurehead.
I’ve seen that a few times on facebook,I heard the claim last night at a party (my wife is pregnant we are going through those parties) mostly from NASA folks but a few others …and everything I have asked them “why they think that” I get either babble or silence.
There are three reasons I DONT think he is a figurehead.
First…Charlie Bolden is a flag officer in the USMC, he has not had a single flag assignment where he was a figure head…indeed in most instances of his flag career he went places that needed a broom.
Second. With all due respect to Lori Garver unless Lori has changed a lot while I was “away” this is not a policy that she would be inclined to. It is not the policy she was advocating to John Kerry during 04. That is not pejorative we all have natural trends in our thinking and even our evolution is different in our trends; but there is almost nothing in her background to indicate this type of policy choice.
If there is “Lori Garver” in this policy, it is the international part…that has Garver (at least the Garver that I knew) written all over it.
This is not to say that she is not a big supporter of it or is “not on the team” I think she is a big supporter and clearly is on the team…but her inclinations are another direction.
Third. this has the fingerprints of Charlie Bolden all over it. When OKeefe left when the search was on for who became Mike Griffin I KNOW that General Bolden was one of the folks who got the informal interview about the job. No one who was not in the room knows for sure of course (and I was not in the room ) but I am told that his theory of how to do things in his term as administrator was “commercial”. This I do believe because of two other items both first hand.
The first is that I have spoken at a conference where Charlie Bolden spoke and with really no dogs personally in the fight he outlined a policy much like what is being implemented. Second when I supported a campaign for Congress (with some money and other things) one of the discussions with the “person” running (who won) was about the new NASA administrator (it was clear that there would be a new POTUS) and Charlie Bolden’s name was tossed in the ring…and the reply I got about him was “he is very commercial”.
Not dropping events here, but this is to say that my personal experience and second hand information is that the policy that is being implemented was probably cooked by a lot of people, but this has General Bolden’s fingerprints all over it.
I bet you Homer has no real basis for what his claims are. I would be curious as to what he basis his charge (and it is a big one) on.
Look it is early but to be quite fair anyone who cannot see that Ares was not going to get where it claimed it was going, for a price that was remotely JUSTIFIABLE is fracken nuts or is employed in the position (and that is a special case…you fight for the job I understand that).
All the excuses all the explanations all the justifications; are all aimed at trying to support the program (or its goals) when it simply isnt working. We have tried the NASA way for 50 years now with one screwup after another. This one has just gotten way out of control.
The definition of insanity is trying to do the same thing over and over and getting the same result. Sorry folks it is time to go a different way
Robert G. Oler
You would be surprised how many people within NASA like the idea of Flexible Path, including Lori. Anyone who has been through 3-4 of these exploration fits and starts over the last 25-30 years knows that we’re just repeatedly beating our heads against the wall with the Moon and/or Mars paradigm. It’s a grandiose road to nowhere. There are holdouts still, such as Homer Hickam, but I think if they realized that FP actually facilitates human exploration and the eventual habitation on other worlds, then they would warm up to it.
The thing that is frustrating to everyone is the glaring lack of any human mission in the budget. The emphasis on technology is wonderful, but many of us expected to see a redirection and trimming of Constellation, rather than its complete demise. I still think that the budget is a going-in position with room for compromise, perhaps in the form of bringing Orion back, along with early FP missions. This would appease political interests in Texas and to a lesser extent Florida.
It looks more and more like the only potential loser in this tussle could be MSFC. Unfortunately Richard Shelby has taken on the Administration one too many times, and is now being singled out as a glaring example of fiscal hypocrisy in the conservative movement. Once you draw that kind of attention, especially from both sides of the aisle, your influence is going to wane. Once the investigations start, then his days are numbered.
The Bolden guy doesn’t seem to be well glued to reality. He looks like a kindly man and I guess he is well intentioned. But, if he really thinks that scraping all of our existing capabilities and promising pie in the sky is good policy then I question his competence. This stuff of flying to Mars in weeks sounds like Obama’s promise of putting the health care negotiations on CSPAN.
Nelson, who flew on a 1986 Space Shuttle mission as a congressman, has been critical in recent days of Obama’s proposal to end NASA moon missions and privatize astronaut launches. He was more tempered in his comments Friday, lauding the president for increasing NASA funding but suggesting Obama needed to set a goal for a manned mission to Mars.
“The mistake that the president made is he did not set a goal for NASA,” he said.
Former President George W. Bush unveiled a plan in 2004 to send a manned mission to the moon by 2020 as a steppingstone to Mars. While Obama’s proposal was presented as a shift in policy because those plans were too expensive, Nelson said the president needed to set a similarly ambitious goal.
“We know where we want to go — we want to go to Mars,” he said.
I don’t see this as any real support of the new plan. He is a Democrat an he is still being critical. He’ll work behind the scenes. All real space supporters want to go to Mars. But, if the Moon using highly derivative components is TOO EXPENSIVE the just about any Mars plan will be too. I think the goal of a Moon base is a lot more realistic than Mars but it too is expensive. U.S. HSF is on life support. Stay with Orion and a suitable launcher, i.e. Ares I is the best way for now.
“The thing that is frustrating to everyone is the glaring lack of any human mission in the budget.”
Bingo. It makes no sense to talk about Flexible Path when there’s no vehicle to do it with. Talk of going to Mars in weeks is pablum for a public that isn’t very well informed and won’t bother to check the facts.
No matter what others may say, there isn’t a dime for a new human spaceflight program in the proposed budget. We’ll do ISS for a few years (via the Russians) and that’ll be it.
sc220 wrote @ February 6th, 2010 at 9:52 am
The thing that is frustrating to everyone is the glaring lack of any human mission in the budget. ..
It isnt to me.
In fact I am so tired of “human exploration by astronauts” that in my view what we need is a rest from it.
To me what epitomizes the state of the “astronauts exploring space” is that really stupid op ed a few months ago by a bunch of former NASA astronauts who now work for various contractors. It was such a self serving self grandstanding piece of words glued together that it is almost like the GOP chairman saying “a million dollars isnt all that much after taxes” (well that is close to Stupid Steele’s statement the thought is intact)
to me (and there is no more a supporter of humans in space) the entire notion of sending humans on “mythic voyages of exploration” that HAVE NO REAL CONNECTION TO ANYTHING IN THE REPUBLIC is just tiresome…particularly at the cost that it takes to do it.
I think someday we will go back to the Moon and I bet you we are either the first back or we are the first back who can actually “stay there”.
We will do it after commercial industry working with NASA has developed things like LEO/GEO tugs, we routinly service platforms (with humans) in GEO and we have some sense of how to keep a closed cycle life support system operating for more then two or three weeks.
At somepoint the pieces will all be in place and the government of The United States, can for not a lot of money (maybe under 10 or so billion) put the stuff together and go.
At somepoint in our history in my view people will marvel why we had this entire infrastructure NASA that existed with 10’s of thousands of people whose only goal was to send bunches of six or so people into orbit and keep them there for two weeks…
“were you people nuts” is something I can hear them saying
Robert G. Oler
John wrote @ February 6th, 2010 at 10:19 am
you dont understand politics. this is how people support a plan but cater to the folks back home.
Nelson understands something you do not. The job situation at NASA even in Fl means nothing to his reelect chances…If Obama is viewed as a failure like Bush the last was…he is toast anyway
Robert G. Oler
At a time when US “rocket companies” have lost the commercial launch industry to the Russians and Europeans…I do not see how anyone can be arguing for spending billions to send a few people off to do “exploring”.
that is what we have uncrewed vehicles for
Robert G. Oler
sc220: “The thing that is frustrating to everyone is the glaring lack of any human mission in the budget.”
We’re dealing with a HSF budget that’s closer to the Augustine “ISS constrained budget” option than one of the “less constrained” budgets, so it will take time. I suspect that there will be some sort of beyond LEO plan coming, but it will take time.
sc220: “I still think that the budget is a going-in position with room for compromise, perhaps in the form of bringing Orion back, along with early FP missions.”
That sounds plausible, if we pick some of the easier missions like lunar orbit, E-M Lagrange points, and/or GEO (to add a destination to Augustine’s FP). I wonder what would have to be sacrificed in the current plan to make that happen, though. These destinations tend to need some sort of infrastructure, servicing capability, or other additional items to make them worth doing that, combined with Orion, might make them require a lot of sacrifice in the current budget plan – unless the bulk of the funding for them in the plan comes later (eg: past 2015). I’d support an affordable plan that gets us to these early FP destinations while still keeping a strong R&D&demo, ISS use, commercial, and robotic program going. I think this sort of achievable beyond-LEO first set of destinations could be done with existing technology using sensible international and commercial participation. Later destinations could rely on the output of the technology demonstrations and commercial services.
No Shuttle, No Constellation, No Mission, No nothing!
Well, maybe a 1965 HSF LEO capability from firms who
have never done it before.
“These are the faces of the new frontier!”
– A bunch of fluff from Bolden’s song and dance.
An insult to anyone currently doing real HSF.
“Mars in weeks!”
“Simultaneously fanning out into the solar system!”
BOLD! EXCITING! GAME CHANGING!
Game changing technologies? More like political cover.
A bunch of words to placate space fans.
You need a well defined mission, space cadets.
Oh we’ll get one, just as soon as we do some research….
Just a little more research…..
Then we’ll pick some place to go…..
And it’ll be exciting and bold and….
More empty rhetoric.
If only we had a vehicle now that could take cargo and crew to the ISS…
Oh yeah – we have one. It’s called the Space Shuttle – and we’re trashing
it well before its operational lifetime is over because why? For Constellation? Oh yeah – we’re trashing that too – for a whole new paradigm – a 1960s rocket paradigm to LEO. How exciting.
Note we now have fixed the shuttle’s booster O rings and don’t launch foolishly in cold weather.
Note we improved the foam shedding on the external tank.
Note we now inspect for orbiter damage on ascent and do a 360 degree inspection in orbit.
Note we can do in orbit repair in the shuttle bay.
But we’re throwing it all away. For a commercial service to LEO – hopefully. Which the Russians can do now.
Note that the Constellation architecture was designed for both LEO AND beyond LEO operations. Can the Falcon 9 do that?
And this idea of a flexible path – what a joke. That just means we don’t know what the hell we want to do and don’t have a plan for getting there and what to do when we get there.
Going back to the moon is a no brainer. It’s only 3 days away. It’s right there. Six touch and goes 40 years ago does not equal “been there, done that”. It’s a whole nother world right on our doorstep that can be settled, mined, explored. Radio telescopes on the far side. Solar generators at the poles. It’s got water at the poles for crying out load. We can establish a spacefaring infrastructure right close to home in cislunar space beyond LEO.
Constellation was at least a start .
Mars is a great destination but it is very, very, very far away.
We need to do a lot of prep work before we have a chance out there – and we can do it in the Earth-Moon system. The Moon is right here, a gift for a potential spacefaring species.
By the way, if the problem is with Ares, why trash Orion? Unless you really just
want to abandon beyond LEO HSF.
So basically it’s – let the commercial newbies get to ISS and screw beyond LEO HSF. Oh we’ll throw the space cadets a bone about some fuzzy future research while we’re at it.
This is abdication.
Wake me up when the first “flexible path” mission gets beyond the study phase.
What a mess.
red wrote @ February 6th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
red: “I’d support an affordable plan that gets us to these early FP destinations while still keeping a strong R&D&demo, ISS use, commercial, and robotic program going. I think this sort of achievable beyond-LEO first set of destinations could be done with existing technology using sensible international and commercial participation.”
I agree. The challenge will be in defining a doable evolution in capability from this earliest set of FP missions to the far-term goals of orbital missions about Mars, etc. I know that that it always raises eyebrows, but a human orbital mission of Venus should also be considered as a long-term target.
I like the idea of performing a series of human orbital missions about the Moon. We have actually done some preliminary calculations of a Molniya type orbit that maximizes effective dwell time over either pole. This enhanced comm time could be used to performed extensive telerobotic exploration in the cratered and mountainous regions of Aitken Basin, etc. (This would be difficult to do from Earth without a polar comm relay, which would still have an SOL round trip delay of 2-3 seconds.)
These early crewed missions would only make sense if they could be done using existing systems of with ones under development. Several of us thought that the Orion + man-rated EELV Upper Stage would be sufficient for lunar orbital and other applications. I don’t think anything that would require a new launcher or upper stage for crew transportation should be considered at this point.
Charlie Bolden on commercial:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/395165main_Bolden_NAIC_Speech.pdf
“It’s a whole nother world right on our doorstep that can be settled, mined, explored”
The moon can not be settled until an international property rights group is formed and decided on. What mining company is going to invest billions to mine without a mineral rights claim?
what … i invest billions in finding ice on the moon and then you can just plot down next to me and start mining the ice i spent billions finding? Sounds like a good investment strategy. You can use a mineral rights claim as collateral for loans, you can sell off parts of it. With land ownership you also can do that. Until property rights are settled you are under the “rape the planet” rules of the freedom of the seas. You know… where your fishing nets can tear up millions of acres of ocean bottom destroying habitat and no one can say a word to you because of the freedom of the sea treaty.
I do not see how an open rape of the moon will fly politically, without ownership and or claims no one is accountable.
A program only make sense if you intend to go once in a while. Whats going on is infrastructure construction, which eliminates the need for a program, since, you’ll be able to go a bunch of times
If only the shuttle worked as advertised, I’d be thrilled with it. It doesn’t.
If only Constellation worked as advertised. It hasn’t.
At least in the 60s we were doing stuff, and getting value for our money. I’ll take that any day of the week over some unrealistic dream.
Sorry, but what if we need to launch in cold weather then?
Can we improve the shuttle so that it can be launched in terms of weeks, not years? And who says we can’t repair outside of the shuttle bay? We had to when we built the station.
So, you just want to let the Russains have that Multi-billion dollar station we spent a shit load of money on? I am all for more foreign add, but somehow, this seems like the wrong kind. And as for Constellation – again, if it was actually doing something, either to get us to station, or to build a moonbase, I’d be supporting it. It doesn’t. It won’t get us there.
Declaring that “we must go, so we will go” has hardly worked. And lets be brutally honest – we don’t have a clear determination on where we want to go. Bring Bob Zubrin in here, and you’ll hear something else.
I want it all (moon, mars, and beyond) NOW. Not in 20 years, but now. Flexible builds the infrastructure to do so.
You wanna show me where Constellation had budgeted money for doing mining, settlement, radio telescopes, solar generators, and space infrastructure?
Only if you had enough to drink or smoke.
I don’t totally disagree with this statement, but show me that Constellation was actually helping us. I don’t see it.
Because Ares had damaged Orion. And frankly, why should you plan to land on the earth in a deep space craft? Doesn’t make sense.
Yea, well, show me how Constellation was gonna get us beyond LEO before 2028. You wanna thank someone for screwing beyond LEO, thank Constellation
@Vladisaw:
Relax, dude. No one is saying rape the moon.
I’d love to be in the situation where my biggest problem on the Moon is negotiating mineral rights.
Hickam needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Yeah, we got so far with Constellation so fast by trying to repeat all the excess cost of Apollo.
If I hear another person say, “if they only spent the right amount of money, we could get to the moon with constellation just fine,†my head will explode. The money ain’t there, and Apollo-style isn’t the way to do it anyway.
We could have gotten to the moon this decade if we had only funded Constellation/VSE (sic Direct v3) appropriately instead of Ares I/V,
counting down 10, 9, 8,……. ;-0
The FP scenarios sure sound sexy. And I bet they will cost billions and take years to accomplish. And attempting them inside the existing NASA/WH/Congress paradigm will bring the same results as Cx.
I don’t see HSF commercial ventures mining the moon, or doing anything in space that the government doesn’t pay them to do.
The payoff is too long into the future (if there is a payoff) to be able to make a business case to investors who want their payoff NOW.
Aerospace Engineer wrote @ February 6th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
agreed with all points, and hope you have your resume’ up to date and on a craigs list somewhere; and if you are in NASA you may be contacted anytime after that to work off shore; the recruiters are out there trolling NOW!!
right now I see this as a high stakes poker game; and the Pres. was hoping that Congress would fold or Ante up the money for HSF BEO beyond his budget request, without a fight; might yet happen;
as for HSF with this proposal, Bolden said it this morning, see us in 2025-30, until then we will study and do some R&D, but don’t look for any LVs; not going to happen; we have Commercial for THAT, and of course they go only to LEO; the hope being that they can take the NEW TECH that is developed on the ISS and build Space Vehicles with multiple launches, and go off to BEO with them; but from the scientists I have read, don’t look for Vasimr or Ion engines of the class to take those trips anytime too soon; that is a pipe dream; so unless Elon or one of the other Independantly Wealthy get the urge to develop their own HLV and SV to go BEO, we are stuck in LEO for the foreseeable future, which I take to mean to at least the middle of the century;
NASA Fan
When we were in the early 90s, and the internet was just getting started, and we were all WOWing over 56k modems, who expected we’d see things like MAG, WoW, Facebook, in the short amount of time we’ve seen them happen?
Done properly, the far future can get here sooner rather than later
@Ferris Valyn:
Nowhere in my post did I say abandon ISS.
Nowhere in my post did I claim Constellation was anything other than
a start in getting us back to the moon.
Right now, there is nothing beyond LEO except some vague “flexible path” and
some “game changing technologies”. No real program. No mission. No commitment to anything. The flexible path is not an infrastructure. It’s Alice in Wonderland. We’re going everywhere! Whoopee! Good luck with that. An Earth Moon transportation system is the beginnings of a real infrastructure , as opposed to the “steady stream of firsts” claimed by Nasa administrator. At least Constellation was real program, with a real objective, using the skills of an existing workforce as opposed to the pie in the sky song and dance we just got to go somewhere, someday, somehow, maybe.
But that was a for sure to happen, in the case of Constellation. It ended in 2015, and we wouldn’t have access to LEO with Constellation until 2019
But the point was, we weren’t even gonna get that, since we didn’t get back to the moon with Constellation until AFTER 2030. Thats not a start to getting us back to the moon. Besides which, why the hell should we give a damn about going back to the moon? What does it do for me? Does it ensure my nephew will have a job when he graduates? Does it provide better health care for my mom? Does it ensure we don’t destroy our environment? Hell, does it get rid of my acne? It has to actually do something, and have evidence that it can do it in a rational manner
But that was the result, if we stuck with Constellation. We weren’t getting an earth moon transportation system, certainly not in any kind of reasonable time frame.
Guess what – neither did Constellation. A 2030 return to lunar Orbit (not landing, but lunar orbit)! No work on lowering launch costs. No mechanism for US utilization of the station.
We are going to be doing something incredibly different, that has the potential to grow space utilization by leaps and bounds, much better than with Constellation
Garver got her job because she is a woman. Bolden got his job because he is black. Holdren got his job because he is an eco-fascist nutjob* trying to cram global warming down everybody’s throats. This is Obama’s concept of “merit.”
How’s that “hope and change” workin for you?
*Overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued that, “if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.” In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because “210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many.” In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and recommended “the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences” such as access to birth control and abortion. –wikipedia and references therein
ACF – wow, your evidence for Garver, Bolden, and Holdren are just overwhelming me. Clearly, I must bow down to your all knowing BS creator
Caught You Big Bob:
In fact I am so tired of “human exploration by astronauts†that in my view what we need is a rest from it.
I said on the previous topic that you Obama guys would out to destroy HSF. You just admitted it! Gotcha!
So everyone who is really for HSF is with me and continuing Orion and Ares 1. The rest are for ending HSF!
John – Clearly because you MAY have found one person, all those who supported Obama, clearly, we were out to destroy human spaceflight.
Don’t you guys get sick of this kind of bullshit?
“I still think that the budget is a going-in position with room for compromise, perhaps in the form of bringing Orion back, along with early FP missions.”
I said it and I’ll say it again. If Constellation is shut down then NASA will have to reprocure whatever vehicle for the new plan, be it Flex-Path or anything. I seriously doubt that they will let LMT bid with whatever Orion development work they already did for Constellation. They may want to use a variant of Orion but they’ll have to re-compete it. UNLESS they sole source it to LMT. Then talk about commercial competition… Their only option would be to not cancel Orion but I am not sure what they would keep it for. Also they would have to define, finally define requirements for Orion: Moon, LEO, Mars, Pluto? They will also have to define what LV they want: Are they going to follow the O’Keefe path and let the bidders offer their plan: EELVs, SRB, something? Are they going to start from scratch to let the NewSpace in? I think it’ll be from scratch and that they’ll offer whatever was developed for Orion to the new bidders. For example, provide a RV (design TBD) that can come back from the Moon and use AVCOAT TPS. Just an example. No design imposed a la Orion. The bidder chooses a capsule, a lifting body, a bath tub if they so desire so long it answers the requirements, including the use of AVCOAT. See what I mean? Anything else would be unfair advantage to the current Constellation contractors. Ah and yes it’ll be fixed cost, a la COTS. No more cost-plus.
Until and unless there is a mission defined anything is, how do you say Robert? Babble?
We shall see.
ACF:
Have another of whatever it is you’re on! But still you should slow down a little it’s getting to your brain.
Obama has said that he will make appointments so that government “looks” like America. (If you can’t figure out what that means, he is talking about mirroring the distribution of skin colors and genital morphologies in the population.) He also has said that he supports affirmative discrimination. Add to this the fact that women and blacks are disproportionately promoted at NASA HQ and field centers. (If you don’t know what this means, go work at NASA for about 10 years and you will see what this means.)
Now, again, how’s that “hope and change” workin for you?!
ACF – Of course, it must be reverse discrimination, because its impossible to believe that Charlie Bolden or Lori Garver are qualified to make decision about space, regardless of their histories as it relates to space. No way that could be the case
/snark
IMHO, its working out a little slow. But honestly, I largely blame the Republicans for that.
The solid rocket motor used for Ares will not be canceled. Because ATK is the only provider of those sizes in the US, it also affects missile defense and all large military missiles. If ATK goes down, the defense of the USA will also greatly suffer. The two are tied too intimately. The defense department has already acknowledged this and congress is learning very quickly. Sorry folks, some form of Ares will survive.
Set it straight wrote @ February 6th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
The solid rocket motor used for Ares will not be canceled. Because ATK is the only provider of those sizes in the US, it also affects missile defense and all large military missiles. If ATK goes down, the defense of the USA will also greatly suffer.
…
ATK wont go down, it will just stop making large solids…Missile defense of the US does not need solids the size of the SRB’s…
Try again
Robert G. Oler
ACF wrote @ February 6th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
that is racist and sexist. Robert G. Oler
John wrote @ February 6th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
if you want to define HSF as only spaceflight done by NASA astronauts then well you can…but I find its definition much larger
sorry you are so limited
Robert G. Oler
Aerospace Engineer:
“No Shuttle, No Constellation, No Mission, No nothing!”
“Mars in weeks!â€
I’m with you on this brother. I think this is really a plan will kill HSF for the U.S. if it happens. Is it intentional or not really doesn’t matter.
Ferris Valyn:
“I want it all (moon, mars, and beyond) NOW. Not in 20 years, but now. Flexible builds the infrastructure to do so.”
Yeah, I want to win the Power Ball Lottery too! This Obama plan does give us that. It just trashes about everything. At most if everything works out we can maintain the ISS and do unmanned probes.
My position is to keep the core of Constellation while going as far in the Moon direction as is politically/economically possible. We are in a recession and deficits are at all time highs. Orion maybe over designed for just ISS missions but we save the R&D when we do want to go to the Moon. That is a flexible approach. Ares I now is consistant with Ares V later. I’m not concerned with the schedule as a much as keep the HSF intact during these hard times.
Robert G. Oler, what do you actually do for a job? You sound like you think you know what you’re talking about… Are you in the Aerospace and Launch Vehicle design arena?
NASA takes 3 hour lunch breaks?
I think that all of this back and forth between the commercial advocates and the Constellation misses one big point. We already have a better system for LEO and that is the Space Shuttle. If we are going to cancel Constellation then why not extend the Shuttle. It solves the problem of the near term access to LEO 2011-2015 or 2017 whatever. It provides a superior capability to any of the other alternatives if we aren’t going to the moon. It leaves open the idea of developing a Direct-type heavy lift vehicle with Shuttle components at a later date.
Also, why not develop a Shuttle-B version if you will, i.e. an updated set of new Shuttle builds? They would keep as much of the legacy components as is reasonable while incorporating technology improvents to some of the Shuttle issues. The proven Shuttle technology could be extended for another 30 years to give time for Boldens “dreams” to become practical. This approach would be a lot more supportive of national security related rationales than either commercial or Constellation.
Set it straight
If that stuff is so important for the vital defense of the United States (and for the moment, not actually going to debate the merits of those systems), why don’t we, you know,
FUND THOSE OUT OF THE DOD? Why is it so important that we fund them through NASA?
John – What you don’t get is that ISS is the linchpin to opening space. Actually, its a little more complex than that – the linchpin is
1. Having a location to test out new space based technologies, that can lower the ops costs
2. Having a working earth to LEO industry (in particular, an industry with MULTIPLE providers, with more coming online, all trying different options, all looking to lower the cost of operations)
3. Orbital industries that utilize man-tended stations (either ISS, or Bigelow habitats)
Those 3 things give us the basis to try and change the underlying equations that make it so expensive to operate in space. We desperately need to deal with those issues, or we’ll always be fighting a rear-guard action, by doing exactly what you are doing.
You are so focused on saving on R&D, that you are going to get murdered on your operations costs. This is what happened for Shuttle, and station. We can’t afford that again – we have GOT to deal with the high ops costs.
Space Shuttle Man
There are 2 issues concerning shuttle extention.
1. Shuttle extension, under the current plan, comes at the expense of station completion.
2. Money – we have funding to do Commercial Crew & station, Constellation, or shuttle and station – pick one.
If we could resolve the 2nd, so that the money for shuttle doesn’t come from either CC or the R&D program, then I MIGHT see a mechanism for dealing with the first – specifically, we’ll keep the shuttle on stand-by, in the event of some sort of major event (like the total loss of a solar panel), so that the shuttle could take up extra supplies. Understand, we’d probably only be able to use it once, or possibly twice (more likely once), but it would give us something of a backup until CC came online.
In terms of building an updated Shuttle – no, no, no. That possiblity came to an end when Griffin decided to go Constellation.
The way I see it:
1. Despite the Vision For Space Exploration, the congress did not want to put more money into NASA, doing much damage to Constellation. Ares I is far from being operational and Ares V is way behind a 2020 return to the moon. As is Altair. Much more money is needed. Congress did not and does not want to give it.
2. How come that Only when some people are brave enough to say that this can’t go on and that with this budget we need to do it another way, people start to shout?
3. The mentioned companies are already busy developing spacecraft and most (like Boeing and Lockeed Martin) have many years of experience with space systems. So it’s not exactly that we’re starting all over again. NASA research is used by them.
4. There will be a new NASA-plan with targets. Charles Bolden already said so. That plan will be developed this year. So maybe it’s better to calm down a little and wait for the plan, before commenting.
As for decisions over the budget itself, let’s hope the congress approves, it is an increase after all, despite these difficult times.
Looks like Bolden is being a little more candid. There will be no HLV development before 2020. It will use a ot of Ares technology. No humans beyond LEO before 2030.
Ferris Valyn:
“Shuttle extension, under the current plan, comes at the expense of station completion.”
How is that? The Shuttle will fly under current plans until the ISS is completed?
“Money – we have funding to do Commercial Crew & station, Constellation, or shuttle and station – pick one.”
I think that I did. My thought is to stay with the Space Shuttle and the ISS. We get the money by cancelling Constellation and at least not expanding commercial into HSF. Shuttle was being retired under Griffin in order to fund Constellation. So if the current crew is cancelling Constellation and really does have a good alternative why not just extend the Shuttle.
This all was started several years ago because of two issues. There was a lot of criticism of NASA for not exploring anymore. They wanted to go to the Moon and Mars. The second was the Columbia disaster. The Shuttle wasn’t safe. We need to go back to old style capsules with big escape rockets. These two imperatives drove NASA to Constellation.
Since return to flight we have flown 17 missions safely. Just about everyone agrees that there isn’t the money or the public support for real exploration missions like return to the Moon or going to Mars in the near term. So there is a good case to stay with the Shuttle to support the ISS. The Shuttle clear has a lot more capabilities that either the commercial vehicles or the Orion for LEO missions.
The billions that had been planned for Constellation could be spent to maintain the current fleet and to build new orbiters. The have been some abortive attempts to make a better vehicle such as NASP and the X-33 that failed. Since we are stuck with the tried and true for now, I submit that the Space Shuttle is our best option.
ark R. Whittington wrote @ February 7th, 2010 at 9:56 am
Looks like Bolden is being a little more candid. There will be no HLV development before 2020. It will use a ot of Ares technology…
you get more bizarre with each post.
If HLV development doesnt occur until 2020 there will be almost no Ares technology in it because the Ares infrastructure will have (yeah) gone away.
Robert G. Oler
Space Shuttle Man wrote @ February 7th, 2010 at 10:36 am
d
I think that I did. My thought is to stay with the Space Shuttle and the ISS. We get the money by cancelling Constellation and at least not expanding commercial into HSF
that is a non starter.
For so many reasons.
If we continue to fly the shuttle we will lose one.
If we continue to fly the shuttle we cannot get rid of the infrastructure and if you cannot do that then there are no savings…
if we continue to fly the shuttle there will be no development of commercial space and commercial space is essential, the key in fact to trying to turn human spaceflight from a drain to an addition to tax revenue.
If we continue to fly the shuttle there will be no dynamic development in human spaceflight. Those who support Ares constellation support the status quo for the next two decades.
Sorry we have to stop…the consequences of going on are horrific
Robert G. Oler
Space Shuttle Man;
Yo are absolutely correct. If we’re going to extend the ISS and cancel Constellation, why not keep the Space Shuttle, which was designed to maintain the ISS?!? Gap solved also.
One of the CAIB recommendations was to requalify the Shuttle in 2010. No reason why we can’t do it.
I find extending Shuttle or continuing Constellation much more desirable than hoping the commercial newbies can get us a 1965 HSF LEO capability in 5 years.
Bolden’s most recent press conference was filled with logical inconsistencies and statements of capabilities and timelines that are already satisfied with the program of record. He sounded like he was making it up on the fly, which is what happens when you’ve got nothing to offer except bold exciting statements.
A great nation is a leader in space, not one that pulls back, hopes for less capability from unproven sources, and points to disjointed, ill defined R&D projects as proof of progress.
The Obama plan is a retreat. An insult. A path to mediocrity.
Aerospace Engineer
actually the path to mediocrity is to continue to do the same mediocre things over and over again Robert G. Oler
@Oler:
Right. Building a space station, refurbishing Hubble, launching and returning spaceplanes six times a year, sending 42 astronauts into space every year – how mediocre.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/06bolden/
this is a really good synoposis of some video with Charlie Bolden.
It makes it clear that he has plans to “question” the bulk of the infrastructure that has hung around since Apollo, which was purposely built to do Apollo and which has served the nation less and less well since Apollo.
Apollo went to the Moon and came back.
Over the last four decades we have succumbed to a structure that with Ares will degenerate to spending 4-7 billion a year on vehicles which wont fly for decades.
Ares 1 for instance has spent 4-5 billion dollars (including 500 mil for a silly test flight) where as we got Atlas and Delta in their current forms for that total money…Ares will need about 12 billion more to get to any flight status.
Why?
the structure has gotten to that…and supporters of that structure dont seem to be able to grasp that.
It is time for another way
Robert G. Oler
“I find extending Shuttle or continuing Constellation much more desirable than hoping the commercial newbies can get us a 1965 HSF LEO capability in 5 years.”
“A great nation is a leader in space, not one that pulls back, hopes for less capability from unproven sources, and points to disjointed, ill defined R&D projects as proof of progress.
The Obama plan is a retreat. An insult. A path to mediocrity.”
I’m sorry… but if our American aerospace corporations can’t handle FIFTY YEAR OLD technology….
WE ARE ALREADY MEDIOCRE
Aerospace Engineer wrote @ February 7th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
it is pretty mediocre.
Hubble to refurbish cost the equivalent of building a new KECK class telescope in EVERY state of the Union.
The space station which was sold in 1984 for 8 billion dollars at a station of far higher capability then exist today has in total cost consumed over 100 billion dollars.
Same with the shuttle. What it was sold as…and the 1 billion or so it takes to fly.
Anything can be done if one throws enough money at it. The question always has to be asked “is the money worth the value”.
The argument among the people who support the status quo is that “we are going to do it because we are a great power, so what it does isnt all that important”. I would argue that what it does and the cost to do it are the determiners of not only waste vrs product…but it is the definition of a great power.
Robert G. Oler
Space Shuttle Man
Each remaining shuttle mission is carrying up stuff related to station construction – they aren’t just resupply missions. In other words, we end up delaying final station completion when we extend shuttle launches.
Because, as I said, the money available is for Commercial crew & station, or shuttle & station – we don’t have enough for all 3, right now. If we can find money for all 3, great (and I should add that it can’t raid the R&D budget), I actually would be for a shuttle extension (again, assuming we can do it and not run out station completion).
Finally, in relation to ISS, I’ll agree that Shuttle is more capable than Orion. However, the commercial vehicles are likely to include capabilities that Shuttle doesn’t have.
SpaceCadetJ
I assume you mean if Aerospace Corps couldn’t handle designing and building and operating earth to LEO taxis, we are mediocre.
I’d also add that if our society can’t find a sustainable reason to engage in human spaceflight, we have a mediocre society
That should be far more disturbing than the idea that we aren’t going to spend an unlimited amount of money to do something we did forty years ago.
Ferris Valyn wrote @ February 7th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
what I find is a hoot…is some of the reasons that a badly functioning program has to be continued…like “we dont know if industry can do this”…
as if NASA actually does just about anything being done right now.
The module that the space shuttle is carrying was built in Italy. The shuttle is being preped for flight almost exclusively by contractors.
The people who made the bad decisions that cost us Challenger/Columbia and 14 astronauts were almost exclusively NASA personnel.
If not now when and under what circumstance…
it is time for a new day.
Robert G. Oler
“we end up delaying final station completion when we extend shuttle launches.”
So? If we are going to continue to have Shuttle flights indefinately then does it really matter if the completion date slips a little? I think not. We will continue to have access with out a “gap”.
“I’m sorry… but if our American aerospace corporations can’t handle FIFTY YEAR OLD technology….”
So you assume that the small commercial space companies can. This is way too risky.
Space Shuttle Man –
First, if you are arguing that shuttle should fly indefinitely – sorry, no, bad idea. I was under the impression you were suggesting we fly Shuttle until we have Commercial space.
Second, are you really telling me that Boeing, and United Launch Alliance )2 companies that have flown space hardware for decades, and one which was the primary contractor for ISS) are small, unproven, entrepreneurial companies?
Really?
You guys,
This is what I have inferred from reading the thread:
1. The shuttle has killed 14 astronauts
2. The commercial sector is banking on 1965 tech
3. We won’t even begin to work on an HLV til’ 2020
4. Congress doesn’t want to pay for expensive engineering ventures, which by their nature, are subject to cost overruns and delays
5. NASA takes 3 hour lunch breaks (they think they’re Europeans!)
6. The US space program requires Ares, ISS and Space Shuttle to completely operate its space infrastructure.
7. Bolden has his head up his %#*
There needs to be a monumental change everyone! It doesn’t sound like NASA culture operates under the same stress level that those over at DoD who are trying to revolutionize BMD to shoot down hypersonic missiles. Perhaps we need a reinvigorated NASA, like the one in the 1960’s.
Congress needs to wake up and realize that they are killing the US space program. It is time for the US to allocate at least 1%, if not more, to US space.
We need to ask ourselves, “Did we finally fix the dangerous vulnerabilities in the shuttle with enhanced surveillance and structural improvements?” Perhaps we can make some low cost improvements to the shuttle – taking out human life support (crew quarters), and completely automating it like Buron, so that it can remain the HLV, as well as serve logistic and repair missions. (maybe this isnt’ a cheap fix-I’m asking the engineers). Many of the logistics missions could probably be solved through robotic remote control from Earth or ISS, but in cases like complicated HST repair the cargo bay could house a human-crewed capsule like Orion, which could un-dock from Cargo bay for safer landing separately from the shuttle after the mission is completed. Could we just stick Orion inside the existing shuttle bay? Would there still be room for other cargo?
I just feel its intolerable for us to twittle our thumbs for the next 20 years to wait for deep space missions. Every time there is a new President the existing orders will be canceled. How can we continue to govern this way? Why can’t we get our work done in 10 years?
I guess I’m cautiously in favor of the commercial sector taking over human delivery to LEO, but that is because of the frustration I have toward our Government in accomplishing space goals. It seems like its gotten worse and worse – No Wernher von Braun anymore. No 5% of GDP space budgets. Lets see if the commercial boys can do it. It’l only waste 5-10 years of our future if they can’t. That’s nothing compared to what NASA and Congress have wasted.
But I’m also in favor of extending the Shuttle if we can figure out a way to automate it so human crews don’t have to fly on it. Let the shuttle liquid and solid booster be adapted to HLV so we can get our planet hunters up there. That’s all we need folks! We don’t need to go to Mars. We just need to ferry new types of test modules out to the Lagrange points to build and repair planet hunting telescopes while these new modules serve as a human test bed to monitor radiation levels, as well as test the plasma rockets.
So perhaps this is what we need:
1. Sea change at NASA first
2. automate the shuttle
3. create HLV from shuttle boosters (no more than 5 years tops!
4. Create new types of radiation-hardened modules that can be ferried out to Lagrange points via plasma rockets.
5. Very large Planet hunting space telescopes that can resolve terrestrial extrasolar planets down to their disk and spectra definitions.
And that’s all folks. No expensive HLV, no expensive nuclear plasma rocket to Mars. Just what I mentioned should be so damn expensive that it will get canceled when ignorant Americans vote in some Tea Party candidate. So why would we want to make even more expensive than what I propose? Thank god I’m done with this comment!
Ferris Valyn:
“Second, are you really telling me that Boeing, and United Launch Alliance )2 companies that have flown space hardware for decades.”
I thought we are main think about SpaceX and SpaceDev. But, more to the point is the political risk of undoing an on going effort.
“First, if you are arguing that shuttle should fly indefinitely.”
Yes, I am. After years of look at next genertion concepts I think that for now the Shuttle is a proven design. Clearly, the current three vehicles won’t last forever. So I think we should build new versions. Obviously, with some updates but basically with a lot of commonality so that they can be phased in gradually. That would give us another thirty years of high quality space access. The commercial ventures can continue to evolve with what government support that can be found. I hope for their success but not at the expense of destroying what we have now.
Space Shuttle Man wrote @ February 7th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
“we end up delaying final station completion when we extend shuttle launches.â€
So? If we are going to continue to have Shuttle flights indefinately..
the argument is silly on its face. The Space shuttle is ending…deal with it
Robert G. Oler
Storm wrote @ February 7th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
2. The commercial sector is banking on 1965 tech..
whoever thinks that is ignorant.
Robert G. Oler
Space Shuttle Man – Done properly, the space policy I am talking about (which reflects the proposed NASA budget) we’d get both the SpaceXs AND Boeing. Thats why the 7 commercial spaceflight pioneers that Bolden stood with when he announced the CCDev winners INCLUDED both a mix of old companies, and new companies. And space needs to stop being only a political risk. Thats the problem
In terms of indefinitely flying the shuttles – its not doing anything to advance the cause of becoming spacefaring. Now, if you want to talk about commercially bidding a next-gen shuttle – guess what? Thats what Commercial Crew is.
Storm:
“It is time for the US to allocate at least 1%, if not more, to US space.”
I’d vote for that but I doubt if Congress would. Maybe we could use some stimulus money.
“I just feel its intolerable for us to twittle our thumbs for the next 20 years to wait for deep space missions. Every time there is a new President the existing orders will be canceled. How can we continue to govern this way?”
This is a real problem. I think there was a lot of this was it’s a Bush program so we want to do something else. It also is clear the Obama space team is a commercial oriented group. Graver was clearly from that group. It’s a little like the electronics subcontractors that got in charge of the Bush pentagon and opposed new platforms in favor of eletronics upgrades. I guess on issue is just how committed Obama is to all of this or will he yield to bipartisan opposition because it really is just a Bolden/Graver thing. It really is opposite of what Obama is doing everywhere else.
“If HLV development doesnt occur until 2020 there will be almost no Ares technology in it because the Ares infrastructure will have (yeah) gone away”
In which case it is Bolden who is being bizzare, not me. The larger point is that all the arm waving about the new approach getting us beyond LEO with new and better technology was, from the beginning, a lie.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ February 7th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
The larger point is that all the arm waving about the new approach getting us beyond LEO with new and better technology was, from the beginning, a lie…
no more a lie then the concept of “The Vision” and the systems that you are a fan of getting us beyond LEO at all is a lie. What did Fran Townsend (spell) say about her leaving and not having captured OBL during Bush the last…”it is a success waiting to happen”.
The question Mark is one of faith…You put yours (amazing given your background) in the government. In your world we have to have a dedicated billion upon billion dollar effort to generate technology which is very expensive and only good to send a few select government employees on voyages past LEO…to have an exploration program.
I will put mine in a properly regulated, properly stimulated private sector to develop the technology which has both commercial uses and can be adapted to “other” efforts. In this way we both open up the technology to American exploration AND open up the areana to making the American economy stronger.
So in your world you would believe in letting the government fly the airmail to stimulate air transportation…I believe in things like the air mail act. it is that simple
Robert G. Oler
Storm – the fundamental issue is getting Congress to agree to that funding level of a funding increase. I’d love to see it happen. But it hasn’t, and I’ve given up on expecting to ever see it happen, particularly without there being some MAJOR (and I mean MAJOR) change ( and China landing a man on the moon isn’t really that big of a change). It would require something like aliens arriving, or Al-Qaeda going to Mars.
The best bet is the commercial sector becoming as big as the internet became. That is why I am pushing so hard for commercial spaceflight, above all else.
John – no, its not the complete opposite of what Obama is doing elsewhere. If he was really going full blown to single-payer insurance, or permanent nationalization of the banks, you might have a point. But, contrary to what “Faux News” claims, he is not chairman Mao
“why not keep the Space Shuttle, which was designed to maintain the ISS?!? ”
Interesting time travel where a vehicle is designed decades before the station it is servicing way in its future… Can’t take it from NASA, they must have access to some of that USAF Area 51 technology… Why don’t we use the time travel machine and bring back some technology from 2200 so that we can finally soar through the Solar System?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station
Ferris Valyn wrote @ February 7th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
The best bet is the commercial sector becoming as big as the internet became. That is why I am pushing so hard for commercial spaceflight, above all else….
you and me both brother
Robert G. Oler
Yeah, more than ever, I’m coming to the idea that we need to combine ideas here.
Deregulate private space like the cell phone or internet industry, and rely on private corp for ferrying humans to LEO
Keep the space station, at least until 2020 to do research on space radiation.
Convert space shuttle launcher to HLV by 2015. No more of this “some time after 2020″ crap! The cargo container can initially be disposable until funding for a reusable, automated glider can be built around 2020 (pulled that date out of my sock)
Launch radiation hardened, human crewed module in 2020 on SSD HLV, to L1, or Moon, or L2 via plasma rocket.
2025: launch parts for very large terrestrial planet hunting scopes as far as SSD HLV can take them, use plasma rocket to get them the rest of the way to Lagrange point if needed. And launch humans to LEO to board the radiation hardened module for trip to Lagrange point via plasma rockets.
If anyone disagrees you had better say now, or hold your peace. If you don’t agree tell me why before I go on a letter writing crusade.
I forgot to mention that the 2025 mission to launch humans for rendezvous with radiation hardened module to Lagrange points would be to assemble large telescope – wups
Was I clear, or are you guys confused?
“If anyone disagrees you had better say now, or hold your peace. If you don’t agree tell me why before I go on a letter writing crusade.”
Go for it! Keep us posted on the progress though please.
Storm wrote @ February 7th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
I do not want to get from one statist plan to just another but I will tell you how I think we “could” see development go (taking a break from a training plan!)
Commercial access to orbit for humans with some R&D experiments in tanking and other “things”…brings at some point the first GEO platform that is assembled at the Space station and then is boosted to GEO by new propulsion systems
Crew transfer vehicles at some point modified to service GEO platforms…
At some point L points vehicles start assembly at LEO station…then are boosted to L points and eventually crew transfer vehicles are used to go there to service them
“parts start accumulating” and before long it is not all that expensive to assemble a vehicle for human tending to put in polar orbit around the Moon…carries large quantities of experiments etc.
new technologies (tethers inflatables) make a “landing on the moon” “easy” …parts can be put together for under 10-15 billion dollars.
Humans return to moon, this time to stay
Robert G. Oler
Storm
3 things
1. Its not so much deregulation, for Commercial Crew (CC). Rather, NASA needs to invest in CC, particularly by buying flights to ISS on it. And then flights to other platforms in LEO
2. To do an SDLV AND Commercial Crew AND R&D AND ISS, you need a budget increase. If we get a budget increase – great, I am all for it. The question is, what if we don’t get a budget increase? Then what? At the end of the day, I’ll take CC and R&D and ISS over an SDLV
3. Two words – Prop depots – that needs to be invested in as well.
@common sense:
The Space Shuttle just built the ISS. It WAS designed to take large structures
into LEO. What are you talking about?
Sounds like music to my ears Oler. You should write the next Pop science article and get some good 3D artists to render it. So GEO is a better transfer point because it’s further out of the gravity well. US government should get focused on GEO platform. I want assembly phase by 2015! Give NASA the money NOW!
Ferris Valyn,
Prop Depots? That’s the fuel storage on the GEO Platform right?
can the Delta IV, or DIV Heavy get the GEO platform parts and Prop Depots to ISS? Does it require the Shuttle? or other larger HLV?
30800 pounds is the weight of the Space Station Main Truss. Delta IV can launch up to 56,800 lb according to Wikipedia. Would the GEO Station parts/prop depots be any heavier than the ISS main truss?
“So in your world you would believe in letting the government fly the airmail to stimulate air transportation…I believe in things like the air mail act. it is that simple”
Oler, you’re capacity for dishonesty continues to astonish me. I’ve said many times that I fully support the commercialization of Earth to LEO transportation. But there is no where in the Obama/Garver space plan that contemplates any American, whether of a private space craft or on an Orion or any other kind of space craft, going beyond LEO before 2030. There is no space exploration plan or vision or even idea in the Obama/Garver space plan. Earlier this weak the administration was boasting about how its plan was going to get us beyond LEO sooner and better. It turns out that it will be beyond even the worst case scenario for Constellation.
In other words, they lied.
Storm – there was an all EELV proposal, that utilized only the existing EELVS (with more powerful upper stages) that incorporated prop depots at various locations. Its worth a read. I suspect that the final proposal out of the Bolden Administration, will look somewhat similar to this proposal.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ February 7th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
“But there is no where in the Obama/Garver space plan that contemplates any American, whether of a private space craft or on an Orion or any other kind of space craft, going beyond LEO before 2030. ..
there is nothing in the plan that is being axed that contemplates any activity beyond LEO before the year 2020 and most of it now is somewhere around 2030.
OK…what that means is there are really two models to work with here…
Lets say that given the 3 billion extra a year somehow a miracle could occur and NASA stays on track that by 2030 we are ready to set sail with the infrastructure of record to the Moon.
Thats 20 years and about another 100-140 billion dollars.
OK imagine it is 1970 and one is trying to figure out what microprocessors will look like in 1990 or it is 1920 and one is trying to predict aviation in 1940…or it is 1990 and one is trying to predict what the space station will look like in 2010.
You tell me which model worked the best. LOL
you have become in human spaceflight a statist Mark. you are all for government mandated time schedules and programs…you are by the definition of Virginia Postell (spell) in her seminal work The Future and its Enemies…
one of the later.
congratulations
Robert G. Oler
No Shuttle, No Constellation, no mission, no plan, no nothing.
Amateur Hour at NASA HQ.
They’ll come back with some specifics as soon as they can gen up
some new talking points.
The Merchant 7 will save us.
What rubbish.
Mark R. Whittington,
So you just want to keep “Apollo on steroids” and go back to moon around 2027? That’s what analysts were judging was going to happen. It seems like a mistake to throw everything aside so we can land on the Moon like 1969. That way was too expensive to sustain even when we were spending 5% of GDP on NASA. Why not put all our efforts into getting the necessary funding for NASA to loft the GEO and Prop Depots so we have the infrastructure to allow more affordable transportation?
I watched the Bolden news conference on UTube. His program is very flawed. We are relying on the commercial companies and the Russians to support ISS operations. We are going to develop a heavy lift vechile someday. But it is total unclear what we will fly in since we have cancelled the Orion and the commerial vehicles aren’t designed for operations beyond LEO.
The more I think about it the more I’m for continuation of Constellation. I see no real reason not to support the Orion/Ares I cominations. I see no reason to believe that an Obama HLV is any better than the Ares V. Also, the return to the Moon is a lot more extensive than the six missions in 1969-1972. A slow schedule is better than no schedule.
I think there is a good chance that Congress isn’t going to support Bolden on this. Bolden admits that he needs Congress to approve of his plan before he can abandon Constellation.
Ferris Valyn,
So I guess we don’t really need a HLV for some time if we’re going to be able to launch these payloads via EELV’s. That’s why the Admin wants to just do the research on them for now – I guess the large telescopes will have to be lofted on such an HLV – But wouldn’t it be better to dedicate that R&D on GEO Platforms and Prop Depots rather than R&D for larger payload requirements so far down the road? Couldn’t the large mirrors for the telescopes just be lofted to GEO Platform or Prop Depot farther out for transfer to Lagrange point?
Why would we ever need HLV larger than Delta IV or Atlas?
John:
Yeah Constellation was planned to be more extensive, but so was the original moon missions before they were canceled by Nixon. Constellation is the “one big jump” plan, while ideas of combining plasma rockets and refueling depots in GEO and beyond will pave the way for smaller rockets. It will lower the launch requirements into the realm of private industry capability. Perhaps Obama HLV is slower out of the gate, but wouldn’t it lead to paradigm shift as they say?
“ACF wrote @ February 6th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
that is racist and sexist. Robert G. Oler”
Yes, it was racist and sexist to fill positions based on skin pigmentation and genital morphology. So, why do you think Obama did that?
By the way, how’s that “hope and change” workin for you?
John,
Also – I think part of the problem you are detecting is that the development of the Obama plan is still in the planning stages. Maybe we’ll just have to wait and see more definition. And why would Ares be better than plain old Space Shuttle-C? We already have parts to build a SSD HLV, so wouldn’t it be much quicker to use those parts to slap together a powerful HLV when needed while providing the infrastructure to lower the launch requirements into private industry capability?
These splits that we have in the space community are debilitating. I wish we could all agree on one plan. Constellation was vulnerable to cancellation I feel since it lacked innovation. I realize however, we all want the same thing, at least on this website. We want humans working and living in space. I’m more in favor of relying on robotics and transfer depots in the beginning, at least, so as to provide more funding to the search for earth-like planets. If we can get an image of a blue world light years away I can imagine the great drum beat of support that would go into developing interstellar propulsion for robotic missions and that this support alone is what would lead to the greatest advancements in space. I believe we could have a solar sail probe on its way to Alpha Centauri now if there was enough public support. But there isn’t. I’m hoping that finding a planet like ours will spur this interest.
Storm – Generally speaking, thats why I think its better to wait on the HLV vehicle. There is a quote from someone (maybe Elon Musk) that HLV will happen someday, and I don’t necessarily disagree. But it must be developed so that its cheap to operate.
Because the key issue in all of this is dollar per kilogram. The more I can put up per dollar, the more I can do
In terms of where the funding for R&D is going – I wasn’t entirely sure what you are saying, so I’ll lay out my thoughts.
There are a number of technologies that have the potential to be game changers. Modularized rockets, nuclear propulsion, VASIMR, Ion Drive, Crygenic prop depot, inflatable habitats, closed loop life support systems, airline operations style RLV – believe me, I am only at the tip of the iceberg. Many of them are at TRL in the 5-8 range. The fundamental issue though is WHEN technology gets to that level, it becomes more expensive to test. Substantially more, because you have to put stuff in orbit, generally speaking. And this is the problem. If we could raise the TRLs to a 9 or even a 10, they could easily compete (and probably beat) the super expensive HLVs of old.
I think what the administration is looking at pursuing is a more generalized version of what I showed. Given that Bolden isn’t talking about racing to an HLV, I think they are more interested in doing the game changing research, rather than jumping right to a really big, really expensive rocket. They want to develop the technology to create a true deep space craft – one that ISN’T capable of landing on a planet. Because thats something no one in industry is working on. We have a number of potential landers, among the work being done by companies like Armadillo, Blue Origin, Masten, to name the top ones. And of course, multiple companies working on dedicated Earth to LEO vehicles (and more than a few already flying). We even have an existing space station, and at least 1.5 companies actively working on new space stations (Bigelow and Exclaibur Almaz). But no-one is working on deep space craft, a true deep spacecraft. But there are a number of pieces out there, that could be used to build such a craft, and then available vehicles to consider for Landers. And thus, we end up with something akin to what was laid out in that paper I linked to. Instead of Orion on an ACES upper stage, it might be a Bigelow docked to a propulsion stage, or any number of options.
However, I think the press (and the members of Congress) are going to latch onto the HLV, because they can’t believe anything but that, because they are still trying to create Apollo, all over again. They haven’t (or only barely beginning to) understand that Apollo was a 1 trick pony, and that to become spacefaring, we’ll need something better.
finally, with regards to doing a giant telescope – I know some people have pushed the idea of using Ares V for it. Its certainly doable, but I doubt it would’ve ever happened, because it would be incredibly expensive, and would’ve edged out a number of other science missions, like how JWST has edged out science missions, due to cost overruns. I think the next new major space scop will be one that is launched in segments, and constructed (probably not many segments – 2 launches probably), and then there will be active construction which takes place to put it together (at possibly LEO, or GEO).
Anyway, the key is we need to find the game changing technology, and we need to create a self-sustaining mechanism that is always seeking to incorporate that game changing technology, and pushing us towards lower operating costs. And I believe market creation is the way (particularly when you consider the success we’ve seen with that for the Internet, and for satellite communication).
If you get a chance Storm, I strongly recommend you read Selling Peace – thats Jeff Manber’s new book, about his time at RSC Energia and MirCorp. You see where we are going
Storm
Let me add one other point, in all of this. Often, I see a lot of discussion, about what I call the Magic Rocket, and it largely goes like this
“Oh, my plan, which is built around the ________ (insert vehicle name here), is great. Because it has __________ (insert claimed advantage here) it will be cheap to operate/have huge support/ensure high usage (circle one). And if we just have this _______ (insert technology & advantage), we’ll get a spacefaring society”
I use to be that way, myself. I was a die-hard believer in the X-33 and VentureStar (and I will freely acknowledge – I still think its a pretty design). My experience with that left an incredibly bitter taste in my mouth, and thus I was forced to reconsider a number of things, which led me to a major revelation – if we want a spacefaring society (and thats what we really all want), then what we, as space activists, need to do, above all else, is create a society that MUST BE spacefaring – in otherwords, we have to create the sociological reason for becoming spacefaring. Let the engineers work on the technology, and there is a lot of great potential out there. But what space activists must focus on is coming up with an organic mechanism, that allows us to go from where we are, to becoming spacefaring, that doesn’t depend on any particular vehicle or design. In otherwords, unless you (not necessarily you personally, but the general you) are an engineer, don’t talk about the pretty pictures, or the cool vehicles. Don’t be a science fiction fan, entertained by pretty pictures. Block out all images of a particular design/vehicle, and look at the required sociological constructs that are needed.
Because if we build those constructs, the engineers will figure out the vehicles. (Its worth noting that we saw this with Apollo, since the timeframe required jumping to certain technology, such as LOR, and Heavy Lift, rather than prop transfer, or tanker option as von Braun called it). In otherwords, we have to stop trying to be von Brauns, and start being James Webb. Griffin tried to be von Braun, and that failed miserably. I believe Bolden is trying to be James Webb, and so I have more optimism now.
Well said. Thanks for all the info Valyn. That said, I’m totally in favor of the President’s plan. It’s not really as ill-defined as people have made it sound. But either was Constellation. Everyone who wants to put down a space program for one reason or another will always use the strategy of saying its ill-defined. With the Bolden plan it is very easy to shoot it down just because it is more complex – as it should be. Any Social Construct to build a space fairing society will have lots of moving parts, just as any cellular organism.
However, I guess the Congress could shoot down the President’s proposal huh?
If it can get passage I think the smartest thing to do is get a piece of that construct to GEO asap (5 years) before the Tea Party takes over. That may be one of Obama’s only enduring visions if he gets toppled. Kennedy got to the Moon by doing it quick. If JFK had rolled out a 20-year time line it probably would have been canceled too.
Thats why I was looking forward to going to DC, for the Space Frontier Foundation’s First Flight, and was quite disappointed when it got canceled (due to Snowmagaddeon), and will be there when it is rescheduled (and may show up for ProSpace MarchStorm
“And why would Ares be better than plain old Space Shuttle-C?”
Because Ares V is still the program of record as they say now days. I don’t see a game changing advantage on Shuttle-C, Direct, or Ares V. So let’s keep what we have on track. Nothing more…just that!
To do anything above LEO we are going to need a crew vehicle. Orion is past its mid-point of development so I say complete it.
I wasn’t for anything like this in 2003-2005 but given where we are now keep as much of Constellation as possible is the best course.
“However, I guess the Congress could shoot down the President’s proposal huh?”
Hopefully. The we can just keep on with what we are doing. The President’s plan is more destruction than construction.
John,
It would be great to keep Constellation going, better still really going anywhere within a reasonable timeframe.
But ever since George W. Bush put forward his Vision for Space Exploration, Congress has refused to give the project adequate funding. So it’s not going anywhere soon, if ever.
Maintaining this situation is probably doing more harm to manned spaceflight than a clear change of direction.
Good for Homer.
This is a commercial industry htat just a few years ago made it clear they didn’t want government funds or involvement. Their rallying cry was, “get government out of the way and we will raise private capital to get to space.”
When they realized that most investors can find less risky investements that yield higher returns, now they are crawling back to government — but without very little capability to sell. They just want the $$$$$.
@ Aerospace Engineer:
Here is your first quote: “why not keep the Space Shuttle, which was designed to maintain the ISS?!?”
The point I made was that Shuttle was NEVER *designed* to maintain the ISS, NEVER. It was part of a mega plan of having a Shuttle and a station way way way back when. When NASA could not get the whole shebang going they kinda deal with the USAF to at least get the Shuttle. So, yes Shuttle was designed to bring up AND down fairly large structures but it was not DESIGNED to build or service ISS whatsoever. We need credibility to support the Space program, see what I mean?
@common sense:
I see what you’re saying. I just find it rather ironic that we’re saying we want extend ISS and the most suitable vehicle to support ISS happens to be the Space Shuttle – and we’re getting rid of it.
After 2010, no US HSF for a long long time. Holdren & Garver are dismantling it. I mean, just listen to their BS talking points.
The commercial guys are nowhere near ready. Constellation is real. I say just finish it. Better than pipe dreams.
Either requalify Shuttle ( a recommendation of the CAIB report) or finish Constellation. Either is better than the new “plan”. The new plan is HSF death.
“I just find it rather ironic that we’re saying we want extend ISS and the most suitable vehicle to support ISS happens to be the Space Shuttle”
STS is the only way to complete ISS construction because they were designed that way, but STS is not suitable for ISS support. It’s an egregiously expensive way to deliver cargo. And it’s a proven risky way to transport crew over multiple years. And there aren’t enough orbiters left to support continued operations if NASA loses another one. Replacements have to be found if the U.S. civil human space flight program is going to continue.
“Holdren & Garver are dismantling it. I mean, just listen to their BS talking points.”
How is a program to develop at least two domestic crew transport providers instead of relying on Russia through the end of the decade “dismantling” the civil human space flight program?
How is HLV development, which has no justifiable application other than human space exploration, on a faster pace than the unfunded Ares V program “dismantling” the civil human space flight program?
How is $9 billion in proposed spending on NASA human space flight programs “BS”?
“The commercial guys are nowhere near ready. Constellation is real.”
Yeah, that Falcon 9 vehicle down at the Cape and Dragon flight article are just paper. The Ares I program has flown so many 5-segment SRB lower-stage and J-2X upper-stage test vehicles. The Orion program is way past CDR and bending actual flight metal.
[rolls eyes]
FWIW…
@Major Tom:
In the new plan, there is no actual program to develop anything!
What domestic crew transport program? Hoping the Merchant 7
will deliver by throwing them some seed money ($500 million this year and a little more than 1.1 billion per year thereafter) and spreading it 7 ways?
Will Falcon 9 actually fly this year? When will the three demo flights be completed? When will it demonstrate orbital rendezvous capability? What about Dragon? man rating? crew escape system testing? drop testing? reentry capsule testing? Recovery capability? How many flights? How many years?
What HLV development? Bolden’s latest guess? Vague “game changing” research? That’s not an HLV development program.
The Merchant 7 are bit players. I have nothing against them and applaud their efforts. But putting more faith in them to deliver robust HSF capability than JSC, KSC, and MSFC is dreaming. They are OK to augment US HSF, not replace it. It is foolish to think that they can replace it anytime soon.
Aerospace Engineer: “In the new plan, there is no actual program to develop anything!”
It sure is better than the Program of Record, which gets Ares I/Orion operational so it can reach the ISS after the ISS is sent to the ocean in 2016, Ares V is finished in the late 2020s, there are no funds to put anything on Ares V until deep in the 2030’s, there is no commercial crew incentive, there is no technology program, and the rest of NASA is left with scraps. Even if NASA had gotten an unrealistic $3B/year increase, the POR was still in huge trouble (because of no tech program, ISS sunk in 2016 before Ares I is built, more urgent needs in other NASA areas that would cut into the $3B/year, etc).
To me the new plan sounds a little bit like the Augustine Option 2: ISS to 202+, some HLV work, a technology program, commercial services, and actual use of the ISS.
In either case beyond-LEO exploration is left for much later. That’s unfortunate. At least with the new plan we have more ISS, ISS use, commercial crew, robotic HSF precursors, improvements for commercial cargo to ISS, more aeronautics, more earth observations, more planetary science, HLV/propulsion R&D, a very strong technology demonstration program including essential demos in space, a general space technology program that should produce broadly useful improvements, Shuttle funding to ensure the ISS is fully built, KSC improvements, etc. Most of this is “bread and butter” work that should come before HSF exploration, even if Constellation was not off the rails (which it was). With the POR all of NASA was doomed to sink with the failed Constellation program.
AE: “spreading it 7 ways”
That’s for the $50M stimulus money and COTS cargo. I wouldn’t be surprised if the larger commercial crew incentives were spread to a smaller group – perhaps 2-4 systems.
AE: “That’s not an HLV development program.”
It’s more than the POR, which doesn’t have significant funds for Ares V work for many years.
AE: “The Merchant 7 are bit players.”
The CCDev winners are
Boeing
United Launch Alliance (ULA)
Paragon Space Development Corporation
Blue Origin
Sierra Nevada Corporation
and the COTS winners are
SpaceX
Orbital Sciences
I wouldn’t call this collection of companies “bit players”. Some of them are quite large. Others are smaller but with an impressive record considering their size. Combined, they have a great percentage of the actual rocketry and spacecraft experience in the U.S. Think about the rocket advances that have happened in recent years – i.e. actual flights or hardware being prepared.
Plus, there’s no reason to assume the winners of the big competition (assuming it’s a competition similar to COTS) will be these 7 anyway.
AE: “But putting more faith in them to deliver robust HSF capability than JSC, KSC, and MSFC is dreaming.”
The POR is clearly unworkable given realistic budgets and a desire for basics like keeping the ISS running. Other recent rocketry/HSF developments from these NASA centers have also not worked out so well for one reason or another (and perhaps it’s not always their fault, but the political web they’re entangled in). Nevertheless, I’m sure they will also have a role in commercial crew (eg: safety oversight and the KSC modernization work in the new budget) as well as the other work in the new budget.
“In the new plan, there is no actual program to develop anything!”
Are you blind?
There’s a program to develop at least two domestic providers of crew transport capabilities to the ISS and LEO. There’s a program to develop an operational HLV by the 2020s. There’s a program to develop robotic precursor missions. There’s a program to develop key exploration technologies like in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems, and advanced in-space propulsion.
Try reading the relevant documents before making patently false and stupid statements.
“What domestic crew transport program?”
The one called “Commercial Crew” that’s funded at $500M in FY11 and rises to $1.2B by FY15.
Duh…
“Hoping the Merchant 7 will deliver by throwing them some seed money ($500 million this year and a little more than 1.1 billion per year thereafter) and spreading it 7 ways?”
The Merchant 7 won $50M from the Recovery Act. There has been no competition for the $500M in the Commercial Crew program. We don’t know how it’s going to be split or who’s going to win it.
Numbers are hard sometimes but try to learn the difference between 50 and 500.
“Will Falcon 9 actually fly this year?”
And all the Falcon 9 hardware is at the Cape:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30220
And Max Vozoff at SpaceX estimated mid-March at the FAA Commercial Space Flight Conference yesterday.
“When will the three demo flights be completed? When will it demonstrate orbital rendezvous capability? What about Dragon? reentry capsule testing? Recovery capability? How many flights? How many years?”
SpaceX has scheduled three Falcon 9/Dragon flights this year (2010) to complete all that. Falcon 9/Dragon have to fall at least seven years behind schedule before Ares I/Orion would have a chance of catching up.
Try reading the SpaceX website instead of asking other posters to do your research for you.
“man rating?”
Falcon 9 and Dragon were designed from the get-go to be man-rated.
“crew escape system testing?”
NASA hasn’t funded this yet.
“What HLV development?”
The one called “Heavy Lift and Propulsion R&D” that’s funded at over $3 billion.
Duh…
“The Merchant 7 are bit players.”
Since when are Boeing, United Launch Alliance, and Orbital Sciences Corporation “bit players”? These are multi-billion dollar companies that have been running launch vehicles from light to heavy for decades. A couple of them are among the biggest aerospace corporations in the nation and world.
Are you really this ignorant of the industry?
“But putting more faith in them to deliver robust HSF capability than JSC, KSC, and MSFC is dreaming.”
When have the NASA field centers ever delivered a robust human space flight capability? After the Apollo fire? After Apollo could no longer be afforded? After Challenger? After Columbia? After Constellation could no longer be afforded?
“They are OK to augment US HSF, not replace it.”
A U.S. company launching NASA astronauts and cargo is still U.S. human space flight.
Think before you post.
“It is foolish to think that they can replace it anytime soon.”
What is there to replace? A Shuttle program that is in shutdown mode? A Constellation Program that was still 7-9 years away from delivering a basic human ETO capability?
There’s nothing left besides ISS. NASA’s in-house launch development and operations activities have imploded. They have no choice but to turn to commercial sector.
Lawdy…
@Major Tom
Press conference buzzwords and vague R&D
plans are not definite projects. They are pipe dreams.
And your space cadet wild eyed gullible
dreams have bought into it.
$6 billion over five years as “seed money” for
HSF? Get real.
And HLV “studies” is not a real project. It is
snake oil.
Lawdy indeed….
@major Tom:
“When have the NASA field centers ever delivered a robust human space flight capability? After the Apollo fire? After Apollo could no longer be afforded? After Challenger? After Columbia? After Constellation could no longer be afforded?”
With this one paragraph you have managed
to insult 50 years of hard won US human
spaceflight capability and achievements.
Nice going.
Perhaps it is you who should “think before
you post” and who should pause before
throwing around words like “stupid”.
Perhaps you should also pause to reflect
on the fundamental difference between
open ended unfocused R&D studies and
actual committed real projects – like Mercury, and
Gemini and Apollo, Shutte and Constellation.
Or the difference between having a real HSF
project under development as opposed to
cancelling it totally and hoping a man rated
reliable space system (to LEO only) is going
to materialize any faster from people who
have never done it before, including ULA.
As much as you hate Constellation (or all of
NASA apparently with your tasteless comment
about the tragic accidents) it was a real
project that even the Augustine committe said
was OK and whose main problem was a
lack of money.
I’ll even go as far as to say that if Ares was
problematic than OK have ULA man rate
the EELVs instead. But fund that directly, don’t just
offer some seed money to “whoever” for
“whatever”.
And why cancel Orion which is progressing
just fine (again no negative marks from the
Augustine commission)? And is man rated
and suitable for both LEO and BEO?
The Obama “plan” for HUMAN spaceflight
replaces actual projects with vague R&D
studies that Bolden and Garver cannot even
articulate adequately. And offers $6 billion dollars
spread over 5 years to multiple
companies to further HSF. $6 billion
over 5 years is to several companies
is not a serious project.
If we wait till all those “game changing”
technologies promise to get us to Mars in
weeks we will be waiting a long time.
I hope SpaceX succeeds. We’ll see. Meanwhile
it would have been nice to have a NASA
project going on in parallel.
“Press conference buzzwords and vague R&D
plans are not definite projects.”
Are you kidding? Here are the programs direct from the budget documents:
1. Technology demonstration program, $7.8 billion over five years.
Funds the development and demonstration of technologies that reduce
the cost and expand the capabilities of future exploration activities,
including in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable
modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems, in-situ resource utilization, and advanced
in-space propulsion.
2. Heavy-Lift and Propulsion R&D, $3.1 billion over five years.
Funds R&D for new launch systems, propellants, materials, and
combustion processes.
3. Robotic precursor missions, $3.0 billion over five years.
Funds cost-effective means to scout exploration targets and identify
hazards and resources for human visitation and habitation.
4. Commercial Crew, $6.0 billion over five years.
And that doesn’t include ISS extension and enhancement, commercial cargo acceleration, or the base space technology program.
“They are pipe dreams. And your space cadet wild eyed gullible dreams have bought into it.”
Yeah, $20 billion plus is “pipe dreams”. Only a “space cadet” with “wild eyed [sic] gullible dreams” could believe that level of funding would ever produce anything.
[rolls eyes]
“$6 billion over five years as “seed money†for HSF? Get real.”
Here’s a hint, Sherlock — that funding is for the Commercial Crew program alone.
“And HLV ‘studies’ is not a real project. It is snake oil.”
$3 billion plus funds a lot more than “studies”. And why would that be “snake oil”? It’s getting HLV development started years before Constellation.
Constellation was funding Ares V at only $25 million (with an “m”) per year as far as the eye could see. That’s go-nowhere, snake-oil studies.
“With this one paragraph you have managed to insult 50 years of hard won US human spaceflight capability and achievements.”
I wasn’t talking about capability or achievements. Your post was about sustainability, and I pointed out that the premature termination of overly expensive programs like Apollo and Constellation and several accidents like Challenger and Columbia have created multiple gaps in U.S. human space flight capabilities. Despite having several painful examples to learn from, NASA’s human space flight program has yet to learn that it needs multiple, affodable means of getting crew to and from orbit in order to have a sustainable program.
It’s not an insult to talk about and learn from accidents. Pretending they didn’t happen does a much greater disservice to those who sacrificed.
“Or the difference between having a real HSF project under development as opposed to cancelling it totally and hoping a man rated reliable space system (to LEO only) is going to materialize any faster from people who
have never done it before, including ULA. it was a real project that even the Augustine committe said was OK”
The Augustine Committee did not say that Constellation was “OK” — the final report pointed out numerous budget, schedule, and technical problems with the program. And, in fact, they argued that a commercial solution for ETO crew transport would be available 1-3 years EARLIER than Ares I/Orion.
“I’ll even go as far as to say that if Ares was problematic than OK have ULA man rate the EELVs instead. But fund that directly”
What do you think some of the $6 billion in the Commercial Crew program is going to go for?
“And why cancel Orion which is progressing just fine (again no negative marks from the Augustine commission)? And is man rated and suitable for both LEO and BEO?”
Orion is not efficient for LEO — it’s a very large and expensive capsule for ETO transport. And it’s not clear that it’s going a desirable solution for new exploration architectures, either. And with Ares I gone, there’s nothing for Orion to launch on anyway, unless industry decides that they want to modify and finish it for Commercial Crew (e.g., Bigelow/LockMart’s Orion-lite).
“$6 billion over 5 years is to several companies is not a serious project.”
It’s $1 billion more than what the Augustine Committe said was conservatively needed to get at least two commercial crew providers into service by 2016.
“Meanwhile it would have been nice to have a NASA project going on in parallel.”
Why? Why waste limited taxpayers dollars replicating what industry can do? Why compete with industry? Shouldn’t NASA’s limited budget be focused on what industry can’t do?
“Perhaps it is you who should “think before you postâ€
“Lawdy indeed…”
If you’re going to insert some witty comebacks into your posts, you should try to come up with your own, original language. Any parrot can repeat my words.
Sigh…
[…] not the president’s intention.” Nelson also reiterated earlier comments that the new plan needs a goal, namely Mars. “[E]verybody knows the goal and that’s to go to Mars,” he […]