The historic snowstorm that hit the Washington DC area over the weekend with over two feet of snow in many locations (I measured 24″ as of mid-afternoon Saturday and just got my power back at home after being without it for over a day) has claimed a space advocacy casualty: the Space Frontier Foundation’s “Take Back Space 2010″ lobbying effort (originally, and controversially, known as “March Storm” and later renamed “First Flight”). The Foundation’s Michael Heney notes via Twitter that the event, which was to have a training session today followed by a week of meetings on the Hill, has been scrubbed by the weather. “Go NSS, ProSpace, and AIAA – we’ll try again later in the spring,” he writes.
Jeff, since your power without perhaps you did not get a chance to see the NASA Q&A press conference with Charles Bolden. Here is the YouTube video:
Lol! Sorry. Here is the link to YouTube video: NASA Administrator meets with reporters
Hmm, I can’t resist asking: if we can’t deal with two feet of snow in an otherwise benign environment, how do we expect to live on Mars, let alone elsewhere in the Solar System.
— Donald
Good question from Don Robertson, I do think that we should realize that (at least at first!!!) people living on Mars will be carefully chosen, in excellent health, highly motivated, and will prefer independence. Cities must cater to the elderly, sick, and dependent.
Similar to how people say that the military medical system proves that the government (not that I am trying to get into that debate!) can run a health care system. Military folks are almost universally in excellent health, motived to keep themselves in good shape. So those people that will be the first to live on Mars are the ones that need the least support.
Isaac Asimov, in his series about a robot detective (R Daneel Olivah as I recall), postulated a future where the Spacers (decendants of those that colonized other solar systems) were almost a superior breed (and they thought of themselves that way) and felt that Earth people were beneath them.
“Hmm, I can’t resist asking: if we can’t deal with two feet of snow in an otherwise benign environment, how do we expect to live on Mars, let alone elsewhere in the Solar System.”
Well, it can’t hurt if you expect to have $500 billion (+?) to get you to Mars and make you comfortable there. For that amount of money, you could probably just melt all the snow on the east coast, and recreate your onetime benign environment.
I’m with Donald.
The Martian environment is very different from anything here on Earth — even Antarctica where we have established bases. There are three things at least that are very different. First, the atmosphere is not at all Terrestrial. Secondly, radiation levels are far higher. Thirdly, the gravity is greater lower. I can see a few humans living underground in sealed environments as a way of dealing with the first two differences. But what about the third? I understand that astronauts aboard ISS work out two hours a day — and they see some changes for the worse during a long mission. Perhaps 38% Earth normal gravity plus exercise is enough to maintain a healthy body. We don’t know, though. We need to do experiments — starting with lab rats — to see what happens in differing gravitational fields. Until we have at least done that much, talking about Martian settlements is more in the nature of dreaming than anything else.
Here’s the way I suspect the settling of the Solar System will go. First, some sort of economic driver (e.g., solar power satellites) will make it advantageous for humans to live off planet for long periods of time. For these people we will construct something along the lines of O’Neill colonies. O’Neill colonies can, at least theoretically, be designed as Earth like in the interior. After a long period of time of people living in O’Neill colonies and with much biological experimentation, we develop a relative to human beings that can settle on Mars. Perhaps it will be possible to develop this new model of human without going into space in major ways. Mars Direct, though, is nothing but fantasy — at least in my eyes.
Don’t speculate too much about the human environment on Mars. With the new Obama/NASA direction we will not be there within the next coming 100 years…
With the new Obama/NASA direction we will not be there within the next coming 100 years…
Which is no different than under his predecessor.
we will not be there within the next coming 100 years…
They said that about sailing ships, steam trains, autos, planes, rockets and space too.
MoonExploration wrote @ February 8th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Don’t speculate too much about the human environment on Mars…
it is really to bad that we didnt have government control of aviation like people like you want it to have of spaceflight.
then we wouldnt have all this congestion at the airports.
Robert G. Oler
There are so many things I find humerous about the Mars Direct mission and they are the same things I find humerous about “lets return to the Moon” via the Bush Vision system.
Both assume something which is not in evidence…that a mere “going” to these places will induce their settlement. So in the case of “we have to go back to the Moon because the Chinese are” (the Washington Times theory) the concept is that by 2030 when we go back we are somehow going to make camp there…
the odd thing is that the system that was going to take to 2030 wasnt designed to “stay” except in a couple of week burst…there was little infrastructure upbuild…and zero commitment by anyone or thing to do anymore then send NASA astronauts back.
What built ISS is the system that is in theory going to return to the Moon or go to Mars (if only we embrace the Zubrin system)…even if the folks got to Mars and were not dead and we did go back to the moon…it would turn out like ISS…ie two or so Americans (or even six) doing nothing of much value…
much less the theory “we are settling this or that planet or moon”…and that does not even approach the theory of it settling can be done.
Robert G. Oler
Robert,
Bolden is quoted as saying, with a host of disclaimers, that “perhaps development of a HLV would begin in the 2020 to 2030 decade”.(not a direct quote)
Why do you supposed it would take that long?
Is he talking about an HLV for a Mars trip, in that decade? or just an HLV in general, for a non specific purpose?
Seems from reading all these posts there are already a zillion ideas out there for an HLV; some could be launched in a few years , so sayeth those on kool aid…..
Of course, not sure what you would launch on the HLV right now anyway,,,,
NASA Fan wrote @ February 8th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Robert,
Bolden is quoted as saying, with a host of disclaimers, that “perhaps development of a HLV would begin in the 2020 to 2030 decadeâ€.(not a direct quote)
Why do you supposed it would take that long? ..
I dont speak for Charlie Bolden but if I were in his shoes I would wait until about that time period to start any sort of specified project development on an HLV.
In my view about four things are needed before NASA tries in any form or fashion any new major “rocket” (Launch vehicle) development.
1. There needs to be some understanding, and a corrective measure applied to whatever circumstances had Ares 1 take 6 billion dollars and about that many years…to well get to a place where it will take another 12 billion dollars and maybe another decade before it has anything useful.
There is nothing wrong with Ares that isnt wrong with the F35, the lockheed combat fighting vehicle, the tanker procurement…name your project. They go far to long in development, take far to much money …particularly when you compare the Ares to Atlas and Delta…and the Lockheed fighting vehicle to say the Cougar.
go look at what it took to develop the F-4 Phantom (time and money wise) and then Look at the F-35…go look at Atlas or Delta and look at Ares…something is wrong inside of federal procurement.
Second.What is the “real” mission of an HLV? I dont buy planetary exploration as one so what is the vehicle suppose to do. What is its niche?
I would wait until we see some more about (and if) human spaceflight being dynamic instead of Statist changes some key things. For instance does the military/intel people move to geniune “space platforms” that need a HLV or do commercial com groups do the same…that is going to define the “lift” size.
Third…If the vehicle is going to be used by non government groups then what is the cost/payment plan and who operates it.
these are enormously important issues and wont have reasonable solutions until a lot of people either get religion and start acting differently OR they go somewhere else
Robert G. Oler
“There needs to be some understanding, and a corrective measure applied to whatever circumstances had Ares 1 take 6 billion dollars and about that many years…to well get to a place where it will take another 12 billion dollars and maybe another decade before it has anything useful.”
Why does it take that much time and money to develop an Ares I? Most of the key elements of it are off-the-shelf or derivatives of the same. The only completely new piece is the body (tanks) of the second stage. It is mostly a systems integration job. So why is it so expensive?
Curious wrote @ February 8th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
why so expensive?
There are several reasons, a lot of this is to do with “double teaming”…ie jobs are done by contractors and then reviewed by NASA folks or NASA folks do jobs that have to integrate with contractors.
but more and more of this is caused by NASA simply putting on requirements with no idea or care of the cost consequences of the effort.
There are several myths that NASA has built for itself…the first (and most costly) is that the lives of the astronauts are more important then say a Marine in Fallujah during the height of the battle there. So they have cocked up idiotic requirements (like 24 hours and home from the space station)…all requirements which add amazing cost to any system.
For instance under current NASA rules the Atlas John H. Glenn rode…well he couldnt do it.
this is all in the face of the fact that the agency was literally responsible for the 14 deaths on the shuttle system by its own incompetence.
Robert G. Oler
After reading Mark Whittington’s blog tonight I finally get it.
He and other Ares huggers think that the American people really care that there is no out of LEO exploration planned either with Ares or under the new plan before 2030…
man is that funny
Robert G. Oler
I’ve read some of the posts here in the past few days and it seems to me there is too much focus on the system, i.e. Ares vs COTS, etc. If NASA can’t do Ares I in less than ten years for the billions that are being discussed then there needs to be a major cultural change inside the NASA organization. Otherwise they will mess up any approach they take.
I am not even sure what NASA is for. Anymore. As a Fed Agency.
It serves no need.
Why not just abolish it?
Curious – I agree with you, but might argue from a different angle, slightly. Your COTS vs Ares isn’t the right frame – rather its usually a rocket vs rocket system, or tech vs tech, or something like that. Its not a discussion about the underlying culture (which, I would submit, COTS is inherently tied to). Thus, people view it as Ares vs Falcon 9, or something like that (COTS being a program and Ares a rocket).
But your underlying point, that NASA need s a culture change – its time for that. Absolutely. There most recent attempt to recreate Apollo demonstrates that in spades.
NASA today is not capable of the magnitude of culture change necessary to alter the present dysfunction inherent in the existing POR performance.
And that dysfunctional culture includes how NASA relates to Congress and the WH.
As the CAIB points out, the cause of the Columbia Disaster has its seeds in the Challenger accident, and have not been addressed. (words to that affect). And still isn’t as of today (IMHO).
(BTW: Griffin killed, mid stream, as one of his first official acts, an effort at an Agency wide ‘culture change effort’ that O’Keefe started.)
Going to the commercial sector allows the culture of Space X to drive development of a HSF rocket. Or Orbital etc. And if I were any of the Merchant 7 companies now in the game, I would insist that NASA “LEAVE ME ALONE”.
This is going to be tough, because the JSC Astronaut Core, I’m sure, has representative all over the existing POR providing their input into design decisions, etc., in much the same way the Apollo astronauts did during the Saturn, LEM, etc. construction. And, I’m sure there is ‘double booking’ of NASA folks watching over all the POR contractors, insisting they do things the ‘NASA’ way. Since JSC astronauts will be riding in a Space X, or Orbital, or etc. rocket, I bet there will be lots of tension between the NASA cultural way of doing things vs. the Space X way of doing things; this of course leads to, if I were administrator, ending the JSC Astronaut core ( a subject for another post) and letting Space X, etc. hire their own astro’s.
Where there is hope for a culture change at NASA, lies with those presently in their 20’s and early 30’s. (all 15 of them: LOL) (Average age of the NASA workforce is 48 ish). Once those senior folks now unemployed by cancellation of the POR leave the Agency, and a generation or two goes by in which NASA does not build HSF hardware , perhaps those in their 20’s now, will have created a culture that suits their generation and that maybe, in the 2030/2040 time frame, when the HLV ideas of Bolden start to mature, will be able to pull of a development effort inside a culture that is more conducive to meeting cost and schedule goals, AND knows how to relate to Congress and the WH in such a way as those institutionown dysfunction doesn’t negatively impact the Agency.
It is a new era at NASA.
“I am not even sure what NASA is for. Anymore. As a Fed Agency.
It serves no need.
Why not just abolish it?”
Good question, but the answer is easy. The Space Act defines formally what NASA is supposed to be about. So Congress knows what it is for. It may not be about what you want it to be about, but it lays out a very clear set of goals for the agency that I think speak to national need. People should really go back and read that document with some care. If it isn’t right, then we as a nation should change it. The promised new “national space policy” might be a step in that direction.
Seriously, NASA is not formally about “inspiration” or “exploration”, or even expansion of the species. None of that. Those words don’t appear in the document that defines the agency
@Ferris and Curious:
“Your COTS vs Ares isn’t the right frame ”
I would like to expend on that. It actually was supposed to be COTS AND Ares if you wish under the VSE. Private space was supposed to complement the NASA efforts for exploration. It became really hot when it appeared that NASA was NEVER going to be able to achieve their goals and therefore the COTS people became an unbearable competition to the so called POR (Ares/Orion). It is a very poor and very sad vision at the top of the NASA chain of command that made it happen. Things were supposed to be very, very different. The commitment to the ESAS study and the no Plan-B state of mind resulted in today’s mess. It has nothing to do with the engineering and scientific talent at NASA nor with the safety issues that people keep bringing up, nothing. Safety is now brought up to show that NASA is safe while commercials are not, a feeble attempt at saving the POR. It will not happen. And if it were to happen it will die a slow death and spell then end of HSF in the US for decades to come. Why might you ask? Well very simply because if we keep the POR the vehicles will be fielded for servicing the ISS which would have been terminated by then. A vehicle, Orion, would have been eventually designed to go to ISS, not the Moon (it is not being designed for the Moon as we speak), with no destination to go. This abominable failure would eventually result in the cancellation of the whole program since you’d end up with a capsule with nowhere to go and this whatever the sso called Ares-huggers would have you believe, be it under this WH or the next. And that is that. Too bad.
Doug etc interesting discussion.
Where the POR starts falling apart (and the efforts to defend it are residues of it)…is that 1) in its conception (ie the politics of it) no effort was made to integrate the entire concept into “American life” and 2) when it was implemented no effort was made to integrate the implementation into some goal that had short term staying power.
I think that most of the people who made policy in the bush administration were as dumb as rocks. They took things that “sound good” (democracy in the mideast) and thought that these things could happen just because they thought them. They gave no real thought to the difficulty of the effort nor to the actual implementation of it.
The concept of “going to the Moon and learning how to use its resources ” sounds great to space junkies but even in the best of times I dont see that as something that sales to the American people. I know that comes as a shock to the space junkies but that concept is just to far fetched to most Americans to work this as a real effort. (particularly when sold by an administration that had lost all credibility in terms of its vision of the future).
The task to Griffin (who got the seat to implement this) was to try and devise something that could be sold on a near term basis to the American people. He chose (and I dont understand why) the notion of “Apollo on steroids” as if that notion would sale to the American people either.
Had for instance he sold some notion of linking a return to the Moon with a “return of the commercial launch industry” I think the program would have 1) gone farther and 2) had more support.
As it is neither the grand strategery (grin) or even its implementation has much support outside of the normal space pork supporters.
I find it laughable (and more then a little pathetic) when I go to the Ares supporters web sites and read things like (Paraphrasing) “what has everyone upset is the lack of any date to go outside of LEO”.
There is a reason that Bush the last never put any of his political capital into the effort…even his political shop found it a non starter with the American people.
Spudis, Whittington, Homer all might care about “when we get out of LEO” (my words) or “when we start using the Moon’s resources” (my words again) but as even the Rasmussen poll shows…most of the American people dont give a flying fig.
Obama didnt push 3 billion more dollars to save this turkey because he didnt want to be laughed at by almost everyone…not even Bush put a lot of capital into his own theories…because of the same reason.
NASA needs to find its way into serious space research and some relevancy among the American people…and then we can start talking some grand projects for it.
Robert G. Oler
@NASA Fan:
You are on the right track and there will be considerable pain, possibly unstainable to some, before the horizon clears up again at NASA.
BTW it is Astronaut Corps, not Core.
“He chose (and I dont understand why) the notion of “Apollo on steroids†as if that notion would sale to the American people either.”
He did not sell it to the public that is why he chose the reference to Apollo. Rather he sold it to the boomers that were retiring and the other former Apollo workers still around who wanted it. It was NOT sold to the current public who does not know Apollo and cannot care less. I remember one time telling someone in a shuttle back from the airport I was working on the space program to go back to the Moon and they had no friggin’ idea it was in the works. Even though it had already been annouced by GWB. It was an attempt to interest people on their way to retirement NOT those who were looking to dooing something interesting. But it was in no way the VSE as it was supposed to be.
“He did not sell it to the public that is why he chose the reference to Apollo. Rather he sold it to the boomers that were retiring and the other former Apollo workers still around who wanted it.”
That’s exactly right. It was justification once-removed. Instead of coming up with compelling reasons to do it that would appeal to new generations who were not steeped in cold war concerns, he tried to justify it by saying it was going to do, well, whatever we did before, only better. Since it was greatly loved when we did it before, that must mean it would be more loved now! That’s just strategic evasiveness.
Since it was greatly loved when we did it before, that must mean it would be more loved now! That’s just strategic evasiveness.
Actually, it’s a cargo cult.
Cargo cult? Yes, that too. Well put.
You know, Constellation is one of these architectures that, at one time, would have been the right way to do the job. We see a lot of that. If it was a good idea once, then …
But times change, and technologies evolve and mature. Anyone still have an IBM Selectric typewriter? Those were great. Then.
In the Apollo days we didn’t have a clue about doing precision formation flying or on-orbit construction. In those days, an HLV was the only way to go. Putting things together to go places wasn’t a smart strategy. Just docking a command module to a LEM was a big deal. But one of the enduring legacies of ISS and triumphant successes of that program is that we now understand – heh, no – we’re EXPERTS AT, building big things in space out of smaller pieces. We’re damned good at it. The Constellation program would have chucked that expertise entirely, backtracking us into an Apollo-era space transportation system. Constellation made us comfortable, because it was a strategy that once worked, but it wasn’t right for today. It was going to move us to the Moon, but it wasn’t going to move us ahead.
Now, I still believe that the rationale for going to the Moon was never adequately crafted. Crafted in terms of contemporary national needs and taxpayer priorities. So, as I said, the idea that it was once a great thing to do made it to some an even better thing to do now if done on steroids. That idea was a policy disaster that we’re paying for now. The “steroids” bit should have sent up red flags everywhere. Maybe it was the Texas folks involved who figured that doing a once-revered program bigger was what it was all about. I guess it’s the rest of the country that didn’t (thanks Mr. Oler!) give a flying fig.
Doug, the policy, i.e. the VSE, may not have been the greatest but it was not what Constellation implemented. The WH policy and the NASA implementation after O’Keefe completely diverged. O’Keefe’s plan may not have been the greatest either but it was still the best so far and what the current plan seems to be is a re-hash of the O’Keefe’s plan: Step by step, technology development/maturation, etc. The only things removed really are the Moon objective and artificial milestones (must be on the Moon by 2014!) so to not fall in this trap again because you can go to the Moon and back with a technology that will never, never will let you go anywhere else. The same can be told for Mars even though the transport capabilities required to go to Mars are much closer to anything needed for the entire Solar System, rather than the Moon. And, btw, if some one want to go to the Moon it must be seen as a stepping stone to other destinations. As VSE intended. Constellation did not. Period.
I agree. Actually, I was pretty impressed by VSE when it first came out, and I can accept that the Moon should be an important stepping stone for Mars. But the stepping stone turned into outposts, and presumably some sort of colonization. There are people who think that’s good. I’m undecided about whether it is a national need. But colonization of the solar system is NOT what NASA is chartered to do!
Also exactly right that Steidle’s spiral approach was, in many respects, what we’re looking at now. O’Keefe was smart to adopt that approach, in retrospect, and Griffin heaved it out the door as he adopted unrealistic and constraining milestones. See, major technology investment and hard dates for milestones are inconsistent. If you’re going to be on the Moon by 2020, you can’t cross your fingers and hope you can develop the technology to do it by then. You have to pin down the architecture, and commit to some level of eventual obsolescence.
In many respects, that ‘s what we did with Apollo. At that time, it was probably a price that was justified.
Rand has some good words in his article.
I dont disagree with what he said, but in my view what Apollo on Steroids was designed to do more then anything else was to protect NASA as an infrastructure.
the lesson from shuttle and station, but particularly station was to Griffin that programs get into trouble, but generally the inertia can have them ride it out. Station came within one vote of being killed (or at least having a major setback). But it survived, and I bet had it died, someone would have found a way to breath life in it.
My belief is that Griffin thought that this would be the same way with the structure built around “the vision”…ie that as it slipped it would have kept administration support (whatever that administration would be) simply based on inertia….no one had a better idea or plan (there actually are not many “plans” that work with “do this or that by such and such a date”) then the Moon so it would stay.
Problem is that as things floundered at the agency what Griffin could not foresee (few did) is that the economy would unwind as quickly as it did AND that the deficit would simply explode…and that the American people really didnt give a “fig” (sorry I like that) about his program. Nor did he count on an administration which really could say “no”.
Paul Spudis is at “on orbit’ beating the drums about a “space race”…and really it is idiotic (http://onorbit.com/node/1954)
this is a quote “The hard power aspect is to confront the ability of other nations to deny us access to our vital satellite assets of cislunar space. The soft power aspect is a question: how shall society be organized in space?”
it is the most idiotic thing I have heard since Bush ran around The Republic telling us that Saddam was going to nuke our cities…
The Chinese have barely managed to duplicate Gemini IV…to make the above statement is asinine.
Robert G. Oler
Griffin somewhat became to HSF what Mikhail Gorbachev was for the Soviet Union. They both opened the door to a small degree and they lost control. One of the USSR and to a somewhat lesser degree the other to HSF when he (fortunately!!!!) did not cancel COTS. Such is life.
I tend to disagree with the analysis above on the POR. It is basically based on an assumption of failure of POR elements. If NASA can get its act together and get Ares I and Orion flying by 2015 then it can service the ISS for human transport. The existing COTS contracts and follow on will carry the supplies. What the original plans were really mean nothing.
However, this depends on Congress not just scraping everything and NASA managing this thing a lot better. I think this is a lot more likely than many of you do.
There are still today remnants of the Cold War in many people who talk about soft power. As if soft power only exists between super power nations. The relationship between China and the US is so far different from that that existed with the USSR that all those comparisons kill the credibility of those who speak them. Soft power has more meanings. For example and if Charles Bolden keeps true on his promise to involved poorer unusual nations it could a heck of lot for the US. Today the confrontation is more between the poors and the rich, the North and the South so to speak than between nations. We MUST show that the US is an inclusive nation a country that will peacefully lead rather that militarily lead. The people fighting the US, and the wealthy nations, do not fly super advanced airplanes, they use cell phones to activate bombs. They use knives to attack pilots and attendants. They have a very small military budget and no one B2 or F-22 or nuke sub will help in that struggle. So there is a place for soft power, just not that is enunciated above.
John, get over with it. Constellation is dead. D.E.A.D.
“In many respects, that ’s what we did with Apollo. At that time, it was probably a price that was justified.”
It was the ONLY way back then to do it within a decade and it all made sense, to some extent. There is no such pressing need to do it the same way today, save for the political cycles inside the US.
The real space race is twofold.
the first is to make spaceflight in general and human spaceflight in specific pay for itself.
The irony here is that Russia and Europe ….two partners who if they wanted to COULD go back to the Moon (Rockets and modules) have expressed almost no interest in doing so. The Chinese are supposdly doing it…and there are a lot of drum beaters in the US who claim we should.
Russia and Europe are busily making space “pay”. They have taken almost all the commercial space launches in the world. The Chinese launch almost nothing commercial (for a variety of reasons)…and the US has lost it because all the dollars we have go to things that dont make economic sense.
Second the other race is to make human spaceflight either pay or be so cheap that it is affordable or get the US taxpayer to pay for it.It should not be lost on anyone that the module being delivered to ISS by an American shuttle…has made in Italy on it…made in Italy in large measure because we couldnt afford to build it in the US.
Go back to the Moon for soft and hard power? Saddam is going to kill us all…it is about the same level of thoughtfullness
Robert G. Oler
Common Sense:
“John, get over with it. Constellation is dead. D.E.A.D.”
I see no real evidence of this. If by Constellation you are meaning “going to the Moon by 2020″ I agree. This isn’t the real issue. The issue is do we completely go COTS now. The answer is no. The Orion has very good chance of surviving this. From a political point of view Ares I has to go forward as well.
Bloden doens’t really have any support on this. I don’t the Obama really cares. All he is saying is that he isn’t going to spend more money to go to the Moon. Given the budget limits Graver & friends come up this proposal they’ve been selling. That is DOA! I’m sure that they will stay within Obama’s budget limits and the ISS will become the new focus. That’s were Congress goes its own way.
Also, don’t forget a recent Supreme Court ruling that allows Corporations to do a lot more campaign spending.
John, sorry but you’re wrong. It won’t happen. You shall see.
John…yeap you are wrong…Ares 1 and Constellation are dead…I can see “Orion” emerging in some fashion maybe…
but Ares is dead…no money Robert G. Oler
Nope Orion will NOT emerge either. It is dead. They would have saved the thing otherwise. It’s dead, dead dead, dead dead dead.
it is the most idiotic thing I have heard since Bush ran around The Republic telling us that Saddam was going to nuke our cities…
I must have missed that. On what planet did it occur?
No you are wrong. There is just too much damage in to many districts to too many interest that normally would fight each other but will now join together. Just watch and see why I’m right!
Rand Simberg wrote @ February 9th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
it is the most idiotic thing I have heard since Bush ran around The Republic telling us that Saddam was going to nuke our cities…
I must have missed that. On what planet did it occur?..
Earth, third planet from our Sun, in the Continental US…”smoking gun smoking mushroom”, “dangers gather near our shores” “have to invade Iraq now”.
pay attention next time people start talking about war
Robert G. Oler
Earth, third planet from our Sun, in the Continental US…â€smoking gun smoking mushroomâ€, “dangers gather near our shores†“have to invade Iraq nowâ€.
Must have been an alternate universe.
Physician, heal thyself. You cannot provide a citation of him doing such a thing. In fact, he said it wasn’t imminent.
Rand. I am not going on a space forum to debate the rationale for the Iraq war…other then it is a fact that over and over again The Bush administration used phrases (“Smoking gun smoking mushroom”) that were designed to tell the American people an attack was imminent.
you want to believe otherwise…go ahead. you and the five other people who think that can ditto away.
back to space policy Robert G. Oler
Guys, guys, guys: Everyone take a deep breathe and calm down.
Saddam had a management problem, and got himself overthrown (To make tyranny last, you must be a good manager!).
Griffin had a different problem, and got himself overthrown as well. Some would say his tyranny ended prematurely.
In the end, there is a budget going to move through Congress (a different sort of tyranny some might say) and we’ll all see what happens come Oct/Nov.
Also, The Chinese are winning the race to produce scientist and engineers, while the US is winning the race to produce lawyers!
Paul Spudis is at “on orbit’ beating the drums about a “space raceâ€â€¦ (http://onorbit.com/node/1954)
this is a quote “The hard power aspect is to confront the ability of other nations to deny us access to our vital satellite assets of cislunar space. The soft power aspect is a question: how shall society be organized in space?â€
Paul…what prompts you to come to this conclusion?
What evidence do you have that 1) nations that would deny us access to our vital satellite assets of cislunar space…exist.
Who (what nation) is going to do that?
Curious
Robert G. Oler
On the VSE.
What many people miss about the Vision for Space Exploration was the importance of the commercial sector aspect. President Bush knew the only way this program would fly is if it was a pay as you go project. If the budget grew or shrank, the time line would mearly be adjusted but the program would continue to go foreward. The commercial sector was supposed to be funded for BOTH cargo and crew.
In an interview President Bush gave after the VSE speech, I believe it was with Shepard Smith, the President said something to the effect that commercial crew would be doing flights to the ISS in the 2012-2014 time range as a back up for the ISS if for whatever reason the CEV was not flying yet. ( It was still the Crew Exploration Vehicle at the that time, the ESAS had not been rolled out yet.
The original intent of the VSE and the space act of 2004, in my opinion, was to close the gap one way or the other. Either NASA or the commercial sector would and if they both did, America would have a domestic backup to the CEV and would not have to depend on Russia in the event it didn’t come online in 2014 as expected or an accident occured.
“The soft power aspect is a question: how shall society be organized in space?”
That’s not “soft power”. Soft power is the ability to influence through attraction, instead of force. Deciding how a new nation or state will be organized is not the same thing attracting a new nation or state to be organized a certain way. Population (we have our people there and you don’t) is an instrument of hard power. Ideals, diplomacy, achievements, etc. (your people want to be organized like us because of our values, how we treat others, and what we’ve achieved) are instruments of soft power.
Space settlement could be an instrument of soft power (it would be one helluva an achievement), but not in the way described. A better understanding of foreign policy 101 definitions are in order here.
FWIW…
“In an interview President Bush gave after the VSE speech, I believe it was with Shepard Smith, the President said something to the effect that commercial crew would be doing flights to the ISS in the 2012-2014 time range as a back up for the ISS if for whatever reason the CEV was not flying yet.”
I can agree with that or something close. I’m look at commercial space as Plan-B if my Plan-A fails. I think long run it is a great thing too. But, don’t fall of this we have destroy government space flight first.
Senator Bill Nelson stated in a Senate Hearing:
“You can’t do it on the cheap,†Nelson told him. “The problem is that you have put all the eggs in the basket of assuming that those commercial rockets are going to work and that NASA is not going to have to spend a lot more on making sure those commercial rockets are safe for humans.
“There is no fail-safe position,†Nelson said. “If those commercial rockets don’t work, then for the forseable future we’re going to be relying on the Russians just to get to our space station.â€
“That’s got to be changed,†he said.
“Bolden is quoted as saying, with a host of disclaimers, that ‘perhaps development of a HLV would begin in the 2020 to 2030 decade’.”
No, Bolden stated that an HLV “would be tested and ready for flight” in that decade. HLV operations (not development) would start after 2020. (This is better than Ares V, which wouldn’t have been available until 2028, at the earliest.)
FWIW…
“I can agree with that or something close. I’m look at commercial space as Plan-B if my Plan-A fails. I think long run it is a great thing too.”
Great, but that’s not what the old Constellation program did. It didn’t fund any commercial crew development. There was no domestic alternative to Ares I/Orion underway. If Ares I/Orion development was delayed and stretched out, the ISS, NASA, and the U.S. were always going to be reliant on Russian Soyuzes. And that’s what happened.
“But, don’t fall of this we have destroy government space flight first.”
How is putting in place at least two domestic providers of ETO human space flight capabilities going to “destroy government space flight”?
You do realize that “government space flight” (at least in the U.S.) has always relied on commercial industry to develop and operate its vehicles?
Goofy…
“I tend to disagree with the analysis above on the POR. It is basically based on an assumption of failure of POR elements. If NASA can get its act together and get Ares I and Orion flying by 2015 then it can service the ISS for human transport.”
Read the final report of the Augustine Committee. Even with billions of more taxpayer dollars, Ares I/Orion wouldn’t have been operational until 2017 at the earliest. And there was only a small chance of that. The most likely date was 2019.
GAO reports have been pointing out the same for years now. Even without technical or funding setbacks, the long tentpole in Ares I development, the upper stage J-2X engine, was going to take until 2017, for example.
“However, this depends on… NASA managing this thing a lot better.”
Although it could have been much improved, better program and project management wasn’t the main problem. Fundamentally different decisions were needed during program formulation. Even the world’s best development manager can’t close a human-rated vehicle design safely with little or no budget margin, unrealistic schedule assumptions, and poor technical assumptions leading to negative mass margins.
“”The Orion has very good chance of surviving this. From a political point of view Ares I has to go forward as well.”
No, they don’t. In order for Ares I/Orion to survive and go forward, the relatively few congressmen with major Ares I/Orion work in their districts or states are going to have to convince the rest of Congress to vote to overturn the White House’s budget every year for the next 3 to 7 years (depending on how long this Administration is in power). There’s zero chance that’s going to happen.
“I think this is a lot more likely than many of you do.”
So what? I think my dog will start speaking in English before the year is out, but that doesn’t make it likely to happen.
“No you are wrong. There is just too much damage in to many districts to too many interest that normally would fight each other but will now join together. Just watch and see why I’m right!”
These interests have been joining together for the past five years and, even with a friendly Administration, they have failed to secure the funding promises made in the VSE in every year except the first year.
Why would they start succeeding now? Especially against an Administration that’s shutting down their program?
FWIW…
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/08/prepare_for_liftoff
unlike the “soft hard power” nonsense of those who support the old regime…this is a fairly thoughtful analysis of the future.
Robert G. Oler
John wrote @ February 9th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
what you cannot seem to grasp is that the government option has failed.
Robert G. Oler
“Why does it take that much time and money to develop an Ares I? Most of the key elements of it are off-the-shelf or derivatives of the same… It is mostly a systems integration job. So why is it so expensive?”
Little on Ares I was off-the-shelf or a close derivative of existing hardware. The lower-stage SRB was an unflown 5-segment motor, not the 4-segment used on STS, and required a new propellant grain and geometry. To squeeze every bit of performance from the 5-segment SRB, the lower-stage nozzle was going to have to be the longest composite nozzle ever made, pushing the limits of high-temperature composite structures. Because the 5-segment SRB wasn’t attached to an STS ET (or other large damping structure), several thrust oscillation countermeasures were needed.. The upper-stage J-2X engine needed to deliver substantially higher thrust than the Apollo-era J-2, necessitating a redesign of every component of that engine. Even the parachutes for recovering the lower-stage were larger than any ever flown, pushing the limits of that technology due to the weight of the 5-segment SRB.
Ares I used old technology, but practically all the subsystems and components were new designs and developments, regardless of whether they could point to heritage hardware or not.
FWIW…
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/opinion/09tue1.html
pretty realistic Robert G. Oler
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/9/834735/-First-Flight
My thoughts in depth
Ferris…well written and documented. I am not registered at Kos (might give it a try for this) but the prose is good. I would agree with all of it (shudder!) Robert G. Oler
Surprising? – NOT!!!!
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russia_wants_to_charge_more_for_rides_to_space_report_999.html
You guys are the one that don’t get it. Congress is just going to go the the way I’ve stated. The Bolden plan is DOA. The administration doens’t have any real resolve on this. If Congress goes with Ares I and Orion then the adminstration will accept it. My view is that this isn’t just a few interested parties against everyone else. We’ll see.
“Surprising? – NOT!!!!”
Still way, way cheaper than Shuttle or Ares I/Orion.
FWIW…
“You guys are the one that don’t get it.”
Yeah, we’re the ones that don’t get it. All of us are in the wrong. You and you alone have correctly predicted the course of congressional deliberations and negotiations with the White House for the next ten-plus months. We all bow before your genius.
[rolls eyes]
“Congress is just going to go the the way I’ve stated.”
Yes, it’s going to go that way because you said so. Nyah, nyah, nyah…
How old are you? Ten?
My four-year old nephew puts together less juvenile and more thoughtful arguments.
“The administration doens’t have any real resolve on this.”
Yes, the Administration is just joking. All those Augustine Committee meetings were just for fun. And that blue-ribbon report is just for the prety pictures. And that six billion dollars that the White House added to NASA’s budget in an era of historic federal deficits was just to fake out congress.
Are you serious or are you trolling with this goofiness?
“If Congress goes with Ares I and Orion then the adminstration will accept it.”
Why? When Congress cut the VSE in its first appropriations bills, the Bush II Administration didn’t accept it — they threatened a veto. And Congress restored the funding.
Despite all the whining, Congress always follows the White House on major funded changes in the direction of NASA’s human space flight program — Apollo, Shuttle, Freedom, ISS, and the VSE. There’s no evidence that history will be any different this time.
“My view is that this isn’t just a few interested parties against everyone else.”
By definition, it is. There are only a handful or two of states and districts with major Constellation work. Everyone else in Congress either doesn’t care or is eyeing that Constellation money for their own interests. Kill the President’s budget request for NASA and those Constellation congressmen risk losing more NASA jobs in their districts and state than if they pass the President’s budget largely intact.
FWIW…
[…] last week’s “Snowmageddon” forced the Space Frontier Foundation to cancel its lobbying event, “Take Back Space 2010″ (a wise move given the blizzard that hit a few days later), […]