NASA, White House

The reason for the limited budget details?

One interesting aspect of NASA’s FY11 budget proposal released last week was the lack of detail in the budget request. In past years, like FY10, NASA has released lengthy documents going into detail about all the programs, their funding levels, and other details. This year, though, all that NASA released last Monday was a single presentation with five-year projections for key programs, but no further details.

There may be a good reason why the FY11 release was so brief. Speaking at the NASA Innovative Partnerships Program Commercial Space Update Meeting in Crystal City, Virginia, on Tuesday, a NASA official indicated that NASA got its budget “passback” from OMB very late in the budget process. Very late. Normally the passback to the agency is provided around Thanksgiving, or at the latest early December. “The passback this year was the Saturday night before—less than 48 hours before—the budget rollout,” said Charles Miller, senior advisor for commercial space at NASA, as an explanation for the lack of details about some of the technology R&D programs contained in the budget proposal.

Why the budget passback was so late isn’t clear, but if the agency doesn’t know its funding levels until just before the budget’s release, it doesn’t give people much time to fill in the details. Miller added that the new emphasis on technology programs came at the direction of the White House, which had indicated to NASA last year that what they agency was doing was not innovative enough, and asked NASA to study what it could do if it had more R&D funding. That effort culminated in the new technology programs included in the budget request.

In the days since last Monday’s budget release, agency officials have mentioned that they’re working to provide more details, in particular on the exploration plan. In today’s Houston Chronicle, administrator Charles Bolden said he’s working on the “beginnings of a plan” for human exploration that will be ready when he appears at Congressional hearings currently scheduled for February 24 and 25. That plan, he hinted, would have Mars as a long-term goal, possibly as soon as the early 2030s.

141 comments to The reason for the limited budget details?

  • NASA Fan

    Sounds like, at the WH direction, NASA put together some ideas/funding targets for R&D. I wonder though if NASA knew at that same time that Cx was headed for the dust bin of history.

    Obama seems all about open government and transparency; I’d love it if all the discussions between Bolden and Obama were transcribed and then made available to the public.

    It would be interesting to know what NASA management knew of Obama’s intentions and when they knew it.

    I suspect there were a lot of blindsided NASA HQ folks last Monday.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Speaking of blindsiding, I wonder what all those folks who have been defending that Obama policy as being “new!”, “innovative!”, and “bold!” think of the idea that it may just be a plan to go to Mars in twenty five years?

  • Mark,
    The important thing to remember is that any government plan that is much longer than a presidential term is essentially meaningless. The only part Obama or Bolden has control over is what happens in the next 3 years, and possibly another 4 after that if Obama doesn’t end up being a one-term wonder. With Congress only budgeting one year at a time, it means even less. Look how close we are to Bush’s plan from 04 or Griffin’s plan from 05?

    Nearterm, getting investment in commercial crew development, and some money for doing flight demonstrators of cryo prop transfer and storage, and some other innovative technologies is far more important than what NASA thinks it’ll be doing when I’m in my 50s. If they can manage the nearterm stuff well, it will open up many new possibilities and reevaluations down the road. This whole idea that a government agency can plan things out 20 years in advance, and should somehow stick to that plan and not make course corrections or even major reevaluations every several years is ludicrous.

    So yes, I think Obama’s policy is bold, new, and innovative, even if NASA ultimately thinks it means that 10 years from now they’ll start tooling up to go to Mars.

    ~Jon

  • Major Tom

    “I wonder though if NASA knew at that same time that Cx was headed for the dust bin of history.”

    NASA didn’t have to wait for the White House on that. Many folks have seen it coming for years, and anyone could have predicted it after the Augustine Committee reported out.

    “I’d love it if all the discussions between Bolden and Obama were transcribed and then made available to the public.”

    Regardless of who sits in the White House, Administration budget deliberations are always embargoed before the budget release. The Executive Branch has to be able to complete its decisionmaking before Congress and special interests weigh in.

    “I suspect there were a lot of blindsided NASA HQ folks last Monday.”

    That’s true every time a President’s budget request is released.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “…I wonder what all those folks who have been defending that Obama policy as being “new!”, “innovative!”, and “bold!” think of the idea that it may just be a plan to go to Mars in twenty five years?”

    That it’s newer, more innovative, and bolder than a plan to go to the Moon and repeat Apollo 30 years from now.

    Duh…

  • Mark R. Whittington

    “That it’s newer, more innovative, and bolder than a plan to go to the Moon and repeat Apollo 30 years from now.”

    Your premise is faulty. Constellation was not designed to “repeat Apollo” “thirty years from now.” It was meant to pick up where Apollo left off.

    The ObamaBolden “On to Mars!” scheme is a redo of Apollo, on an interplanetary scale. That is the program you and other dupes have been supporting.

  • Major Tom

    “It was meant to pick up where Apollo left off.”

    How? There were only going to be two landings a year at most — same pace as Apollo. There was only going to be one more astronaut on the surface — whoop de doo. There was no ISRU investment. There wasn’t even a surface robotic program to identify the best sites for research and leveraging lunar resources.

    Heck, with Ares I/Orion overruns through the roof, it was unclear there was ever going to be a lunar mission. Altair’s budget had been zeroed out. Ares V barely received design funding.

    Constellation wasn’t Apollo plus. It was Apollo minus the Moon.

    “The ObamaBolden “On to Mars!” scheme is a redo of Apollo, on an interplanetary scale.”

    How do you know? Did the NASA Administrator consult with you on his plans? Did the White House let you in on their budget deliberations?

    Don’t write about things you know nothing about.

    “That is the program you and other dupes have been supporting.”

    Why are you resorting to calling other posters names? No one has called you any name in this thread.

    Keep your ugliness to yourself.

    Bleah…

  • Frank Dew

    Calm down folks,

    Let’s wait for more details. And, if you think it’s all wrong, read about the plans NASA had during the Apollo days for spacestations, spacetugs (for cargo, astronauts, chemical ones, nuclear ones,..), etcera. Check out for example http://www.beyondapollo.blogspot.com.
    Yes, all plans for infrastructure, made by NASA back then, instead of just the next bigger and better than before rocket!

  • CharlesTheSpaceGuy

    Sigh. The result of the delayed budget planning is paralysis – there is some hope that Orion will still be funded, and some hope that Ares will even be funded. With no idea what to do with most of the civil service and contractor workforce, decisions are being delayed. We are going to drift along for months.
    And this causes uncertainty in the commercial arena – can they count on this path being followed up on? Or could we see another chaotic change announced?
    These are difficult days in the space business – at least the part that deals with getting people into orbit.
    I do hope that Falcon 9 works the first time!

  • John Malkin

    Wow! How do you get “Direct to Mars” out of the disclosed information. Didn’t the original vision have Mars as a final destination. Even the flexible plan has Mars as the final destination with the moons being the first missions. Bolden said that new innovative technologies from Constellation would be incorporated. Constellation is being replaced by flexible Constellation which is more modular so more commercial companies can take part instead of one big prime contractor dictating everything.

    Boeing is looking to the future while Lockheed is stuck in the stone age.

  • Returning Student

    @CharlesTheSpaceGuy – I agree.

    It possible, before everything is said & done, that addt’l Ares test launches & further Orion development will be funded – as part of the R&D effort prescribed by the President’s budget. Not only would this approach placate congressional delegations in FL, TX & AL, it could also serve as insurance against failure of commercial launch providers to deliver (ie., we’re continuing to develop a government LEO option).

  • Loki

    “There was only going to be one more astronaut on the surface — whoop de doo.”

    Actually “the plan” was to have all 4 Orion crew members go to the surface and leave Orion unmanned in lunar orbit, so there would be 2 more on the surface than before, not 1. Also, the reason why there was going to be only 2 landings a year was that after a handfull of shorter “sortie” missions there would, eventually, be a manned base that would use a crew rotation scheme similar to the one for the ISS.

    As for Whittington’s assertion that CxP was “picking up where Apollo left off”, yes and no. At one point the plan for post Apollo lunar exploration was to have a manned lunar base, in addition to all the stuff Frank Dew pointed out. Of course, that was all predicated on continuing to recieve the same level of funding as Apollo, which obviously never happened and never will again.

    “There was no ISRU investment. There wasn’t even a surface robotic program to identify the best sites for research and leveraging lunar resources.”

    Only because congress never appropriated enough funding for those things. Originally that was all in the plans. And actually there was some investment in ISRU technology a couple of years ago, before Ares overruns ate that budget. Hell, they even have (had) prototype ISRU robotic rovers as well as manned lunar rovers (on a trip to JSC just last year I saw the latter being driven around a parking lot, and not just as a publicity stunt either). With all due respect you make it sound like those things were never in the plans at all, which is simply not true.

    “Don’t write about things you know nothing about.”

    Hmm, good advice…

  • NASA Fan

    Placating congressional delegates in FL, TX & AL, by continuing under the guise of R&D, the Ares and Orion developments, is exhibit 1 piece of evidence that the ability to follow a long term strategic plan in impossible in the present NASA/WH/Congressional culture.

    This piece of evidence is a different form of the same dysfuction that plagues any long term R&D and Development effort undertaken by NASA.

    The lack of a compelling long term vision/strategy, one that captures the imagination of the American public and congress (and I don’t even know if such a thing exists for HSF, but that is a post for another day), results in the short term tactical plans trumping any attempt at long term strategy.

    It’s called ‘drift’

    It is what the CAIB pointed to as plaguing NASA….and obviously still does if Exhibit 1 evidence is indeed what transpires in the next few months.

  • Loki

    “on a trip to JSC just last year I saw the latter being driven around a parking lot, and not just as a publicity stunt either”

    Correction – now that I think about it that was 2 years ago, not last year, sorry. Time flies.

  • CharlesTheSpaceGuy

    @Loki – yes, you were blocking my photo!

    But seriously, was that when it was driven around in front of Bldg 1, or back by the Gilruth? Back by the Gilruth they have their simulated Moon scape, so it must have been in front of Bldg 1.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ February 10th, 2010 at 9:52 am

    Speaking of blindsiding, I wonder what all those folks who have been defending that Obama policy as being “new!”, “innovative!”, and “bold!” think of the idea that it may just be a plan to go to Mars in twenty five years?..

    what never stops surprising me is how you work to find the anti Obama slant, even if it means being against something you were once for.

    as it stands “now” that includes completly repudiating the concepts put out in the Weekly Standard piece that YOU ASKED to have your name attached to.

    I wouldnt be surprised, indeed I think that it is a possible goal that both a Mars trip and a Lunar return (this time to stay) could be done in 20-30 years after the cycle of innovation and commercialization start in human spaceflight.

    Pick any twenty to thirty years in the history of aviation and the only people who were wrong about its progress were the folks who predicted in a sort of Ares/Constellation type fashion… “the status quo” extending out into the future.

    So lets look at different futures.

    take the “Mark Whittington” future first. The Congress rebells against Obama’s space plan and reinstates Constellation/Ares…The Republicans have continued their theories on spending, which is spend spend spend…and the next thing you know NASA has another 3 billion dollars a year. By 2030 we are on the verge of sending humans back to the Moon. Flying hardware whose legacy dates back to either the Apollo or Shuttle era….Two flights a year of four NASA astronauts. Whittington proclaims the universe safe for Democracy…Spudis throws confettii over soft power demonstrating how the Moon will be settled and explored by the US and not those Godless Chinese who are intent not on world domination but on dominating our lunar purity of essence…wow

    Now the other world. Obama suceeds; Constellation/Ares cancelled. NASA reformed into a massive R&D agency testing things like fuel depots/advanced propulsion systems…slowly gut surely we start assembling things in LEO which are then sent to GEO where humans fly out and service them. some massive instruments/platforms have been sent to the L points…there is a human serviced observation platform in Polar orbit. The nation is safer because 1 or less meter resolution optical reccee 24 hours a day can be had of any place on the planet…there are massive “intel” systems in GEO orbit keeping tabs on the “evil doers”…

    Things change in human spaceflight technology on a 10 year cycle much like commercial aviation does today…and all the parts are there to either return to the Moon and stay and/or take fast trips to Mars…

    Whittington sits in front of TV (opps sorry “Information screen”) going “it was all because George Bush had a vision and why wont anyone acknowledge that (along with the fact that there could have been WMD in IRaq)!”

    Robert G. oler

  • Returning Student

    @ NASA Fan – The agency was birthed in the politics of a missile gap, of Sputnik, & a race to the moon; alas, NASA has been captive to politics ever since. Shifting administrations & funding priorities frustrate long-term efforts – the kind of effort inter-planetary travel would entail. Consequently, planning documents do not include ambitious agendas unless they can be accomplished in the short term, or with very modest expenditures. The ambitious stuff is unfortunately relegated to vision statements…

  • It’s looking a lot more as if I on the right track. It is clear that the Administrtaion doens’t really have a plan. Also, they aren’t going to be able to put together a realistic one before Congressional hearings. I’m even seeing signs that they are back tracking. Ares I and Orion are going forward.

  • Loki

    @Charles

    I think it was building 9 (the one with all the mockups, it’s been a while but I think that’s 9). Some co-workers and I were going over there to take a look at the Orion mockup and the hanger style doors on the south end were open and some guys were driving the rover out of there. They were probably on their way to either building 1 or Gilruth.

  • Aerospace Engineer

    The reason for the limited budget details is because there is no plan.
    Bolden is still trying to figure out “what this really does mean.”
    This from the man allegedly in charge.
    It means Garver and Holdren are dismantling US HSF capabilities.

  • Major Tom

    “Actually “the plan” was to have all 4 Orion crew members go to the surface”

    Not anymore. Orion crew size has been coming down for almost a year due to mass issues. For example, for ISS missions, crew was reduced to four:

    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/FOUR042209.xml&headline=Weight%20Forcing%20NASA%20To%20Shrink%20Orion%20Crew&channel=space

    Even if lunar Orion was still at four crew, I’d still say “whoop dee doo” at two more crew per mission over Apollo. Spending $230 billion to $400 billion-plus to still send a few people to lunar orbit and surface 50 to 65 years after Apollo is not a wise use of taxpayer resources.

    “Also, the reason why there was going to be only 2 landings a year was that after a handfull of shorter “sortie” missions there would, eventually, be a manned base that would use a crew rotation scheme similar to the one for the ISS.”

    No, it’s driven by the cost of Ares V. The sortie missions were only going at two per year, too. See the two Ares V/Altair launches per year in 2019 and 2020 in this 2009 schedule (among others):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Constellation_missions

    “Only because congress never appropriated enough funding for those things.”

    No. The NASA budget didn’t meet VSE commitments, but Constellation received additional, not inadequate, funding. If you look at the old FY 2004 VSE budget and compare it to more recent budgets, NASA’s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate received MORE (not less) funding than what was promised.

    Here’s what was promised in the FY 2004 budget:

    FY 2004 $1,646.0M
    FY 2005 $1,782.0M
    FY 2006 $2,579.0M
    FY 2007 $2,941.0M
    FY 2008 $2,809.0M
    FY 2009 $3,313.0M

    Total $15,070.0M

    And here’s what ESMD actually received in each fiscal year:

    FY 2004 $2684.5M
    FY 2005 $2209.3M
    FY 2006 $3050.1M
    FY 2007 $2869.8M
    FY 2008 $3299.4M
    FY 2009 $3505.5M

    Total $17,618.6M

    The total difference is $2,458.6 million. So the Bush II Administration and prior Congresses provided almost $2.5 billion more for ESMD than what the Bush II Administration promised in FY 2004 to develop systems and technologies to return to the Moon. This doesn’t include the $400 million that ESMD received in the Recovery Act (passed after the Bush II Administration), which would increase the total difference to $3 billion.

    The problem is not Constellation underfunding. The problem is that Ares I/Orion technical issues and schedule slippage ballooned costs from $28 billion to something on the order of $35-44 billion. That’s what killed ISRU and most actual lunar hardware development in Constellation and ESMD.

    “they even have (had) prototype ISRU robotic rovers”

    Reference?

    “With all due respect you make it sound like those things were never in the plans at all, which is simply not true.”

    Reread my earlier post. I never was arguing the plan. I was arguing the program as it existed. “Altair’s budget had been zeroed out. Ares V barely received design funding…”

    “Hmm, good advice…”

    Be careful where you point that gun.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “I’m even seeing signs that they are back tracking. Ares I and Orion are going forward.”

    Did you even read the article in Mr. Foust’s original post?

    “Bolden said he would like to use some of the money previously earmarked for Constellation’s Ares I rocket to fund newer technologies that might get humans to Mars more quickly.”

    Ares I funding is getting redirected to technology development for deep space missions.

    “It’s looking a lot more as if I on the right track.”

    Because you can’t read or comprehend a short article even when it’s pointed out to you?

    Lawdy…

  • Major Tom

    “The reason for the limited budget details is because there is no plan.”

    How is turning routine ETO operations over to the private sector, refocusing NASA investments on exploration R&D, getting an HLV underway earlier than the old plan, and aiming all that at Mars “no plan”?

    “It means Garver and Holdren are dismantling US HSF capabilities.”

    Except for Shuttle and ISS, there are no U.S. human space flight capabilities. The decision to “dismantle” Shuttle was made two NASA Administrators ago under the previous Administration.

    This NASA Administrator and Administration have decided to extend ISS, put at least two domestic commercial ETO capabilities in place to support it, and focus the rest of the investment portfolio on extending U.S. human space flight to actual deep space exploration. That’s not “dismantling”, no matter how many times you say it is.

    FWIW…

  • Vladislaw

    “This whole idea that a government agency can plan things out 20 years in advance, and should somehow stick to that plan and not make course corrections or even major reevaluations every several years is ludicrous.”

    I remember listening to Griffin in an interview describing his choices for the lunar return. He said he wasn’t going to just build us something that could get us there, but he was going to build a system that “would last 50 years”. As soon as i heard that I new the moon return was done. He wasnt interested in getting there as fast and inexpensively as he could. It was all about building a legacy system with his name all over it.

    I mean the idea he wanted something STILL flying 50 years later … where the hell is the innovation! … So after Griffin did constellation, NASA would not have to design any new vehicles for space for FIFTY YEARS?

  • HotShotX

    “So after Griffin did constellation, NASA would not have to design any new vehicles for space for FIFTY YEARS?”

    Of course not. They’d still be building the first round of Constellation vehicles.

    Rib-jabbing aside, I think both sides of the “Bold, New, Innovative” and “OMG OBAMA KILLED NASA” debate can keep their rhetoric to a minimum until the Feb. 24/25 hearings.

    The above story regarding the budget rollout provides a valid and plausible reason as to why there seems to be a lack of vision. I give NASA enough credit as a whole to at least deserve the opportunity to get their crap together before criticizing them.

    ~HotShotX

  • common sense

    “Your premise is faulty. Constellation was not designed to “repeat Apollo” “thirty years from now.” It was meant to pick up where Apollo left off.”

    Yes it was an apollo repeat: I know I was on that program. But it was such when the ESAS came out, not before ESAS. The VSE had all the bells and whistles a lot of people are craving for including ISRU. ESAS/Constellation could NOT afford any of that and it was not to be worked on, nor was Mars btw. I am getting really tired of what Whittington and his ilk do, professing anti-Obama stuff, anti everything and anything. What is your credibility in the space arena? Would you be so kind to share with us? Wrting about a subject such as NASA does not make you an expert on it and since most you say is useless rant why would we give any credibility to your ideas?

    Loki:

    There used to be a lot more in the implementation of VSE than what you state. I don’t know when you exactly came on board but it seems to be after 2005. Some plans had leaving the CEV at Lagrange points (issues surfaced about long term un-crewed vehicles and re-starts) and the number of launches were essentially driven by an “any time abort from the Moon” requirement. Now I haven’t worked on this for several years and things may have changed but O’Keefe’s approach was a lot closer to the VSE than ESAS was ever going to be. Major Tom is correct and the result is what we know today. The problem is NOT the funding. The problem is how it was managed from the start. Betting all or nothing, sometime you get nothing.

  • Robert G. Oler

    The problem with “the vision” (outside of a flawed execution plan) is that the basic concept of it…ie going back to the Moon and in some fashion “settling” it, even if that meant settling it like we have settled LEO with ISS…is that really government is not capable of doing that.

    I do not care how much money was or was not going to be set up for ISRU or how many “non NASA” people went to the Moon, in a program that was being executed by government…the best that could be hoped for is that the “program” would get so big and have so much pork that it would not simply be dropped as the budget got tight or as the human life toll mounted or that the budget never got tight.

    Take the shuttle for instance.

    If the shuttle system was producing wealth, real wealth, wealth that is more then what is being pumped into sustaining it…the program would be in no danger of cancellation.

    ( I would note that has what has got most of the “powers that be” chagrined…they cannot believe that the political class really doesnt care about keeping the program going…particularly since there is no replacement right now).

    But it is going away because outside of the “space class” the rest of America really doesnt give a fig about it…and with times tough no one is wanting to spend even printed money on keeping it.

    The same would have happened with going back to the Moon even had there been a “focus” on ISRU or the various things people like Spudis claim can be done there. NONE OF THEM CHANGE THE LIVES of the rest of the people…

    Killing “the vision” was far easier. The program was under performing, needing a lot more infusion of federal dollars, there are commercial alternatives to the most pressing mission that are far cheaper…and no one can give a reason why the “program of record” should continue other then stupid hard/soft power arguments (sorry Paul S but that was a really lame statement) or jobs…

    As I have said before the supporters of the “program of record” seem to think that Americans in general really care about going back to the Moon ….how stupid can you get…

    Robert G. Oler

  • […] die teilweise geradezu geifernden Kritiker von Obamas Raumfahrtrichtung besänftigen wird …? (Space Politics 10., Houston Chronicle 9.2., PTI […]

  • common sense

    Robert,

    The VSE had commercial space in it as you and I and several others want. It did have it. And yes the problem was the implementation. You’re focusing too much on the NASA side of it. We could have had both from the start and we would be flying NOW. VSE was not the problem, Constellation was, after ESAS. Commercial became a nusiance to the POR becase the POR was failing while commercial was achieving. Bad management of resources…

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ February 10th, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    Robert,

    The VSE had commercial space in it as you and I and several others want. ..

    I agree that the implementation was bad…but…

    the problem is that (at least in my view) a blind man could see that the commercial aspects were never going to happen…and worse…there was no commercial reason to go back to the Moon. There is no reason period.

    my point, inelegantly put I agree is that there is really no reason that in my view is salable to go back to the Moon if the effort takes any serious amount of cash.

    There is an entire entitlement culture that has grown up around human spaceflight and indeed space advocates (not you of course) that goes something like “we are going to spend the money anyway because this is what a great power does…so we should spend it in this or that direction because this is what a great power does”…

    what I am hopeful most about this new budget is that it and the next few years completely break that linkage. What has got us into trouble is that our great power has just started spending money, mostly mindlessly and human spaceflight is a part of that. It ranges from the large (want to invade Iraq dont worry it will pay for itself) to the small (human spaceflight makes us great) and even into domestic spending (who could be against a program that is designed to leave no child behind or can keep us from flying into a depression)…the justification of the spending never really enters in.

    My argument is that there is no way that the basic premis of the “vision” ISRU or all the other things it promised CAN BE DONE without a commercial space infrastructure (that is far more then just commercial lift to ISS) to back it up.

    At one point I believed that we could “jump start” a commercial space infrastructure by going back to the Moon, instead of building ISS…but I was convinced and believe it now that the technology required to do things on the Moon, instead of doing different things on ISS or in LEO is of several orders magnitude more complicated and I believe that today.

    give you an example..take the long line of GEO com satellites from Syncom 1 to the monsters that they build today. there is a lot of “evolution” gradual improvements in technology in the sky…that were fed by demands and markets on the ground.

    What human space exploration consist of is “mass die offs”. there is not a single program since apollo (and that has been 40 years) that has come close to establishing a commercial base for the next one.

    And my belief is that without that…we are stuck in LEO.

    Robert G. Oler

  • “There may be a good reason why the FY11 release was so brief. Speaking at the NASA Innovative Partnerships Program Commercial Space Update Meeting in Crystal City, Virginia, on Tuesday, a NASA official indicated that NASA got its budget “passback” from OMB very late in the budget process. Very late. Normally the passback to the agency is provided around Thanksgiving, or at the latest early December. “The passback this year was the Saturday night before—less than 48 hours before—the budget rollout,” said Charles Miller, senior advisor for commercial space at NASA, as an explanation for the lack of details about some of the technology R&D programs contained in the budget proposal.”

    If you’ve watched how the Obama administration has gone about getting things done in his first year in office, this is not surprising. It also suggest that our space program wasn’t high on his list of priorities.

    And President Obama, himself, still hasn’t said a word about his new space program!

  • Major Tom

    “It also suggest that our space program wasn’t high on his list of priorities.”

    On the contrary, the hardest decisions requiring Presidential attention are treated last in any Administration’s budget process. If an issue requires Presidential attention, all the decisionmakers below the President have to weight in first. This is actually an indication that this decision went all the way to the President, probably at least a couple times as Presidential decisions are usually made around Xmas/New Year’s.

    “And President Obama, himself, still hasn’t said a word about his new space program!”

    Why should he? So opponents can polarize what is normally a nonpartisan topic?

    FWIW…

  • richardb

    Perhaps this is nothing more than throwing stuff and seeing what sticks with Congress? Maybe making it up as they go along?

    Any Nasa plan that is serious will takes months of iterations involving Congress, senior Nasa leadership and the WH, kind of like the VSE effort. Does anyone get the feeling that the WH has been doing that kind of effort?

    This is Space + Politics right? Election year, Obama appearing weak on the Hill, voters abandoning Obama, Congress might just keep Constellation alive one more as they tell Obama to bring Congress a new plan after the election before killing Constellation and VSE. Stranger things have happened.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “The reason for the limited budget details is because there is no plan.
    Bolden is still trying to figure out ‘what this really does mean’.”

    Unfortunately, I’m beginning to think that’s correct. He’s been saying for months that he doesn’t really know what’s going on, and we’d all chuckle at his presumed humility. But Bolden did an all-hands at Marshall today, I heard, and basically said that again. Now that the budget is out, he still doesn’t know what is going on, he says. I believe he related that there were a number of things in the budget summary that he didn’t understand at all, and that the wholesale cancellation of Constellation came as somewhat of a surprise.

    That’s kind of shocking, and goes a long way toward explaining why a top level plan that in some ways resembles flexible path, in many ways doesn’t. In particular, it doesn’t refer to any of the destinations that the flexible path studies did, except with respect to robotic precursors. I’m not looking for milestone dates, as in “we’ll be there by 2025″ (which would be really dumb for a strategy that invests richly in technology) but at least a list, or notional sequence of interesting destinations would be nice.

    The only hint about the direction this budget proposal is pointing for human spaceflight outside of LEO are the references to critical technologies such as “propellant storage inflatable in-orbit transfer and storage, modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, and closed-loop life support systems.” Those ain’t about landing on the Moon.

  • Alex

    As a supporter of this budget, I am a little alarmed by the helter-skelter nature in which it appears to have been planned and rolled out. Bolden’s eloquent, but self-contradictory statements about HLV and subsystems and work force issues also don’t fill me with hope that this transition can be shepherded in any kind of efficient or effective manner.

    If health care reform died with the full backing of the WH behind it, I shudder to think what will become of this budget for an agency that only 40-odd Congress people actually care about.

    For supporters of the Flex Path and Commercial, I think we should brace ourselves for a funded Orion and weird, tinker-toy Ares-like-vehicle tests that are gonna undo any of the R&D budget plus-ups.

  • Now, the NSS has joined the chorus of those who are less than thrilled with this “bold, new direction.” Lori, your little policy baby is ugly.

  • common sense

    “It also suggest that our space program wasn’t high on his list of priorities.”

    Come on!!! Please! He set up th Augustine Committee almost when he moved in! The fact that you don’t like the consequences does not mean it was not high on his priorities. Get real at least a little, please. It WILL help your case, a little.

  • common sense

    Robert,

    VSE was supposed to jump start commercial with LEO ISS service. Read it again http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf For example page 15. The least realistic of it all were the milestones that were very, very difficult under the O’Keefe’s approach and impossible under the Griffin approach. O’Keefe’s approach most likely would have delivered at the very least a flying vehicle by now. The lack of hard requirements for the ESAS based approach killed the whole thing. It is not about the Moon or Mars it is about the implementation. A flexible approach, a la Spiral approach, lets you make progress based on existing and future technologies without putting you into a hole. Basically, so far, the plan resembles the Spiral approach without the milestones. There will be a need for further study. But first the question is can we come up with a flight vehicle soon? NASA failed? Can the privates do it? If they cannot either then all will be put on the back burner for years if not longer. Really get it out of your mind, it was not about the Moon or anything else. It was a very very poor implementation and very risky at that.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Doug Lassiter wrote @ February 10th, 2010 at 4:34 pm ..

    look it is completly possible that this is simply falling apart…but it is also possible that I might be the King of The US shortly.

    If “I” were going to transition the agency from a space entitlement back to an R&D agency…this is probably how I would try and manage the politics of the transition.

    I would make sure the programs I needed killed were killed. I would try and get a lot of “sponge” in terms of how I actually tried to steer the entire effort to allow me to use that sponge to bargin a tad with all the players involved to make sure that any opposition was of the “Richard Shelby” variety…ie nutty.

    IE I wouldnt have a lot of specifics in the “first blush” effort and let me use that “block” to try and get enough of the opposition to come along as to make the remaining folks seem nuts.

    For instance. I like SpaceX and view them as the SWA of the rocket industry. But we all need to be realist here. Lockheed/Boeing/NorthrupG all have talent and all have drive and innovation…they have to be given a chance to evolve to meet the new reality…if only because of the fact that drives SpaceX and other “new entrants” to not become complacent or coast. And to be competitive.

    Likewise how the R&D projects are done and doled out…is going to map out a lot of where the long term items go and any future direction…plus shape how the workforce at NASA evolves.

    In the meantime what one needs is an administrator (and I think Bolden is doing a good job of this) who is a little self deprecating, smooths over ruffled feathers and glad hands where appropriate.

    I have not seen anything that tells me Obama is not going to get what he wants here…wow NSS has come out against it…that is really going to change the debate…

    What is important is how you win. There are some people, Shelby comes to mind who wont figure it out who are just so fouled up that they are going to be sour on everything…but there are some…Nelson for instance and even Hutchinson (who I am pretty sure is going to stay in the Senate) who are “persuadable” given the correct sweeteners.

    All the babble by space groupies like Whittington and the folks with a vested insterest in “the vision” like Spudis are off the mark. It isnt about “no goal” or “no exploration” or “wow we lost the moon”..

    It is about politicians in the House and The Senate being able to say to the “home crowd” …”I got you this”.

    My friend who was chief of staff for a Senior Texas Senator called them “sweeteners”. there are going to be a few of those handed out…most of them will be “fine” and somewhat useful.

    The class of Navy ships that the USS Constitution came from was stalled in The Congress…there were some foreign policy issues…but the chief issue was that the southern delegations wanted some of the ships built there. After some wrangling the bill was massaged to let one be built at Norfolk using Southern timber. The ship was not very successful and because of the spread out the class cost more then it should…but in the end the class was quite useful.

    Bolden is a bright enough politician (really he is) to recognize the maneuvering that is needed. So far I think he is doing a pretty good job

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ February 10th, 2010 at 5:28 pm

    Robert,

    VSE was supposed to jump start commercial with LEO ISS service. Read it again http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf For example page 15. ..
    pardon the multiple quotes…I dont like the line by line thing…but

    I dont disagree with that and I dont think we disagree with each other (much…lol) I am all for “the Moon without time tables”.

    ” But first the question is can we come up with a flight vehicle soon? NASA failed? Can the privates do it? ”

    I think that this is why General Bolden is being very very careful in how he does the transition much to the angst of those of us who need a plan now..

    I think SpaceX can do it…but that is my bias. If I were in Charlies shoes I would not bet all my horses on it. I would want to figure out someway to get Lockmart/Boeing/NG into the effort…it all might come down to one of them or one of them with OSC or one of them with say SpaceX,

    But I would want a couple of horses in that race for a wide variety of reasons…not the least of which is to cover my bets…but also darn it I think we need competition in the aerospace/human spaceflight industry.

    I know a reasonable amount about Boeing (less on the other two)…I cannot imagine that Boeing cannot put together something that flies on the Delta…and for not a lot and do it in 2-3 years

    I suspect that Boeing right now has some folks in a room somewhere doing some “thinking” and planning about how they would glue together a proposal for “something” that can fly in the next 2-3 years. ..and in a non traditional budget (ie cheaper).

    Bolden has to preserve this and indeed has to encourage it.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    From what I’ve read so far Hutchison is the most reasonable of them all! A Texas Republican! Whereas Nelson has been very reluctant to say the least. Shelby, oh well…

    I am sure Charles Bolden is a very bright politician, he did not become a Marine Corps General by chance, did they ever?

  • Ferris Valyn

    Major Tom – One minor point about the budget decisions. You said

    robably at least a couple times as Presidential decisions are usually made around Xmas/New Year’s.

    Its entirely possible it was later than that – don’t forget, Christmas was interrupted with the underwear bomb, which was a bit of a distraction.

  • common sense

    “I think that this is why General Bolden is being very very careful in how he does the transition much to the angst of those of us who need a plan now..”

    Yep. But I don’t know how many actually need a plan NOW.

    As for Boeing, yeah they have the talent, I don’t know if they have the budget or if they can allocate said talent to such work. See, usually the A-Team works on the contract at hand: Shuttle. On the other hand they just won som CCDev money… I still believe they will have legal hurdles if they use anything they have developed under previous government contract. But we’ll see.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “Doug Lassiter wrote @ February 10th, 2010 at 4:34 pm ..

    look it is completly possible that this is simply falling apart…but it is also possible that I might be the King of The US shortly. ”

    No, I didn’t.

    “Bolden is a bright enough politician (really he is) to recognize the maneuvering that is needed. So far I think he is doing a pretty good job”

    I won’t say he’s doing a bad job, but what makes you think he’s doing a good one? By keeping his head down?

    If he really has largely been in the dark about what his agency is being tasked to do, then he’s probably doing about the best job that he can do. A “good job”? Well, it isn’t clear that he was given the shovel to do a good job, or a rope to do a bad one. I think we’ll understand that better in a few weeks when he tries to tell us what job he was actually handed.

  • common sense

    Why would you assume that the head of NASA has no clue of what is going on? I am a little perplexed about this reasonning…

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ February 10th, 2010 at 6:24 pm

    Yep. But I don’t know how many actually need a plan NOW…

    I bet you that they are all looking at it..

    “As for Boeing, yeah they have the talent, I don’t know if they have the budget or if they can allocate said talent to such work. See, usually the A-Team works on the contract at hand:”

    I wouldnt go to the “A team”…what is the line from the Rip Thorn character in Up Periscope something like “Aw dont think like that, I am looking for someone who can think outside the box, who has a tattoo on their (insert anatomical part here)”.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Doug Lassiter wrote @ February 10th, 2010 at 6:41 pm

    OK first apology. I didnt mean to imply that you wrote what came after the paste…sorry I just meant to put a header up. I was going to quote something and then decided not to…sorry for the misunderstanding will be more careful next time.

    You wrote “I won’t say he’s doing a bad job, but what makes you think he’s doing a good one? By keeping his head down?”

    yeah as I said this is about what I would do if I was trying to sell this and wanted to manuever before putting up a plan that is actually going to be shot at.

    Look…Constellation and Ares and going back to the Moon are political judgments by the executive branch and they are not going to survive. I saw the latest Pete Olsen quote and it is disappointing…he is still arguing for more money….he is nuts.

    the show is going to change. the question is trying to massage some of the people to get their support and so far what I have seen of what Bolden is doing he is doing well.

    As he shuttles around The country he is having his meetings and working on who is manageable with some sweetners and who is not.

    I suspect at the end the “plan” is going to go through like corn through my ducks…and NASA will be forever changed.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris Valyn

    Question for Common sense, Major Tom, Robert, and anyone else –

    Obama is planning $6 B over the next few years (roughly)

    Assuming that happens, could we see all 3 current options (Dreamchaser, Dragon, Orion-lite) all get funded and flying?

  • @Major Tom

    You are providing false information concerning NASA FY budgets. The VSE was not passed and authorized by Congress until 2005. The first budget to come under VSE guidelines was FY2006. The projected funding for Exploration Systems Mission Directorate was $3165.4.million for FY2006. NASA received only $3050.1 million. The original request for ESMD was $3468 million, but OMB trimmed this by about $303 million. Congress reduced budget by another $115 million. This is a total reduction of $418 million, the bulk of which was slated for Constellation program. If you go to each NASA FY budget requested, submitted to Congress by OMB, and what Congress passed you will find updated projections from prior years and overall reduced funding profiles.

    You provide the budget projections from FY2004 for each succeeding year. That budget was passed in 2003, two years before VSE went into effect. Budget projections for each reauthorization bill typically are adjusted for inflation index, so outyear budget projections actually change with each succeeding year. You cannot simply take one slate of budget projection from a single fiscal year and use that as the baseline for changes in each successive fiscal year. In this case FY2004 was not even a good baseline since its authorization occurred before VSE authorization was passed by Congress.

    Scott Horowitz provided the VSE budget projections versus actual approved NASA budget in his article published on The Space Review and I checked each succeeding fiscal reauthorization and the figures he provided were correct. Which means that Exploration systems was shortchanged by $12 billion dollars through 2010.

    You are one of the few who continue maintain this fiction that Constellation had received its full funding and then more. Even Charles Bolden has acknowledged that the Constellation program was underfunded.

  • common sense

    Ferris:

    You might see Dragon, almost sure you will.

    I still doubt they can have an Orion-Lite if it is based on the current Orion (need to reprocure, fair competition and the likes). It’ll have to be something else. But a capsule, sure.

    Dream-Chaser ah Dream-Chaser… I SERIOUSLY doubt it. Once upon a time I was told that just an aero database for a lifting body like X-38 would be in the $1B range and that’s just for aerodynamics, possibly aerothermal. Of course some work has already been done at NASA but how much? How different is their vehicle? Dream Chaser is a very “nice” vehicle and might even work but the cost may just make it out of reach. The integration on an LV as shown sounds difficult due to non symmetric aero and resulting loads. I did not say impossible but not trivial.

  • “And President Obama, himself, still hasn’t said a word about his new space program!”

    “Perhaps this is nothing more than throwing stuff and seeing what sticks with Congress? Maybe making it up as they go along?

    Any Nasa plan that is serious will takes months of iterations involving Congress, senior Nasa leadership and the WH, kind of like the VSE effort. Does anyone get the feeling that the WH has been doing that kind of effort?”

    I completely agree with the above. This is not a well though out plan. Bloden doesn’t really have a plan. Obama isn’t really behind this save kill the Bush plan and start mine. With the recent Supreme Court decision allowing corporate contributions this “non-plan” is a non-starter. I see how much you commercial guys wish it was something real but it isn’t. I think your vested interests are showing more than good judgment.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Gary Miles wrote @ February 10th, 2010 at 7:17 pm .,

    Gary…I dont want to get into this because I think Constellation is dead.

    But I will say this…Ares should be operational for what has been spent on it already.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris Valyn

    common sense – from what I’ve heard, Orion-lite is not NECESSARILY Orion-LIKE. In particular, the capsule that was shown over at Hyperbola is gonna be their entry.

    Do you think then we’ll just have, on the cargo side, Dragon and Cygnus, and on the crew side, Dragon and Boeing’s thing?

  • Robert,

    You pretty much do not seem to support human spaceflight period. At least based on the many comments you have made on this blog at any rate.

    Gary

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ferris Valyn wrote @ February 10th, 2010 at 7:08 pm

    Assuming that happens, could we see all 3 current options (Dreamchaser, Dragon, Orion-lite) all get funded and flying?..

    my view? There are going to be two vehicles…if there are three it wont be Dreamchaser.

    The trick in the crew resupply is, in my view some thought by NASA and the folks who are going to build the vehicles…a basic question “what does the vehicle have to do”?

    The Soyuz model is take a crew up hang out at the station for X number of months and then return with a crew. If whatever replaces shuttle has to do that model then one designs the vehicle “one way”…if on the other hand what one is looking for is a 14 day mission (launch with a change out crew, change out, return the old crew)….you dont have much more then Gemini.

    That question has got to be answered because that biases the design and the R&D and a lot of things…

    my theory is that the “rescue” or “abort to Earth” model is obsolete. I think there are two scenarios on the station…everyone is dead in under 2 minutes (extremely unlikely) or one stays aboard and fixes the problem…At one point the astronaut office was opining on 24 hours to earth or something like that as a doctor was at the South Pole being treated over the radio for breast cancer…My theory is that there needs to be “someway” of sending someone to earth (sort of the MOUSSE thing) who is difficult but a general bailout I fell is unlikely…

    I dont view astronauts lives as anymore valuable then a Marine in Fallujah during the height of the battle…

    That question needs to be answered…so do some others…

    2. What is the private/public partnership (ie who flies what, who is the passengers)

    3. what in the past that has been contractual work is available to what company? If for instance I was SpaceX I would like to see almost everything that has gone on in Orion…on the other hand Lockmart would probably like to use it.

    those answers are not impossible but they are going to require some thought.

    Robert G. Oler

  • It sure seems that way to me.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Gary Miles wrote @ February 10th, 2010 at 8:03 pm

    Robert,

    You pretty much do not seem to support human spaceflight period…

    no not really.

    I support firmly the entire notion of commercial lift to ISS, commercial development of human capabilities in LEO and GEO (ie the assemblying of large structures in LEO for GEO orbit or even the L points), space tourism etc.

    I dont find any appeal in the notion anymore of human spaceflight for exploration. I find no value in human return to the Moon or go to Mars as a centerpiece or focus of any federal spending. I think both will happen someday…I see no need for them in any fashion. I dont find ISRU on the Moon as something RIGHT NOW nor do I see The Chinese as a threat.

    My view is that human exploration as a focus point to orient us and focus our energies has had its moment. What exploration we need to do (and I think a lot) can be done by uncrewed vehicles. What we need to do is to focus on making human spaceflight do something that has value to the Rest of The Republic.

    We need middle class jobs, we need new industries, thats making money on human spaceflight

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert:

    “We need middle class jobs, we need new industries, thats making money on human spaceflight.”

    Your ideas will sure destroy a lot of middle class jobs.

  • common sense

    Ferris

    The Boeing vehicle is VERY much like Orion… But we’d need to now the detail as well…

  • Robert G. Oler

    John wrote @ February 10th, 2010 at 8:20 pm

    Robert:

    “We need middle class jobs, we need new industries, thats making money on human spaceflight.”

    Your ideas will sure destroy a lot of middle class jobs…

    jobs which dont even come anywhere close to producing any sort of value for the cost of them.

    They are a lot like Obama’s stimulus bill…all fat no muscle. Nothing the folks who work on shuttle/Constellation produce has any value to The Republic anywhere near the cost. compare them with say a Doctor at CDC…that job produces something that makes The Republic measurably better (or the folks who inspect our meat or…air traffic controllers you get the picture)…

    after the money is spent there is NOTHING that they produce (unlike say the Hoover dam) where one sits back and says “The Republic is stronger because of what they did”.

    To try and make that claim that is why Whittington/Spudis and all the other Ares huggers are making the bizarre claims that they are making about the urgency of going back to the Moon.

    The fact the jobs are worthless to The Republic is not the fault of the people who have the jobs…but that doesnt change the fact that the impact the dollars spent on those jobs has, is no different then welfare spent in the 3rd ward of Houston

    Robert G. Oler

  • John Carter

    Oler – Understand your wife is expecting. Hope she has a mischarage so that your worthless genes are not passed on to another generation.

  • Aerospace Engineer

    The new NASA!

    Notional American Space Advancement

  • Alex:

    “For supporters of the Flex Path and Commercial, I think we should brace ourselves for a funded Orion and weird, tinker-toy Ares-like-vehicle tests that are gonna undo any of the R&D budget plus-ups.”

    This is why you should get with my plan which you might call Constellation Flex Path. Develop the Orion/Ares I combination leaving to a later date the Ares V, Altair, and trips beyond LEO. Let the COTS effort get the supply missions to ISS for now. This way we avoid emphasis on grand goals like trips to Moon and Mars in hard economic times. But, flexibly leaving open the option of going back to those goals at a later date when it might be more politically tenable.

    On the research side, I do support increase development of VASIMR thrusters and using them in the near term for ISS orbit maintainance and unmanned problems. This would take a lot of budget and would get the technologies underway.

  • Robert G. Oler

    John Carter wrote @ February 10th, 2010 at 9:06 pm ..

    nice! I see you are about par for the pro Ares/Constellation crowd…

    Robert G. Oler

  • NASA Fan

    From the Horowitz article: “the figures he provided were correct. Which means that Exploration systems was shortchanged by $12 billion dollars through 2010.”

    Does anyone really think that NASA will get a sustained plus up of $6B over the next 5 years? Or that any eventual HSF ‘plan’ will have sustained funding?

    Congress authorized the VSE twice. It was announced by Bush. And yet despite all that political support (not Bush really), the budget for it was shortchanged by $12B through 2010.

    Everyone is dreaming if they think NASA will get plus ups and real serious HSF money to do anything other than ‘sweeten’ the districts the pol’s live in.

    And I don’t see HSF doing anything that establishes a viable money making commercial market that is worth the Republics $. The ISS cost over $100B to complete. Does anyone think the commercial return on that investment will be worth it once it is de-orbited in, say 2025?

  • “Does anyone really think that NASA will get a sustained plus up of $6B over the next 5 years? Or that any eventual HSF ‘plan’ will have sustained funding?”

    This is why I think that any massive change is bad. I don’t think talking Mars is any better than talking Moon. We need to pull back to Constellation Flex Path to maintain the base for a return to more aggressive programs later. We could lose everything if we aren’t careful.

  • Robert G. Oler

    NASA Fan wrote @ February 10th, 2010 at 9:24 pm

    I think that there is a pretty good chance that The President will get “nearly all” his NASA budget…and if he cannot get a measly 6 billion over 5 years…there is no chance of 3 billion a year increase.

    a few points

    First I dont have a clue if “Doc’s” numbers are right…but he has about as much credibility with me on Ares/Constellation as Feith does about Iraq.

    I dont care how much money Ares didnt get, it got more then enough to come to a flying vehicle (far more then Atlas or Delta got) and we are no where with it. I watched Miles OB interview Horwitz and his “logic” is simply nuts. In the same breath he can claim that only NASA can keep astronauts safe because of its expertise and yet argue for Ares because NASA hasnt built a rocket vehicle in 40 years…as if they were building this one.

    Second…the reason Ares is in trouble is that there is no real clue as to how much more money it needs. T here is really zero guarantee that if they were to get their 3 billion increase a vehicle would come and in any timely fashion.

    Third…what Obama has proposed to do is delink funding for NASA to any specific goal and instead link it to the performance of specific though yet unnamed R&D projects. If these dont work soar overbudget or are useless…they can be cancelled.

    What I find really annoying is the GOP right…Bush and the congress under him wouldnt fund the effort (it is claimed) at the amount requested…so instead of the GOP right the Ares huggers either getting their act together and putting a vehicle together that could be built for the money available…the GOP right just sat there watching the program go down the tubes crippling human spaceflight in This Country and now have the balls to claim “Obama is killing it”.

    “Doc” H is part of that group at NASA that let Ares cost get out of hand. He is like the clowns who said what they said about Iraq and were just wrong…he should hold his head in shame and be thankful he still has some job (whatever that is)

    Robert G. Oler

  • Aerospace Engineer,
    The new NASA!

    Notional American Space Advancement

    Sure is better than the Northern Alabama Spending Agency in my book.

    ~Jon

  • Doug Lassiter

    “Why would you assume that the head of NASA has no clue of what is going on? I am a little perplexed about this reasonning…”

    Well, as I said, he said that several times at major meetings, several times before the budget release, and, as I understand, again today. As in, several weeks ago, “I don’t know what’s going on any more than you do.” So I’m not sure what you’re perplexed about. At face value, he’s telling us like it is.

    Now, I don’t want to believe that, and I have no trouble interpreting that as humility on his part.

    But he also was more specific today and, as I understand (repeating here), said that he was surprised when he found out that Constellation was canceled. He also said there were major elements of the budget proposal that he didn’t understand.

    Why would you assume that what he said isn’t true? I admire the guy, and wish him the best. But if all this is true, he’s got a lot of work to do, as do his bosses.

  • DPS-Greg

    @John Carter. Wow. What is wrong with you? Unbelievably hateful. Good rule of thumb: if you wouldn’t say it to someone’s face then you shouldn’t say it on a forum. Go away.
    @Robert G. Oler if you’re not a fan of human spaceflight, then why support cargo to the ISS? Why support ISS at all? The whole point of the station is HSF. the Station has no commercial benefit at all. Thats the reason NASA funds it an not LM or Boeing. Roughly half of NASA’s budget is (or was I should say) HSF. Commercial cargo to ISS ultimately us funded by NASA for the purposes of HSF. There is no commercially lucrative reason to be in space right now other than communications and earth observation (not for science but things like google maps). Everything else is ultimately funded by the government because there is no return on investment other than exploration and science and technology demonstration. After maybe 50 years of exploration by NASA, commercial enterprise might find reason to venture beyond Earth orbit on it’s own dime. But not until NASA finds true commercially intersting returns as a result of those three fundamental areas: science, exlporation and technology demonstration. Until then it’s all government regardless of who builds the vehicle. I’m leaving tourism out if this on purpose. Until you can sell tickets for a grand a pop to LEO, tourism doesn’t count. HSF will have a return on investment, but not in short enough terms for commercial investment. That is why we have NASA. but NASA is left impotent because the whitehouse (whomever is in it) keeps changing the path. The only reason the Apollo program succeed was that Johnson and Nixon wouldn’t dare trample on Kennedy’s legacy in such an overt way as to cancel the program without at least some accomplishment. Now we have back to back administration changes that are so spiteful of each other that they have to undo each other at the expense of progress and yet somehow in the name of “progress”.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DPS-Greg wrote @ February 10th, 2010 at 10:55 pm

    I guess I was not clear…I do support human spaceflight…it is just right now I do not support human spaceflight for the purpose of exploration of other worlds.

    I think, believe that humans will find things to do in LEO (and GEO) in the near term that will return a value for the cost.

    One of the first things I think will “make money” will be humans assemblying in LEO large platforms that will then go to GEO and be far more useful then the platforms which do things in GEO now. For instance if the price of human spaceflight drops as much as I think it will then I can see the assemblying in LEO very large “Keyhole” like platforms which will offer “anytime” 1 meter or better resolution on demand….that will make The Republic far safer.

    I dont see any real need to send humans to explore places where “robots” are doing all that is necessary to our society at this time,

    Humans on Mars or on the Moon wouldnt change our society one bit

    Robert G. Oler

  • […] Jeff Foust wrote in “The reason for the limited budget details?” on spacepolitics.com that NASA got its budget passback from OMB very late in the budget […]

  • Johnson and Nixon wouldn’t dare trample on Kennedy’s legacy in such an overt way as to cancel the program without at least some accomplishment.

    Also, Johnson was a big space supporter. Nixon took office with a Moon landing already in the budget. So he didn’t get in the way of being the first President to talk to a man on the Moon. I basically see your main points.

    Robert:

    What I find really annoying is the GOP right…Bush and the congress under him wouldnt fund the effort (it is claimed) at the amount requested…so instead of the GOP right the Ares huggers either getting their act together and putting a vehicle together that could be built for the money available…the GOP right just sat there watching the program go down the tubes crippling human spaceflight in This Country and now have the balls to claim “Obama is killing it”.

    Has a lot to do with my motivations. My concern is that Obama might just have killed the space program. He kills Constellation…then the GOP (maybe next year) kill his program which they say is just spending billions and not putting anyone into space.

    If we (Congress) go with “Constellation Flex Path” then we have the big players LMT, Boeing, and ATK pulling the GOP and interested Democrats into support it. It still has Obama’s goal of long term ISS operations. It avoids open talk of grand plans for Moon and Mars that might trigger populist backlash.

    Why Ares I? We could use the Atlas V heavy to launch the Orion. But if we do that we split the support from the ATK people. My plan requires unity of the majors to work. Also, (and here is where we differ I sure) a successful Ares I leaves open the way to an eventual Ares V later if political conditions are favorible.

    What about the newbies? The already have the unmanned support contracts which will continue. This keeps them going and after they have demonstrated their capabilities they may then have a future opportunity to expand into HST.

  • DPS-Greg

    Yeah Robert I read all of that on your previous post. But platforms for what purpose? It’s still vague. Are you talking national security or are you talking commercial enterprise? A platform in space is still just a government funded demonstration of technology until someone finds revenue in going there. If you are talking national defense, well okay then. But that is DOD. Not NASA. Get you funding from them.

  • Major Tom

    “The VSE was not passed and authorized by Congress until 2005.”

    No. The correct budget baseline — the marching order that NASA received from the Bush II Administration — is in the VSE itself, and that starts in FY 2004, not 2005 (FY or CY). See page 19 in the VSE. The budget chart on that page starts in FY 2004.

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf

    Moreover, Congress first appropriated funds for the VSE in FY 2004, not 2005. Go to the summary table for the FY 2005 budget request on the NASA CFO’s webpage, and you’ll see an FY 2004 column for the conference report on NASA’s FY 2004 appropriations. Scroll down and there’s a row of figures for “Exploration Systems”, the new mission directorate that NASA created in response to the VSE, that starts in FY 2004.

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55385main_01%20Front%20page%20Total%20Summary%20Table.pdf

    The first VSE authorization came later. Congress can, and usually does (and actually must to keep federal departments and agencies funded and functioning), pass appropriations bills in the absence of authorization bills.

    “The first budget to come under VSE guidelines was FY2006.”

    No. Go to the NASA CFO’s webpage for the FY 2005 budget, scroll down, and you’ll see “Vision for Space Exploration” PDFs rolled out with the FY 2005 (not FY 2006) budget request and the VSE discussed in “Administrator’s O’Keefe’s Statement” and “Budget Presentation” on the FY 2005 (not FY 2006) budget.

    http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/FY05_budget.html

    “…two years before VSE went into effect.”

    The VSE was “into effect” as soon as the Bush II Administration rolled it out. The White House requested funding for the VSE starting in FY 2004. Congress provided the first funding for the VSE in NASA’s FY 2004 appropriations.

    “Scott Horowitz provided the VSE budget projections versus actual approved NASA budget in his article published on The Space Review and I checked each succeeding fiscal reauthorization and the figures he provided were correct.”

    The VSE budget projection was in the VSE, the associated FY 2004 conference bill, and the associated FY 2005 runout, not in an authorization bill that was passed a couple years later. I don’t know if you’re portraying Horowitz’s position accurately, but it’s silly to claim that a budget that shows up years after a plan has been rolled out is the plan’s “baseline”. Talk about moving goalposts…

    “You are one of the few who continue maintain this fiction that Constellation had received its full funding and then more. Even Charles Bolden has acknowledged that the Constellation program was underfunded.”

    So has the Augustine Committee. And they’re wrong on this point. It’s all there in black and white (or photons and electrons) in the NASA Chief Financial Officer’s budget materials.

    “You are providing false information concerning NASA FY budgets.”

    Please ask posters about their arguments before making false accusations.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “Its entirely possible it was later than that – don’t forget, Christmas was interrupted with the underwear bomb, which was a bit of a distraction.”

    Fair point. If other agencies and departments also received their marks only a couple days before the February budget rollout, you’re probably right — final, Presidential-level budget decisions expected around the holidays were delayed until late January for one reason or another. But if NASA was a unique case, then I’d guess that it was visited but unresolved at the holidays and then revisited in late January.

    I don’t have any insight into the actual FY 2010 deliberations — I’m just triangulating based on prior experience.

    FWIW…

  • Man Bolden is back peddling to whip up some sort of path to go with FLEX-UP. The critics are on him like…and rightly so. We just killed our manned space program without a plan or even a path as to how to go forward. Regardless how bad Griffin’s constellation plan sucked killing it with FLEX-Up no plan , no accountability no nothing was a debacle. What crock and now total KAOS. to bad because ULA had the plan for several months. But it was VSE based not FLEX and it had a path a commercial path for return to the moon commercial style.

    Commercial has the potential all it needs is some seed funding to foster maturity and the opportunity to fly its hardware and to develop infrastructure and markets. But still one very important element is sadly lacking. And that is a program to focus and guide the development along a clear concise path and goal. A program to pull the technology forward. That program is not FLEX. FLEX is too vague, random and lacking of an inspirational goal. FLEX comes up short. Commercial deserves better than FLEX. VSE has the path the inspiration and the goal. ULA has shown they already know the way to execute VSE with Delta, Atlas and other commercial launchers. No HLV needed, No Apollo style program needed.

    http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf

    Still new space and commercial pundits rally around FLEX. Looking a what ULA has put forth it seems to deliver on everything and moves our space program outward driven by VSE while developing low-cost LEO and infrastructure…what more could one want??????? The more I read and hear about FLEX the more random and dead-ended it sounds. As an engineer FLEX sounds like the dream project, no accountability, no deadlines, and no defined goals, just take some funds and go play. And it never ends one could make a life long career out one project. But as an engineer I know this will not work. What we will get is random KAOS and years of wasted unfocused efforts going everywhere yet getting nowhere. VSE is still valid and accountability and a concise plan are required to build the infrastructure and develop a market. Once markets are developed then FLEX works because the markets will naturally drive progress forward. Until we have developed the infrastructure and the markets VSE is needed. And going to the moon provides the opportunity for those markets to develop.

  • danwithaplan

    Perhaps, the US gov is just broke (i.e. out of liquid funds) and is folding up. Across the board. Could be true, you know.

  • danwithaplan

    One will be quick to point out the ‘net increase’ in NASA spending, yet that doesn’t cover even the inflation of the dollar.

  • NASA Fan

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ February 10th, 2010 at 10:03 pm

    Robert, you seem to argue that poor performance led to the ‘myth’ (as others are pointing out) that NASA was underfunded from ’05 to ’10 (as Doc H claims).

    My point is, that performance isn’t the criteria Congress uses when deciding future budgets. Indeed, if NASA’s past performance was so poor, why did Obama just plus it up?

    Rather, I hold the view that future out year plus ups are electioneering tools to allow candidates to say “I support so and so, and you can see that in the budget plus ups I have put forth”. Blah Blah. Blah.

    The Republic is broke. Congress/WH/NASA/OSTP operate in a very dysfunctional way that is detrimental to effective performance of scientists and engineers who attempt to build things on budget and on time.

    Our form of government, the best on the planet, lack leaders and I personally don’t think as humans we are ready to take advantage of our form of government.

    In the end, I would not trust any out year budget planning from WH/Congress.

  • frotski

    Budget passback my ass…

    Let’s see, you are the NASA administrator, you know what the budget was for the previous year and your going to scrap everything in the old budget anyway !!!!!

    So, when you are completely redesigning a budget based on your new initiatives you don’t need to worry about the old budget. What a bunch of B/S…

    Your telling me they couldn’t have had a plan in place for the budget by going off of last years numbers… and then, hey look the President upped our budget even more, GREAT, let’s pad some money here or there?
    They KNEW the old budget and should have been planning the future off of that and then been able to adjust up once they got the increase.

    Blame someone else is the name of the game. I don’t buy it, sorry. This administration is not off to a good start!

  • Jim Dawson

    No, Mr. Frotski,

    You forgot the review by the Augustine committee. That has only been presented a few months ago. That review has to be taken into account for future plans in combination with the budget. I think Charles Bolden is a very capable man who takes his time to make a new plan and involves other people.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DPS-Greg wrote @ February 10th, 2010 at 11:49 pm

    Yeah Robert I read all of that on your previous post. But platforms for what purpose? ..

    my “crystal ball” as to where space commercialism is going (based on a few things) is that in a couple of different venues (communications/national security etc) we are going to larger and larger vehicles, that cost more and need larger “power/etc” and are more “infrastructure” then tools.

    Hence I see that the next big “thing” in both commercial and national security development…is going to be large geo synch platforms that have lots of power, lots of “acreage” for various “devices” and are upgradable/servicable etc…if we can get the cost of human interface down to “something”.

    The irony of human spaceflight has been that (although some simply deny the mix) the mix of humans to their tools (and that includes robotics) has been metered by two items…1) the cost/difficulty of human access and 2) the almost exponential increase in reliability/capability of the electronic tools.

    “Robots” have gotten far better faster then humans have improved their capabilities in space. and the cost of human access to space has stayed “high”.

    but my guess is that the access number is maybe possibly coming down and we finally have found something that humans do well in orbit that robots are still working on getting to the point of …and that is assemblying large pieces in space and making them work. While I beat up on NASA pretty hard about the floundering in launch vehicles…it is amazingly impressive what the agency has done in terms of assembling ISS. An amazingly impressive feat which has “explored” space in a wonderful way.

    At some point some group is going to put A B and C together. They are going to say “what was done on the station can be done on a platform that we boost to geosynch and that is going to make our product far better because it is going to be bigger, more power etc.”

    Is that the NRO that puts together a 1 meter resolution anytime day or night platform? Or is it DirecTV who wants more bandwidth?

    that is where in my view space commercialism is going.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    NASA Fan wrote @ February 11th, 2010 at 8:40 am

    as a separate notion I agree with each one of hte points you make…I dont connect the dots however …(sorry)

    in my view Ares/Constellation has died and wont be resuscitated for three reasons (and it generally takes all three to kill a large federal program)

    1. There was no practical mission that was going to happen in any political lifetime for it. To paraphrase “Wimpy” from Popeye…”few today are going to spend billions for a Moon landing 20 years from now”.

    2. No one could see where the cost stopped rising. NASA has done this act before…the space station was 8 billion dollars. This year they need just 3 billion more…next year even if they got the 3 one of two things would happen, they would need more money or it was going to stretch out.

    3. There is a mission that needs doing (lift to ISS) and that infrastructure is already on line.

    when those three metrics get together…programs end. That is today coupled with the nation being broke, no politician except those who are in porkville wants to get up and say “I am spending 3 billion more dollars on going to the Moon while the rest of you are losing your homes”.

    My point is that for 4 billion dollars NASA should have had something flying by now. Griffin just underestimated and misjudged where the poltiical currents were taking things. (I saw it however…grin)

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/02/unlucky-orion-crashing-space-program-drop-test-fails/

    this is an interesting article…particularly the official comments from LM and the discussion of the Ares 1 launch vehicle.

    Look I oppose the entire notion of going back to the Moon now…but what I dont understand…and in his rantings Mike Griffin has never really answered …is why with Atlas and Delta sitting there…there was not some effort to use them as flyable vehicles for some crew/cargo resupply modules (perhaps each contractor took “one” to put on their vehicle something like that anyway…) so something was flying by the time shuttle shut down. That would have changed the entire nature of the program and oddly enough kept at least the “hope” of going back to the Moon alive.

    I dont get what he was thinking unless he just really got waylaid by the ATK groupies at NASA (and that is a pretty big group particularly in the Astronaut office).

    I am quite thankful…Mike the program would not have died without you!

    Robert G. Oler

  • Silence Dogood

    People are remarkably silent about the FAA’s involvement in commercial spaceflight vs. NASA.

    IMHO, NASA’s role appears to be small vs. the FAA.

    Does NASA have an Office of Space Commericialization? Not really. We had the C3PO, which was a series of fragmented telecons and meetings tied to the VSE’s architecture and goals. What was NASA’s role in terms of technical oversight?

    What about the FAA? They’ve been going great guns with setting policy direction (sure, we all talk about how we do the President’s bidding, but seriously, they’ve led the way for a few years now when it comes to Commericial Space Policy).

    In fact, they’re hosting a great commercialization meeting in DC, in the midst of snows. It’s quite fun.

    Let’s imagine that the FAA starts to do part of NASA’s oversight job. The FAA has a legacy when it comes to oversight activities, arguably making them best-suited for hosting such a venture. They’re also positioned well vs. NASA wrt to policy.

    What will happen then?

  • common sense

    Robert,

    “Look I oppose the entire notion of going back to the Moon now…but what I dont understand…and in his rantings Mike Griffin has never really answered …is why with Atlas and Delta sitting there…there was not some effort to use them as flyable vehicles ”

    I believe I already answered this question and it also is in the Augustine report http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf
    Search for “workforce” and for example look at page 87 about Shuttle derived and page 92 for EELVs etc. The Ares architecture was a politically motivated decision. Proof is in the pudding: Where is Griffin working these days? http://www.mae.uah.edu/faculty/Griffin.shtml

    I hope it is clearer now.

  • danwithaplan

    Ya’ know ‘plans’ are dime a dozen these days.

    Even I got a plan.

    Perhaps, Mr. Obama/Bolden’s ‘plan’ is ‘the plan to end all plans’, perhaps not.

    3/7 years down the road, and NASA will have another ‘cunning plan’ thrown at them from Wash DC. Why not just abolish them altogether as a Fed Agency?

    We’ve been through these fits and start so many times (not that I’d argue that Bad plans SHOULD NOT be shot down on sight)

    It is just that there is no consistency, continuation,

  • common sense

    @ DPS-Greg:

    “The whole point of the station is HSF. the Station has no commercial benefit at all.”

    Well yes and no. CRS is precisely trying to establish a commercial benefit, you have to start somewhere. A possible use of the facilities by say drug companies may help develop new chemicals. But they need access to it. That is another example. I am sure that if you think hard enough you will find them. Tourism is another one as we’ve seen establisehd by Russia, against NASA’s will (pathetic btw) but later on that.

    “There is no commercially lucrative reason to be in space right now other than communications and earth observation (not for science but things like google maps). ”

    So you say.

    “After maybe 50 years of exploration by NASA, commercial enterprise might find reason to venture beyond Earth orbit on it’s own dime. ”

    So what? What is your point? Should we just be waiting sitting on our hands?

    “But not until NASA finds true commercially intersting returns as a result of those three fundamental areas: science, exlporation and technology demonstration.”

    Not true again. Why do you assume it impossible for some private comapny to field its own spaceship and go look for themselves what’s on the Moon or anywhere for that matter. Pipedream? We shall see.

    ” I’m leaving tourism out if this on purpose. Until you can sell tickets for a grand a pop to LEO, tourism doesn’t count. ”

    One of the most ridiculous assertions here. What a limited vision! Again you have to start somewhere, first billionaires will fly then millionaires then… Of course there is no guaranteed success but if some want to give it a try I don’t see why NASA or anyone for that matter would oppose it. And NASA has been a very reluctant player, so far. Based on what criterion? Safety?

    “but NASA is left impotent because the whitehouse (whomever is in it) keeps changing the path.”

    Not this time. NASA was given a golden, GOLDEN, opportunity with the VSE and they blew it with ESAS. Until you come out of denial you will have tough time with reality. What progress has been made by Constellation? What? The only really SIGNIFICANT one has been COTS/CRS and that is that.

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ February 11th, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    yeah I guess I asked the question more rhetorically then anything else…although I really would like Griffin to deal with the issue in some interview.

    Thanks for the link. I’ve actually read the report…all the pages of it…

    page 88 has my favorite typo on it…

    “The choice of ending U.S. participation in the ISS in
    2105 really provides only one benefit, that of freeing
    up the roughly $2.5 to $3 billion per year needed to
    run the ISS, which can then be invested in the more
    rapid development of the exploration systems.”

    2105…

    a slip

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf
    Robert G. Oler

  • danwithaplan

    So the whole ‘commercial HSF’ thing hinges on a $100bil taxpayer (from many countries) station? You folks forget that intrinsic DEMAND needs to be there for a truly commercial enterprise (not necessarily realized, but at least imagined and dormant for the customers)

  • Robert G. Oler

    danwithaplan wrote @ February 11th, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    actually that is what makes General BOlden’s concept so great…in about 3-5 years NASA should be able to take some of the R&D it has done…and have a plan for something “different”.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    @Ferris Valyn:

    More on the Boeing concept. What it really looks like is a scaled up Apollo. Apollo was Rockwell, therefore Boeing. They may have a lot of in-house documents about Apollo and that is their’s even though there may be an argument to the fact that NASA, the government, paid for it back then. If whatever they use is actually “public” then it’s for every one to grab and that is fine. If they use anything that is not publicly available yet has been paid for by the government then it is where they will have problems, potentially. Note that even IRAD money (usually seen as the company’s money) I believe might not be used in certain cases but I am not a legal professional so I am not sure. Note further that in the spirit of conciliation some companies make “deals” to go forward unimpended… And this is not limited to the OML but includes all possible systems and sub systems…

    Oh well…

  • common sense

    @Robert:

    The problem really is not Griffin. Why should we scapegoat him? The problem is our revolving door political system, favors to such and such, blahblahblah. This is not going to be fixed any time soon. I don’t knoww how anyone can come up with a plan in the government on such premises. A plan that lasts and that is robust. This one had no plan-B it was a hard gamble and it was lost. This really is where the public should weigh in. Not whether it is Ares or Delta or a suborbital firecracker. But the public does not know, does not understand and at this time does not give a hoot about this. It therefore appears to me and sevral others that involving private space is the ONLY way to go at this time. At least we know the name of the game: Profit! Sometimes it’s bad, sometimes as here it is good, or better or less worse.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Silence Dogood – its worth noting that there is an Office of Space commercialization. But its in the Commerce Department

    Frankly, the way I view it is that NASA acts like a cross between the Small Business administration, and the National Science Foundation.

    Robert – with regard to the Ares selection, I think it was more than just a workforce issue (although I think it was that as well) – above all, what Griffin REALLY wanted was a Super heavy in the Ares V class. But he didn’t think NASA could do design work for something that big, without a “practice rocket” – hence, Ares I.

    I also think that he really wanted a Mars Program (and there is at least one case of someone, might been Doc Horowitz, saying something along these lines), and they decided they needed a Super Heavy to do so.

    danwithaplan – Human spaceflight is a non-zero market. And non-zero markets mean there is an intrinsic demand. The problem is, no one knows whether that non-zero market is sustainable. ISS and Commercial Crew provide an opportunity to find out

    Common Sense – I understand your point. This goes back to the whole “How much of Orion-LITE is Orion-LIKE?” I know at least one person over at NASAspaceflight, who discussed this, and said that there are MAJOR differences in it.

    Interestingly enough, it sounds like Blue Origin could also be a primary Comercial Crew competitor

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ February 11th, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    @Robert:

    The problem really is not Griffin. Why should we scapegoat him? The problem is our revolving door political system, favors to such and such, blahblahblah…

    I blame Griffith for the fiasco as much as I blame Feith or Rummy or all the other band of idiots in the last administration for their respective screwups…and as much as I will blame the current folks when their policies finally (if they do) crash down around them.

    Griffith had a mission, he took the job knowing what the mission was…it wasnt to recover from Columbia, it was to forge “the new reality” and to do so in an era where 1) his boss was a lame duck and 2) the boss party was seen to be on a path to electoral destruction.

    Hence if one is going to create something that survives the next election (and makes all the energy that went into it before the election have some value) one has to have some form of success “in work” by the election.

    This is even more so in light of the fact that a blind person would have figured out that inertia was going to buy whatever policy was in place in human spaceflight about a year to continue in whatever administration was “next”.

    Gates did this at DoD particularly in Iraq policy. He got in and made some serious changes (particularly in IRaq) and now is coasting to “victory”…what was worked and is now.

    Griffin cocked up an architecture that he must have known was going to take more money then he was going to get, pushed the technology in various “derivative vehicles” to the breaking point (all with the lessons of Delta III still ringing in everyone’s ears) and then sat back and watched it play out under his watch…to the point where there was nothing to salvage…

    you sit in the big office, you get either the blame or the credit when things work out the way they do…Griffin in my view was as dumb as dirt in terms of implementing policies…and I said that here when those policies were implemented. You could just see that they didnt have a chance of working.

    The result is good for me at least. You can see across the board as it is becoming “every company for themselves”. Boeing resurfacing with the Apollo CM is a great sign. As I noted earlier old designs that have merit never die. I expect “Big G” to surface here at some point…ops that is a McDee design…

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    @Robert:

    Peace… Oh well…

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ February 11th, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    lol I dont think we disagree on all that much…really what happened in the past is irrelevant…its pretty dead Robert

  • common sense

    @Ferris:

    This goes back to the whole “How much of Orion-LITE is Orion-LIKE?”

    No actually, much more than Orion. Re-read my post. Anything that was government procured in earlier contract should not be part of their vehicle unless it is widely publicly available. I believe I am right and therefore it encompasses Orion, Apollo, Shuttle, etc. And I am sure the legals will have all sort of fun on that. Unless they already made a deal…

  • common sense

    @Robert:

    Nope we don’t disagree that much, save for China and the McCain/Palin ticket! I cannot believe with what you say that you actually went for McCain! It’s the same as Ares. I believe that Rove et al. scrxxxd McCain back in 2000 and did it again when he consulted them and was handed Palin. But that is very off topic. Well not so much but anyway…

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense…dont worry Palin is floundering…check out her latest poll numbers at WaPo…she is confirming what I have always believed…the GOP fox news right is smaller then the party.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Vladislaw

    ” But still one very important element is sadly lacking. And that is a program to focus and guide the development along a clear concise path and goal. ”

    NASA has already had those goals defined for them and codified into law. By two very significant acts passed by congress.

    http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#POLICY

    DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE
    Sec. 102. (a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.

    (b) The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities.
    The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which such agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President in conformity with section 2471(e).

    (c) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.

    (d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
    (1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
    (2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;
    (3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living organisms through space;
    (4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes;
    (5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere;
    (6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;
    (7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results thereof;
    (8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment; and
    (9) The preservation of the United States preeminent position in aeronautics and space through research and technology development related to associated manufacturing processes.

    (e) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the unique competence in scientific and engineering systems of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration also be directed toward ground propulsion systems research and development. Such development shall be conducted so as to contribute to the objectives of developing energy- and petroleum-conserving ground propulsion systems, and of minimizing the environmental degradation caused by such systems.

    (f) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the unique competence of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in science and engineering systems be directed to assisting in bioengineering research, development, and demonstration programs designed to alleviate and minimize the effects of disability.

    (g) The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that the unique competence of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration be directed to detecting, tracking, cataloging, and characterizing near-Earth asteroids and comets in order to provide warning and mitigation of the potential hazard of such near-Earth objects to the Earth.

  • Vladislaw

    For the purpose of this discussion, these are two most important:

    “(c) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.”

    and

    “(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles”

    I do not see how you can support NASA’s constellation program, a “single point failure system” BEFORE you have a domestic commercial system for servicing the ISS. Every president since Nixon has said use more commercial, and I believe the absolute cornerstone of the VSE, as outlined by President Bush, was the establishment of domestic commercial astronaut services to orbital destinations.

    Personally, it almost looked like it was planned that way, retire the shuttle, retire the space station, create a moon program that will soon bloat and end under it’s own enertia leaving Bigelow and SpaceX as the commercial options NASA would have to resort to in the short term to stay in space.

  • common sense

    “Personally, it almost looked like it was planned that way, retire the shuttle, retire the space station, create a moon program that will soon bloat and end under it’s own enertia leaving Bigelow and SpaceX as the commercial options NASA would have to resort to in the short term to stay in space.”

    I have had similar thoughts since the inception of Constellation. Make it too difficul for NASA which will eventually terminate all HSF. I don’t know whether the intent really was to promote SpaceX or Bigelow or anyone else but it is somehow a possible conspiracy.

  • danwithaplan

    Contractors to the US government, not “commercial” We’ve had contactors for years sucking on NASA’s federally financed tit. So, now it’ll be SpaceX and OSP instead of ULA, USA, big deal.

  • common sense

    “the GOP fox news right is smaller then the party. ”

    It hasn’t shown so far.When “the party” will reject the likes of Limbaugh then maybe, just maybe they will become Grand. In the mean time they only do oppose each and every thing they are handed for the sake of it without any good idea, none, zip, nada.

  • danwithaplan

    “OSP”= “OSC” prior, but you know what I mean.

  • danwithaplan

    GOPs and Dems are both worthy of each other as political parties. And many voting citizens just don’t care anymore.

  • Silence Dogood

    @ common sense-

    I don’t think it’s a conspiracy.

    It’s called “long-range planning”. It can’t be solid long-range planning b/c our system is based on checks and balances as well as market forces, thus making it difficult to predict. So it’s more of a gamble than a deterministic system to some extent.

    The benefit of playing such a game is that with sustained pressure, eventually it unravels.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles”

    Just to play devil’s advocate here … are we presuming that this mandate from the Space Act necessarily applies to human space flight? I don’t really see why it should.

  • I don’t really see why it should.

    “Safety” of “space vehicles” doesn’t apply to human spaceflight?

  • common sense

    http://spacepolicyonline.com/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=719:sen-bill-nelson-praises-criticizes-obamas-budget-request-for-nasa&catid=67:news&Itemid=27

    Sen. Nelson seems to think that this Democratic WH ought to please the Republicans. One day maybe the Democrats will grow a spine and they will be able to govern. In the mean time this is what we get.

  • NASA Fan

    @ Robert, said: “Hence if one is going to create something that survives the next election (and makes all the energy that went into it before the election have some value) one has to have some form of success “in work” by the election.”

    Griffin and gang knew this. LRO was developed very quickly for a ~ $600M mission. Took them just over 4 years to go from ‘lets go’ to launch. It had the money it needed in a spending profile that made sense. If it weren’t for the need to show some success before the election, LRO would probably still be in Phase C.

    Too bad nothing in the Cx was put up in space and worked.

  • common sense

    “Too bad nothing in the Cx was put up in space and worked.”

    So much so that the original program had a LAS test as early as Sep ’08. Trying to do too many things with too little budget and ever changing requirements never helps. Could it be LRO was better managed?

  • Doug Lassiter

    ““Safety” of “space vehicles” doesn’t apply to human spaceflight?”

    I didn’t say that it didn’t apply. I asked if these provisions “necessarily applied” to human space flight. As in, uniquely applies. (Sorry, that might have been ambiguous.) My point was simply that these provisions of the Space Act apply quite well to launchers not used for humans. You don’t need a human space flight program to satisfy these provisions.

    In fact, you don’t need a human space flight program to satisfy any of the provisions of the Space Act. Yes, bugs and bacteria count as “living organisms”.

    This is, in fact, somewhat of a handicap for the agency. The defining legislation for NASA doesn’t say anything about human space flight. In my view, that’s a pity.

  • common sense

    For those who love CxP and http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/, here is news to you… Doesn’t look like a lot of support from some members of the community, now does it?

    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20283.0

  • craig morford

    After wading through all these comments one thing has become very clear. Falcon 9 has to work right out of the Barn. For any of this commercial space concepts to be taken seriously.

  • Personally, it almost looked like it was planned that way, retire the shuttle, retire the space station, create a moon program that will soon bloat and end under it’s own enertia leaving Bigelow and SpaceX as the commercial options NASA would have to resort to in the short term to stay in space.

    Who had this plan?

  • common sense

    “Falcon 9 has to work right out of the Barn. ”

    Possibly for SpaceX but not even clear.

    ” For any of this commercial space concepts to be taken seriously.”

    There are other commercial players: Boeing is going for it for example. And Boeing is probably still licking their wounds after the CEV contract loss: Years and years of HSF experience gone down the LMT drain. So it is not solely depending on SpaceX. No.

  • common sense

    “Who had this plan?”

    Who put the VSE/Constellation plan together?

  • NASA Fan

    @ common sense: “Could it be LRO was better managed?”

    Indeed, they had a great team with lots of ‘quick mission’ engineering and management experience. They had support all the way up the food chain to the administrator. Everyone working it knew the launch date was set to beat the 2008 Elections. And it was no easy task; having to add LCROSS; a Russian Experiment, etc. etc. Great success story for all involved.

  • common sense:

    “Who put the VSE/Constellation plan together?”

    Are saying that the Bush Administration, Griffin, etc. really wanted to dismantle the NASA HSF programs in or to give the business to SpaceX, etc?

  • @John Carter

    Your comment to Robert Oler was completely uncalled for and you should be ashamed of yourself. Have some some sense and common decency.

    Gary Miles

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://www.jeffkrukin.com/Latest/Do-NASA-and-NewSpace-Need-Destinations-and-Deadlines.html

    I find little to disagree with this. It is based on facts and reality not the “Chinese are going to beat us to the Moon and require passports” silly season comments from the right wing.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://www.theonion.com/content/video/nasa_scientists_plan_to_approach?utm_source=videoembed

    Mark Whittington is sure NASA needs a goal…here it is!

    If we dont hurry they will be checking passports at the laundry mat

    Robert G. Oler

  • Vladislaw

    Doug Lassiter wrote “Just to play devil’s advocate here … are we presuming that this mandate from the Space Act necessarily applies to human space flight? I don’t really see why it should.”

    If you look at the next one down, number 3 it says “living organisms”. I may be taking a little liberty but humans fall into that catagory, as it doesn’t expressly forbid humans I would believe it would.

    If you read the 1998 act ammended in 2004, it is clear, humans are included. I just didnt include and quotes from it as the 1958 one was getting long.

    (2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;
    (3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living organisms through space;

    What I have always found interesting in number 3 is. it doesn’t order NASA to build vehicles to build vehicles to GO into space, Nor does it give NASA orders to build vehicles to LAND on other bodies. ONLY to travel THROUGH space.

    Something I have long argued. NASA should be doing road trips. There are literally hundreds of points in space to visit and explore.

    Earth- orbit, 5 lagrange points
    Luna- orbit, 5 lagrange points
    Venus- orbit, 5 lagrange points
    Mars- orbit, 5 lagrange points also 2 moons to orbit and dock with,
    Near Earth Objects, 750

    We can take road trips and never get bogged down in a gravity well .. that would end SPACE exploration.

    Everyone talks about space exploration .. and they define it with “lets land on the moon” – “no lets land on mars”

    If you land on the surface of the moon, you are not, by definition, exploring space, you are exploring the surface of the moon. It is the same for landing on the mars, you once again are not exploring space, but exploring the surface of another planet.

    We have to come together and decide, do we want NASA to help evolve a commercial infrastructure so NASA can develop a “gas n’ go” space based vehicle for traveling ‘through’ space, or do we want nasa to screw having that capability and instead start a lunar/mars base that will turn into a money pit.

    Once we build the car, gas station, and hotel, we have everything we need to start taking road trips with a gas and go vehicle that will not have to get bogged down with bases in gravity wells until we set something up on a spacerock or a martian moon first.

  • common sense

    “Once we build the car, gas station, and hotel, we have everything we need to start taking road trips with a gas and go vehicle that will not have to get bogged down with bases in gravity wells until we set something up on a spacerock or a martian moon first.”

    Y.E.S.

  • common sense

    “Are saying that the Bush Administration, Griffin, etc. really wanted to dismantle the NASA HSF programs in or to give the business to SpaceX, etc?”

    There is (some) substance to the idea that if you give something glorious for NASA to achieve yet not provide the means it is almost certain NASA would fail. Is there not? I don’t know what do you think?

  • Robert G. Oler

    craig morford wrote @ February 11th, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    After wading through all these comments one thing has become very clear. Falcon 9 has to work right out of the Barn..

    well maybe but maybe not. It is after all Musk money and he can work on it to the limit of his funds (which I suspect he will).

    I dont think it will affect the entire commercial “thing” …

    on the other hand…if he succeeds…wow

    Robert G. Oler

  • Storm

    I don’t think I see an option for actually going back to VSE, regardless of executive authority. It seems that our budding partner in space and NATO satellite, Russia, has been watching and anticipating the plans of the Obama Administration, and judging by the dates of news releases of the Russian announcements concerning nuclear propulsion being in the concept stage of development, I am forced to come to the conclusion that Russia has had a good idea where Obama was headed. The following global security article describes Russia’s plans for space tugs, and something similar to Oler’s GEO platform/battlespace awareness platform, as well as nuclear propulsion.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2010/space-100127-rianovosti01.htm

    This article should make it very clear to anyone – even Mark Whittington, what a threat to America’s space leadership it would be to want to send back a 1960’s era retro rocket program when Russia is steaming ahead with new ideas that match Obama’s.

    I’m afraid the new administration has let the cat out of the bag, and Russia as well as other nations like India and China will quickly follow suit.

    Congress must understand this already. Bolden knows this and seems confident that the president’s new plan will carry the day. How much of the old Ares program will hinder the new program? Well that will be critical because the answer will provide the key to knowing the extent to which the US will be hindered from achieving strategic capabilities for the government and civilian use of space.

  • Robert G. Oler

    NASA Fan wrote @ February 11th, 2010 at 6:58 pm

    Griffin and gang knew this. LRO was developed very quickly for a ~ $600M mission…

    if they thought LRO would do it then they were simply wrong…bad political misjudgment

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    “But the Obama 2011 budget kills Constellation. Instead, we shall have nothing. For the first time since John Glenn flew in 1962, the United States will have no access of its own for humans into space — and no prospect of getting there in the foreseeable future.”

    this is the uninformed rhetoric based comments of Ares supporters…

    it is factually wrong and ignores the thrust of the program..

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021103484.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

    it is just ignorant.

    and assumes the readers are. BTW he made similar ignorant comments about Iraq

    Robert G. Oler

  • Common Sense:

    “There is (some) substance to the idea that if you give something glorious for NASA to achieve yet not provide the means it is almost certain NASA would fail. Is there not? I don’t know what do you think?”

    One might well back the case against Bush era Moon plans. But, isn’t the case even stronger against the Obama Mars talk? Sure we have a cost/schedule problems with Constellation. Hey, let’s cancel going to the Moon and start talking Mars, advance technologies, low-cost commercial, etc. It fails and we can spend it all on climate studies! (cheap shot, sorry)

    What I might believe is that in the end game Griffin, etc,, feared that a new administration would scrap their pet project and launched expended commerical as a Plan-B for HST. That’s how view the SpaceX manned Dragon and Falcon 9.

  • common sense

    “, isn’t the case even stronger against the Obama Mars talk?”

    What are you talknig about? Where/when did Obama talk about going to Mars? Please provide a reference/link.

    “Sure we have a cost/schedule problems with Constellation. ”

    Yes uit is bankrupt and bankrupting the rest of NASA at it. Not just HSF! How do you think astrobiologist like Constellation? Aeronautics? Etc?

    ” we can spend it all on climate studies!”

    Look, most, MOST, climatologists say there is Global Warming whether you like it or not. I do not have the expertise to dispute their findings, do you? I am not going to base my thoughts on those of a minority of “excited” ones, you may, it’s your choice. Are you afraid you won’t be able to drive your SUV? Talk about cheap shot… But if the warming trend accelerates as it may your dream of Constellation may be the last thoughts you or I may have. So we better be making sure. See some people did not believe a Hurricane would bring New Orleans down… Be ready, or… Be sorry. Your choice.

    ” feared that a new administration would scrap their pet project and launched expended commerical as a Plan-B for HST.”

    Nope, it is maandated by LAW and in the VSE that the commercial were to be part of the game. Whether you like it or not. Their “pet” project was just that and now the people working it are paying the price of “enlightened” management.

  • “What are you talknig about? Where/when did Obama talk about going to Mars? Please provide a reference/link.”

    Duh, when I say Obama I of course mean Obama Administration which in this case is represented by Charles Bolden. Don’t you recall?

    To me the commersial is a Plan-B if we fail to save Ares I/Orion. I don’t think we will but I defend in depth.

  • common sense

    John

    Sorry but they haven’t come up with a plan to go to Mars, so far. You could say that even the Augustine committee said Mars ought to be our destination. Heck, even I might say so. BUT there is no such thing as an official plan to go to Mars. Again any reference/link and I’ll be happy to oblige.

    Ares/Orion are dead. But you’re welcomee to believe they will survive. Not sure who “we” are in your post but I don’t think that “you” are going to be compelling enough.

  • Not the commission but Bolden started this off by talking about flying to Mars on voyages lasting only weeks. He said it and even Bill Nelson is agree with him on that. Of course they have no real plan to really do it.

  • @Major Tom

    FY2004 fiscal year began October 1, 2003. The NASA budget for FY2004 was passed by both Houses of Congress in September of 2003. The Vision for Space Exploration was not announced until January 14, 2004, some 4 months later.

    The main tenets of the VSE were not passed by Congress until HR 3070, S.181, which did not go into effect until December 30, 2005 at the NASA Reauthorization Bill of 2005. This means that NASA FY2006 was the 1st fiscal year in which VSE would have had significant impact on NASA and its budget.

    If you go to the this Wiki link NASA Budget, you will find this quote below:


    Despite the Bush Administration’s public commitment to the space program in the form of the 2004 Vision for Space Exploration initiative which had set goals of returning men to the Moon, establishing a base there, and later mounting manned missions to Mars, the Bush White House never fully committed to funding it. The five-year projection of the budget needed annually by NASA to meet the program’s major milestones that was proposed by the Administration and passed by Congress in 2005 had been underfunded by more than $1 billion per year

    And this is pretty much the same findings that I find in a number of other authoritative documents concerning the funding profile for Constellation. So please quit misusing NASA budget information to propagandize your opposition to Constellation program.

  • Major Tom

    “FY2004 fiscal year began October 1, 2003. The NASA budget for FY2004 was passed by both Houses of Congress in September of 2003.”

    No, it wasn’t. Most federal budgets aren’t passed until after the fiscal year has begun due to various legislative logjams. (The government relies on continuing resolutions until the new budget is passed.) Because of delays that year, the VA/HUD/IA bill containing the NASA budget was rolled up with other appropriations bills and passed under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004. That bill wasn’t passed and signed into law until calendar year 2004. It included a new appropriations account titled “Science, Aeronautics, and Exploration” reflecting the new human space exploration activities at NASA under the VSE.

    “The main tenets of the VSE were not passed by Congress until HR 3070, S.181, which did not go into effect until December 30, 2005 at the NASA Reauthorization Bill of 2005. This means that NASA FY2006 was the 1st fiscal year in which VSE would have had significant impact on NASA and its budget.”

    NASA’s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate existed and had billions in funding for two fiscal years prior to FY 2006. For your distortion of reality to be true, ESMD couldn’t have existed, certainly not with any significant budget, until late CY 2005/early CY 2006. And that’s simply not true.

    You’re giving way too much credit to an authorization bill that didn’t show up until two fiscal years after Congress had started funding the VSE and Constellation. Appropriations are what set budgets, and Congress can and usually does pass appropriations bills in the absence of authorization bills.

    “And this is pretty much the same findings that I find in a number of other authoritative documents concerning the funding profile for Constellation.”

    Don’t rely on secondary sources. Go to the primary sources. NASA’s budgets are easily found on the NASA CFO’s website and the relevant bills are easily found at the Library of Congress’s website.

    “So please quit misusing NASA budget information to propagandize your opposition to Constellation program.”

    Repeating what is printed in black and white (or photons and electrons) at the NASA CFO’s or the Library of Congress’s websites is not “misuse” or “propaganda”. It’s just the facts.

    FWIW…

  • […] The reason for the limited budget details? – Space Politics […]

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>