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 post”

“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…

“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. 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….

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…

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!

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.

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…

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.

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?