Lobbying, NASA, States

Alabama, Constellation’s lead defender

Much has been made today of the announcement of the “Second to None” group in Huntsville, created by the city’s mayor, Tommy Battle, and led by former congressman Bud Cramer. The group is designed to help the region’s Congressional delegation “understand how ending Constellation would affect the Tennessee Valley”. Cramer, though, appeared to be taking a bigger view in his comments. “If we pull the plug on the programs we’re already well into, that we spent a lot of good tax payer money on, then we are not being smart about where we as a country are going, what we expect NASA to be all about,” he said, according to local TV station WHNT. The report adds that Cramer is “cautiously optimistic the House and Senate will vote down the President’s plan for NASA.”

The group is made of about 25 people from business, academia, and other organization, although you don’t have to be a local to recognize some of the names: former NASA administrator Mike Griffin (now at UAH), former MSFC director Dave King (now at Dynetics), and former Ares manager Steve Cook (also now at Dynetics).

However, this is only the latest in a series of moves at the local and state level to try and salvage Constellation. On Thursday the state legislature passed resolutions asking the president to reverse his decision to cancel Constellation. The resolutions, SJR 58 and HJR 261, passed in the Senate and House respectively without dissent. The resolutions don’t speak about the importance of spaceflight or the threat of falling behind other nations; instead, it bluntly notes, “cancellation of the Constellation program would significantly harm the citizens and economies of the City of Huntsville and the State of Alabama.”

Also, earlier in the week Rep. Artur Davis, a Democrat from Birmingham, met with Huntsville-area space industry officials and others and left saying he would fight for Constellation. “We cannot do to ourselves what our enemies have tried to do to us, and that’s to retreat from human spaceflight,” the Huntsville Times quotes him as saying. Why Davis, who has not been very outspoken on space issues in the past, took a strong interest in Constellation wasn’t mentioned in the article; however, it did note that Davis is running for governor.

65 comments to Alabama, Constellation’s lead defender

  • Robert G. Oler

    lol this is a hoot Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ferris…yes Congratulations to Newt and Walker…I dont agree with Newt on everything and he clearly is blowing circuit breakers trying to appeal to the far right on the “terror” trials…but this is typical Newt…

    And it should be supported

    Robert G. Oler

  • Sir Anony

    A plan which could lead to killing of NASA once space staion is not renewed?
    A plan which has no details of targets or plans post 2020 when space activity to ISS could end? A plan where we just “research” heavy lift…. and no launch date or architecture details

    and nothing on flexable path

    its a badly rushed plan

  • Storm

    I’ve taken account of some of Newt’s policy viewpoints in the past, and he is definitely an aggressive supporter of R&D. He’s no potato(e) chip Republican (if you will). Either is Walker. And he was chairman of the commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond! Is Mark Whittington’s head going to explode? So me and Walker (former VSE supporters) are both firmly for the Obama space ticket. That makes for a bipartisan dream come true. I’m starting to tear up.

  • This doesn’t really change a lot. Newt doesn’t really carry much weight with the Republican’s anymore. He’s become a bit of gadfly recently. The really question is does Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin go for Obama risky space scheme.

  • Major Tom

    “A plan which could lead to killing of NASA once space staion is not renewed?”

    The new budget extends ISS from 2016 to 2020 and adds to its capabilities (inflatable hab and/or centrifuge).

    And how would deorbiting ISS today “lead to killing of NASA” anyway? There is much more to NASA than just ISS.

    “A plan which has no details of targets or plans post 2020… A plan where we just “research” heavy lift…. and no launch date”

    The new plan proposes to have an HLV operational to support deep space human exploration in the 2020s.

    “and nothing on flexable path”

    Besides robotic precursor missions to Flexible Path targets? Besides R&D in key technologies to enable human to Flexible Path targets, like in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems, and advanced in-space propulsion.

    And it’s “flexible” not “flexable”.

    “its a badly rushed plan”

    Sure it is if you’re making it up in your head instead of referencing the actual White House and NASA budget statements and documents.

    C’mon, people…

  • Robert G. Oler

    John wrote @ February 12th, 2010 at 11:43 pm

    This doesn’t really change a lot. Newt doesn’t really carry much weight with the Republican’s anymore. ..

    actually it is going to be interesting to see what happens.

    I think that the Ares huggers are going to be surprised how little anyone outside the hallowed halls of porkville (as this thread illustrates that is all it is) cares about the entire shift…and what Newt does is give the folks who do not care about human spaceflight as a “parochial” concern…and who are trying to find their way in the various political currents of today…cover.

    Palin and LImbaugh are outside of their very narrow audience (mostly older white and rural) are in fact losing a bit of horsepower mutually. Palin and LImbaugh kind of “died” with the retarded thing…and Palin increasingly outside of her narrow constituency is viewed as not qualified to be POTUS…

    Newt is actually walking a pretty fine line, trying to appeal to some of the nutters but also trying to be a voice of sanity and “adulthood” in a political system that is increasingly viewed by a “center mass” group as “not working”.

    More then seeing what Rush and Sister Sarah say…I am going to be interested in seeing how Whittington and some of the other folks who like Newt square this corner.

    Newts logic is impeccable.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Vladislaw

    Sir Anony wrote “A plan which could lead to killing of NASA once space staion is not renewed?
    A plan which has no details of targets or plans post 2020 when space activity to ISS could end? A plan where we just “research” heavy lift…. and no launch date or architecture details

    and nothing on flexable path

    its a badly rushed plan”
    ==================

    You keep tossing out the word “plan” like it is some kind of fact.. Please show the link for “the plan” that you keep slamming. First, you should become informed about you want to post on. The President of the United States presented a budget proposal.

    A proposal is: “the act of offering or suggesting something for acceptance, adoption, or performance”

    After congress examines it and marks it up, the amount has to be authorized. After that it has to have the funds appropriated. Most of the time the amount authorized is more then gets appropriated. The bill has to then be voted on in both houses. If they two houses disagree on the numbers and where it is going it has to go into another commitee and goes under more horse trading. After a final budget is actually passed and funds appropriated, NASA now knows how much money they actually have and THEN they write up the plan on how the funds will be used.

    So you should throwing around the word plan like you own it, there isn’t any plan only proposals.

    You should also learn what the POR or program of record is right now.

    The POR calls for the shuttle to retire in 2010 and the station deorbited in 2015.

    The Ares 1 is supposed to launch its first flight in 2014, Unless NASA gets a lot more funding, that number is closet to 2017-2019.

    The Ares V is supposed to test fly in 2018 with the first lunar launch in 2020. Unless NASA gets a ton of money that number is now at 2028.

    The Altair lunar lander is supposed to be online in 2020, but it has been zeroed out of funding and unless NASA gets a ton of money, that would not come online till somewhere in the 2032 timeframe. All the funding for lunar exploration has been tapped to fund the ares1 development.

    As soon as President Bush announced the current PLAN, the vision for space exploration. A launch gap was created, and we would have to buy flights from Russia until the Ares 1 could start flying to the ISS in 2014.

    President Obama didnt create the gap the current POR did and the gap was increased by the ESAS that Administrator Griffin pushed through, NOT the current Administrator Bolden.

    ==

    so the program of record, if the presidentt just left it alone and funded NASA at the same level at President Bush did would have this.

    A space station crashing into the ocean in 2015 and a single point failure launch system to LEO, Ares 1 / Orion crew capsule and no where to fly to.

    If the Ares1 takes until 2019 America will have NO other options for space access to leo other than russia.

    If the Are1 does get launched by 2015, it will have no space station to goto and will be flying in circles, in low earth orbit, for 5-17 years until the AresV is online.

    Do you honestly believe Ares1 will get funded for that long, with launch prices as high as the space shuttle and less capability?

    Congress will cut the number of launches to try and cut costs and then you will still have to pay the standing army of support staff. For a DECADE they have to be paid to wait for constellation.

    You really should spend more time actually reading about this before commenting.

  • Sir Anony is right.

    The actual POR is really dead. You know it, I know it, but do the American People know? Just play off the old Bob Dole line!

    The issue is do we just scrap everything or do we put together an affordable plan based on its components? I agree with the change in objective of to supporting the ISS. In fact why limit it to 2020. Let’s just say indefinitely. We need to move up that date to at least 2015 or so. We are already going forward with COTS for supplying the ISS. Good. Maybe we can get some money to work on manned versions of the commercial. But, I’d like to see the private sector do more of this.

    The big issue is that without a firm plan the whole NASA HSF budget is at risk. Let’s say that the administration gets its way and we kill the Shuttle and Constellation completely in FY 2011. It will be very easy to fail to fund commecial in 2012-15. In the end the support of the whole just ends. You’ve got liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans who would go along with that if there weren’t strong vest interest supporting the effort. This not the time to be bold. It the time to dig in and try to survive.

  • Robert G. Oler

    John wrote @ February 13th, 2010 at 12:19 am..

    nope. it gets harder to kill HSF after killing Constellation and Ares…

    much harder

    Robert G. Oler

  • “nope. it gets harder to kill HSF after killing Constellation and Ares…
    much harder”

    But, only if your plan is funded and the new systems work out. If NASA working with ATK, Boeing, and LMT can bring it off the easy part of Constellation with in ten years what assurance does your plan have? I’ll agree that if by 2016 we have at least two successful COTS HSF operations under contract and flying then you have a point. My problem is that I don’t have confidence that we get there.

    It also clear that beyond that point we just have a big difference in objectives.

  • Major Tom

    “It will be very easy to fail to fund commecial in 2012-15. In the end the support of the whole just ends.”

    Why? Because Congress will be happy sending hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars annually to Russia to pay for Soyuz and Progress flights indefinitely?

    What are you smoking?

    “I’ll agree that if by 2016 we have at least two successful COTS HSF operations under contract and flying then you have a point. My problem is that I don’t have confidence that we get there.”

    In its final report, the Augustine Committee argued that this should be achievable with a high degree of confidence for a cost to NASA of $5 billion. The FY 2011 budget proposes $6 billion.

    FWIW…

  • Robert G. Oler

    John wrote @ February 13th, 2010 at 12:59 am
    But, only if your plan is funded and the new systems work out. If NASA working with ATK, Boeing, and LMT can bring it off the easy part of Constellation with in ten years what assurance does your plan have?..

    the plan is going to be funded, that gets clearer everyday…and NASA has no chance of pulling off “the easy part” Of Constellation because there is no such venue.

    Bolden has been very clever. By killing Constellation with a “year spin down” what he is doing is giving the various companies (from SpaceX to Boeing to BO to anyone) about a year to spin up their own internal studies and theories about how to pull this off. Then when next years budget kicks in …well the folks have 1 year (or so) to make progress…a lot of which I predict will happen rather fast.

    I dont know what your objective is…but mine is to integrate human spaceflight with the economy of The Republic in a way that it is a plus not a negative.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Storm

    It sounds like ULA will be heavily favored after the space shuttle is gone – accoording to ULA CEO Michael Gass. ULA has the trust of USA.gov’s most sensitive payloads.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/boosters_bits/2010/02/nasa_could_be_rocketing_to_united_launch_alliances_sweet_spot.html

    Perhaps the two main players will be ULA and SpaceX. I haven’t heard much about Orbital. It seems that COTS derived HSF always lean toward mentioning SpaceX. Why is that?

  • Storm

    Instead of inflating inflatable spacehabs with Air, what if we inflated them with water? Aside from making them terribly heavy – would the water block cosmic rays? Do we even know the answer? I’ve looked for an answer, but haven’t found one. I can’t find studies that have been done on radiation and water. My previous proposals were to combine ISRU and inflatable tanks and space tugs to provide human crewed modules with water to inflate them in deep space and test how much radiation got through. The inflatable liner could be made of hydrogen rich plastics to increase the radiation protection. Add that to the inner shell of the module, and you might protect the crew from radiation. The water could be used over the course of the mission as rocket fuel, and when they get to the destination they could either fill up again, or head to the surface of the planet where they could find more protection from cosmic rays.

    Are there any potential show stoppers to this idea aside from the fact that none of this infrastructure exists right now?

  • Storm:

    It is also worth noting that the link you cite very favorably mentions keeping the Orion capsule and launching it with an EELV. The heavy versions of those boosters could do the job. Perhaps with an assist from the Orion service module for final orbit insertion.

    As for SpaceX they seem to be most advanced with their unmanned supply capsule and plans for a manned version. They also have the Falcon rockets.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Storm – First, I would argue that the 2 main players, in terms of MANNED -ROCKETS is likely to be (for the near future) SpaceX and ULA. In terms of capsules (again, manned), I have yet to know whether it will be Dragon, Dreamchaser, or Orion-lite (or whatever Boeing is calling it).

    With regard to Orbital’s Cygnus & Taurus 2 – first Taurus 2 carries much less payload to orbit, when compared to Falcon 9 or EELVs. Therefore, for there to be a manned capsule on Taurus 2, it could only hold 2-4 people, as compared to the vehicles on top of EELV and Falcon 9, which is 7.

    Second, Orbital has been badly burned in past attempts at major attempts at commercial spaceflight. In particular, they got badly burnt with Orbcomm, and other such things, in the 90s. So, while they have talked about doing a manned Cygnus, I think they will be a little slower to dive in (although you can bet they will bid on a CC contract), until they see that for sure NASA is going to get in the game, and then when they see a larger market develop.

    Also, you asked about water as a cosmic ray barrier – it could work, in theory, but the number I’ve heard is you need something like 12 ft, or 5 meters, of water to make this work.

    Of course, what this points to is we desperately need cheap access (either to Earth orbit, or material in earth orbit)

    John – A lot of what I hear from you seems to flow like this – if only we can protect the money NASA is getting yearly, to pursue great things, eventually it’ll do something great, and therefore we’ll become spacefaring. Because if NASA isn’t trying to do great things, then someone will take its money. Thus, your point

    In the end the support of the whole just ends. You’ve got liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans who would go along with that if there weren’t strong vest interest supporting the effort.

    First, at least for the liberal Democrats, I would be surprised if you can really point to one who is willing to spend serious political capital on space. You certainly won’t see it from someone like Barney Frank. And I have never heard of Bernie Sanders coming out greatly for human spaceflight.

    In addition, although there isn’t a large chorus of people in congress actively calling for the ending of human spaceflight, out in the larger public realm, that chorus is growing larger. In fact, I would submit that, by the time my generation (Millenials) fully graduates, and is into the workforce, we would be having a real debate, in Congress, about the merits of human spaceflight. Not public vs private, but robotic vs human. My generation does not see NASA as actually providing for the common good. We don’t buy the idea of NASA as being part of the geo-political effects (not in any particularly large way) and we don’t view the idea that “inspiration” is worth $8 Billion (particularly when there are other ways of getting inspiration), and we don’t buy the “someday it will pay off.” We have to see a realistic chance of it doing so.
    Put that together with the fact that our budget has, by and large, gone down, and continued to go down, for close to 40 years, and there is no reason to believe we can get to the level of spending, nor is there any reason we can realistically survive, and create spacefaring society. The numbers and time are against us.

    We have to get stronger with this crisis, or the next one (and believe me the next one is way worse) will kill human spaceflight. Merely surviving this crisis won’t allow us to become spacefaring, because there will be nothing (in the way of government support) to make us spacefaring, because we’ll have run out of time to become relevant.

    Sir Anony – Total Cancellation is always on the plate for NASA. Its not tied to whether it has a space station, or a big rocket – its tied to value. Human spaceflight hasn’t produced much of value for quite awhile.

    And consider this – How long has shuttle survived? And then consider the various plans that have been put forward to get us out of earth orbit. I think we all can agree that we should’ve stopped flying shuttle awhile ago. But we kept flying for many years, because we didn’t want to lose what came with it. So why shouldn’t the same logic apply to station?

  • Storm

    “Of course, what this points to is we desperately need cheap access (either to Earth orbit, or material in earth orbit)”

    And this brings me back to the argument that we need to pursue automated robotic ISRU on low gravity well objects that can get the job done by themselves, then boost that water to somewhere in Earth’s GEO orbit, or beyond. 12′ is a lot of water – probably would have to be kept strictly around crew modules.

    If we continue with VSE we will not solve these critical questions through testing on the ISS, since it would be canceled in 2015. Getting to the Moon means little to me if we can’t do it safely. Just building a moon base out of regolith bricks is not enough to conquer the radiation problems. We need ways to actually protect crews inside spacecraft if we are to go beyond the Moon. Even quick trips on nuclear generated plasma rockets can’t guarantee there won’t be some kind of mortality rate involved because of radiation. I can’t assume that all this testing can be done in LEO. I’ll study up on cosmic ray sensors. I wonder if the ISS has cosmic ray sensing technology? I would think it would be simple for astronauts on ISS to measure how much cosmic rays they absorb albeit its not as much in LEO. But it should be easy to test materials like water and hydrogen rich plastics to get some idea how they perform.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Of course, what this points to is we desperately need cheap access (either to Earth orbit, or material in earth orbit)

    Even with cheap material in earth orbit we would still need cheap access to LEO for people.

  • “A lot of what I hear from you seems to flow like this – if only we can protect the money NASA is getting yearly, to pursue great things, eventually it’ll do something great, and therefore we’ll become spacefaring. Because if NASA isn’t trying to do great things, then someone will take its money.”

    Actually NASA has held its current budget position for nearly 40 years (since the end of Apollo). The Space Shuttle was key to that. It is the loss of the Shuttle plus the inability to come up with a replacement program in a timely manner that has led up to the current crisis. Ferris, you are getting very close to my idea which is that will out a politically strongly supported program (by this I mean strong vested interests.. campaign money) I think support and funding will be gradually cut. So the hope for something great (or at least someting) is to keep that support together behind a program.

    One underlining theme I’ve been getting from (several of the strong NASA/Cx critics) is a basic fundamental lack of support for HSF. It is that you aren’t for it under some conditions that you have laid out in some detail. But, failing that you are will to see it end. That is really our point of disagreement.

    I might have been willing to go with the ISS/Commercial approach if in lieu of Constellation components the Shuttle would be kept in service until two commercial sevices were successfully flying. I have judged that what I’m calling Constellation Flex Path is a lot more viable politically than Shuttle extension at this time.

    Another issue is to great a focus on safety in HSF. (Although hypocritcally we will use this against the Obama Plan.) I don’t think such a high risk endevour can be anything like totally safe. I just lost a test pilot in an F-22 last year and that was a fairly mature system. Heck, we lose people in F-15, F-16, etc in training every year. All astronauts are very smart people who know the risks and the are volunteeers. Well thought out risks need to be taken.

    That said I agree that slow 1000 day missions to Mars with chemical propulsion have some serious issues do to radiation. So if we are going to do these missions we need faster spacecraft. The near term money requirements for that sort of research aren’t large and came be carried forward with out much budget impact. It would hardly be a blip in the budget to triple the money going into VASIMR for example. The early applications would be orbit maintainence for the ISS. Later applications would be to propel unmanned probes and low-propellant unmanned space tugs to transfer payload from LEO to GEO. We need to get experience with this before actual high budget program need be funded that migh support HSF to Mars.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Storm wrote @ February 13th, 2010 at 1:38 am

    the “deal” about SpaceX is that the rocket (and I presume the capsule) is designed from the “go” to be a commercial product. And their organization is designed from the go to make a profit.

    It is old hat now but the comparison that is to me at least fascinating is an old airline comparison. A bunch of airlines (UA and BI come to mind but there are others) have tried to compete with SWA…and mostly they have all done it using the 737…so right there they should be equal at the starting point.

    But after that cost diverge rapidly. Why? because SWA was designed from the start (and they were going broke for a bit so they had to do it) to squeeze the chaff off the penny.

    SpaceX starts with a vehicle that is designed unlike the shuttle and even to some extent any ULA product to be very very commercially friendly. Minimium people, enormous reliance on automated systems…”adapting technology to space”…

    The trick in everything is can they make it work…? we will see.

    Where NASA has always gone in terms of trying to reduce cost in its various guises (and with Ares they even abandoned that) was toward the technology of the vehicle. Where their cost are is in the people who run and maintain the vehicle.

    Get those down and the cost come down. SpaceX is designed from the start that way.

    I bet you that there is some margin in ULA’s products that they dont yet know that they have or are just not using because the government puts up with the cost. We will see if that keeps up.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    John wrote @ February 13th, 2010 at 1:57 am

    Storm:

    It is also worth noting that the link you cite very favorably mentions keeping the Orion capsule and launching it with an EELV…

    John.

    to a large extent that depends (in my view) on three things 1) what are the requirements for people up and down to the space station, 2) what kind of cost range does Orion operate in and 3)what kind of deals that are cut (sweetners) in terms of allowing government sponsored research/development to be available for a private operation.

    I AM NOT but if I were advising SpaceX I would say “stay as far away from Orion as one can”. I dont know much about the cost frame of the vehicle…but from what I have read that strikes me as “high” and in most respects it is far to much vehicle for the mission of taking people to and fro the space station.

    As this “commercial contract” goes on the trick is going to be what it cost per flight. I dont think that the current Orion is competitive in that respect.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris Valyn

    One underlining theme I’ve been getting from (several of the strong NASA/Cx critics) is a basic fundamental lack of support for HSF. It is that you aren’t for it under some conditions that you have laid out in some detail. But, failing that you are will to see it end. That is really our point of disagreement.

    Actually, its not that WE (those of us who are pushing for the Commercial option) won’t support HSF under some conditions – its that, we know we won’t have a HSF program, under some conditions (and yes, Constellation as is was one of those conditions, and yes, getting funding for Constellation to change those conditions isn’t going to happen).

    In otherwords, its an acceptance that we won’t have the support for a HSF program under the conditions that we are getting with Constellation. It doesn’t matter whether we like that or not – this is a case of “thats just the way the body politic is”

    I might have been willing to go with the ISS/Commercial approach if in lieu of Constellation components the Shuttle would be kept in service until two commercial sevices were successfully flying

    In a perfect world, thats what we should’ve done. Problem is, NASA bet the house on recreating Apollo, and its become clear that we got snake eyes. And so now we have to pay for that, somehow.

    I have judged that what I’m calling Constellation Flex Path is a lot more viable politically than Shuttle extension at this time.

    You are welcome to make that determination. But I think it misses key points, being the problems of the Constellation vehicles, related to trying to recreate Apollo (without the unique situation that Apollo had), make it cost so much as to make it an untenable program. The vehicles of Constellation were designed to redo Apollo, (at Apollo costs) and don’t lend themselves easily to a flexible plan, particularly one aimed at deep space travel.

  • Robert G. Oler

    John wrote @ February 13th, 2010 at 9:17 am
    I just lost a test pilot in an F-22 last year and that was a fairly mature system. Heck, we lose people in F-15, F-16, etc in training every year.

    I’ll leave discussion of the Raptor out of it, because in my view that plane should have been cancelled a LONG time ago…I think I know how you are using the word “mature” but in my view there is nothing mature about the airplane. It is in my view a caldron of everything that is wrong with military aviation aircraft design these days. I just dont want to say anything about the last hull loss.

    But “we lose people” in almost every airplane imaginable. Undergraduate pilots die in T6 Texans, General aviation pilots die in Cessna 150’s, Colgan wiped out a pretty good bunch over buffalo awhile back, solely due to pilot(s) error.

    What is impressive about NASA is how they have “skated” by the 14 that they have killed so far in “their vehicle”. All have died through sheer incompetence and bad management…which make Colgan Air look you know well competent (and that is a stretch).

    nothing is totally safe. but the trick is going to be “why” people died in human space flight and for doing what.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Storm

    @ Robert G. Oler,

    I always had the impression that Russia was ahead of the US in automated systems. Is this impression correct? Not only did they automate the Buron so that it was un-piloted when test flown, but did they automate the soyuz way back in the days of Mir? The historic Soyuz/Apollo docking, I read, was manually docked toward the end of the docking procedure.

    ULA hasn’t needed (to my knowledge) to autonomously dock with ISS or any other spacecraft. I can imagine they could do it just as easily as anyone. I’m sure NASA has it in the game plan.

    Autonomous docking will be critical if you are taking water from low gravity well bodies (i’ll just call them LGWB’s) to ISS, or other spacecraft, and for refueling in general. We haven’t heard any details yet on missions that will be undertaken by NASA to demonstrate automated docking and refueling. It makes me wonder what platform they will use. ULA, or SpaceX? SpaceX has already designed autonomous docking, but they have their hands full with COTS, so maybe it would make more sense to have Orbital and ULA demonstrate this concept while SpaceX concentrates on Automated Docking/Refueling.

    It gave me pause after all the attacks on Garver that all these accusations could have a negative impact whereby the Administration would feel like they have to steer clear of contracts with ULA to avoid the look of impropriety when actually ULA is a valuable asset that shouldn’t be wasted. There are a lot of mission platforms that are needed. SpaceX and ULA will have to divvy up these missions so they can concentrate on certain skill sets. One of them can’t be expected to do them all.

  • Storm

    “It makes me wonder what platform they will use. ULA, or SpaceX? SpaceX has already designed autonomous docking, but they have their hands full with COTS, so maybe it would make more sense to have Orbital and ULA demonstrate this concept while SpaceX concentrates on Automated Docking/Refueling.”

    Misstated – I meant that Orbital and ULA should demonstrate Automated Docking/Refueling while SpaceX demonstrates COTS and manned spaceflight.

    Another mission platform I would like to see undertaken is an Ion Drive system that goes out to LGWO’s like comets and asteroids and searches for water. Such a system could look for an abundance of hydrogen on these objects. Upon finding the hydrogen it could shoot a small projectile while it photographs the ejecta plume. Such a system could efficiently get to many places to provide NASA with an inventory of water in the solar system. This, along with Automated Docking/Refueling, MSF to LEO, and a GEO Platmform would be good precursors to the next step of actually building fully functional Prop Depots, platforms and robotic crews to rendezvous with LGWO’s and mine for water to deliver to GEO.

  • Major Tom

    “Actually NASA has held its current budget position for nearly 40 years (since the end of Apollo). The Space Shuttle was key to that. It is the loss of the Shuttle plus the inability to come up with a replacement program in a timely manner that has led up to the current crisis.”

    You’re confusing cause and effect. As Apollo was winding down, NASA did develop a very extensive plan and program to replace it involving a space shuttle, space station, etc. ending in trips to Mars in the 1980s. The Nixon Administration chose only to fund the first part of that program, which became today’s Space Shuttle. It wasn’t NASA’s “inability to come up with a replacement program in a timely manner” that set in motion the actions that led to the current situation. It was the Nixon Administration’s unwillingness to pay that much for a human space exploration program.

    History repeated itself with SEI in the 1990s. The first Bush Administration set a humans to Mars goal, NASA responded with a very extensive and very expensive plan in the half trillion dollar range, and Congress balked at the pricetag and killed the initiative at the study level. Again, it wasn’t for the lack of a plan and program at NASA — Griffin himself was leading NASA’s Office of Exploration back then. It was Congress’s unwillingness to pay that much for a human space exploration program.

    And the same goes for Constellation. Five years into the program, independent cost estimates have doubled to over $400 billion through the first lunar landing and Ares I/Orion alone has gone from $28 billion to somewhere between $35 billion and $44 billion. And again, the current Administration has balked at the pricetag for such a limited and repetitive human space exploration achievement. It wasn’t for the lack of a plan and program at NASA. It was the White House’s unwillingness to pay that much for a human space exploration program.

    The lesson from this history is not that NASA needs more exploration planning. JSC alone has Mars DRMs coming out its ears.

    The lesson is that — in the absence of a unique rationale like the Cold War competition with the Soviets that drove Apollo — the United States is not going to spend much more on NASA that what it has spent since Apollo ended.

    So NASA’s human exploration plans need to roughly fit within that budget envelope with a reasonable degree of confidence or they’re going to end up on the cutting block in either Congress or the White House.

    “I have judged that what I’m calling Constellation Flex Path”

    Constellation can’t do Flexible Path. You don’t get an operational HLV with anything to put on top of it until the 2030s. You’re going to wait another generation before visiting even the first Flexible Path target.

    “Another issue is to great a focus on safety in HSF. (Although hypocritcally we will use this against the Obama Plan.)”

    Either your program or argument can win on the merits or it can’t. Why resort to hypocrisy? Especially with an issue as important as flight safety? It’s disgusting to be hypocritical with human lives.

    FWIW…

  • Storm

    John,

    Also you have to look at NASA funding with respect to inflation and its budget as a percentage of GDP and purchasing power as well. If you just say the funding level is the same a lot of question marks jump up in my head.

  • Storm

    So how many ion drives will it take to do a respectable inventory? Well the whole asteroid belt – I don’t know. Is that asking too much? These drives take a while to get going, so if they have to slow down and stop next to every rock in space, then push off to the next rock – its going to take a while. Maybe just inventory the NEO’s first – this could include comets as they arrive in the inner solar system.

  • Enon

    “As soon as President Bush announced the current PLAN, the vision for space exploration. A launch gap was created…”

    Sorry, nothing could be further from the truth.

    Bush’s Vision was much more like the Obama Bolden plan rather than like Constellation. Admiral Steidle was moving to fly two different Shutle replacement vehicles by 2008, with a fly-off, choice by 2010, and first vehicles coming on line in 2012.

    Constellation was initially going to meet a 2011 launch date for the Shuttle replacement. That has now slipped to at least 2017, more likely 2019, and so Constellation, Orion and Ares are what created the gap.

    Orion and Ares require $3 billion more a year, + ditching ISS in 2015, in order to meet the 2017/2019 date. Bush’s Vision called for a one time $1 billion increase for NASA in FY 2005, and thereafter stable, constant funding,; no more increases. Bush’s Vision reduced the gap to a minimum and set strict limits on funding.

    Dr Griffin and Constellation somehow expected that the nation’s taxpayers would be so enthralled with an Apollo replica mission they’d ante up a lot more money.

    That did not happen.

    Constellation and Dr Griffin’s plan were DOA. Obama now is just admitting what everyone else figured out over the last four years.

  • Storm

    The inventory thing is pretty important. There are many complications when it comes to mining and I can only imagine the level of complexity gets extremely high when you have semi autonomous robots land on a rock that is almost completely devoid of gravity, then remain fixed to that rock while its pushing heating coils into the carbonaceous debri.

    Ion drive finds right concentration of water

    Semi autonomous nuclear roving mining lander with inflatable tank lands on asteroid, drops anchor spike (whatever could fix it to the ground). Positions heating coils and intake tube into regolith.

    Space Tug, or Space Ferry lands on asteroid. Semi autonomous nuclear roving mining lander rolls up to Space Tug – then proceeds to inflate the tanks on the Space Tug. Space Tug uses hydrogen fuel from water to power the extremely high mass load off the asteroid, toward Earth.

    I’m projecting out to 2030, but I realize that is extremely wishful thinking. I read this link about a military effort to make autonomous roving AI software. This would surely entail lots of the necessary tech. Love the duel uses.

    Thanks to the military I’m pretty sure we can have all the stuff I wanted: the AI for space exploration, the AI for Earth Transportation – such as Jpodable Roadable VTOLS. The future just keeps looking more incredible every day.

  • Storm

    here’s link:

    http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Advanced_Algorithms_to_Enhance_Mobile_Autonomous_Robots_999.html

    I was also thinking about the possibility of highly pressurized inflatables so you could take huge amounts of hydrogen gas under high pressure as apposed to just carrying a cumbersome and awkward load of water. The water would outweigh the tug by a lot, but you could just lower the tank to the asteroid surface with a tether instead of landing on it – like Oler mentioned.

  • Allen Thomson

    > what everyone else figured out over the last four years.

    I’ve been reviewing the discussions about VSE/ESAS on Space Politics, FPSpace, NASA Watch and other such places that took place 2004 and after. They often offered, IMO of course, fairly insightful commentary as to what was going on and what was likely to happen. Kinda amazing.

  • danwithaplan

    I can perfectly understand that this administration wants to introduce a new plan that counters the plan of the previous administration (that was going nowhere anyway)

    But, what assures continuation once this administration is gone?

    Perhaps in 3 or 7 years we’ll have a yet another plan overriding the Obama/Bolden’s plan?

    What will have been the point of the ‘new plan’ then?

  • danwithaplan

    … and no, I’ve, personally, never been a Constellation ‘fan’ and thought it was terminally flawed.

    But how can we assure continuation accross administrations, spending taxpayer funds for Human Space Flight? (private firms/venture capital firms can do whatever they want, of course…)

  • danwithaplan

    It’s the ‘fits and starts’ circles that NASA is kicked around in that that I am afraid of, every 4 years.

  • Vladislaw

    “But, what assures continuation once this administration is gone?”

    I believe that is the point of funding the commercial sector vehicles FIRST. Regardless of what politicans choose to do with NASAfootball in the future, human space flight will not be affected anymore. America would still have a space “program”. Personally i have never like that, space is a place and shouldnt be defined with a program at the end of it.

  • Storm

    If the next administration wants to complete some valuable goals, whether their plan gets derailed, or not by future administrations they had better work quickly.

    The administration should be rather modest in its first term (I’m leaving out missions to the outer solar system, JamesWeb, HLV, earth/sun/moon observation). That leaves:

    COT/HSF

    studies on ISS with various technologies including BNL2
    VASMR
    radiation mitigation toward TRL 5, or better on radiation shielded module
    GEO Platform and Prop Depots development to TRL 8, or greater

    Fleet of Ion Water Finders to study inner solar system.

  • Robert G. Oler

    danwithaplan wrote @ February 13th, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    But, what assures continuation once this administration is gone? ..

    in a word “progress”.

    This administration checks out in either 13 or 17 take your pick…lets say 13 since that is (of course for the administration’s policies) the worst case.

    Given “inertia” (ie space policy wont be the first thing on the new administrations mind and the money will already be authorized for that year) …. that means that by 13 some measurable progress has to have been found in terms of getting human access to ISS by one or both or “more” of the private suppliers to keep the budget cycle “focused” on that goal.

    My position is that if that is not the case by 13 then we probably do need a new policy. My position is also that by 13 a few things will be obvious (or not).

    First one or both of the “COTS” cargo people will have flown (or will be flying on a regular basis) pressurized vehicles to ISS.

    two…there will also be some “flight record” by one or both of the COTS suppliers to ISS…

    three we will have a much better handle on where it is going to “human rate” one or more launch vehicles and “human” vehicles on top of the launch vehicles.

    fourth…SpaceX will either be out of business or not.

    I mention the last one because in my view the answer to that question is enormously important. Taylor D has written a (in my view) very uninformed almost diatribe piece for the WSJ in which he basically claims that commercial free enterprise cannot work in space.

    If SX has worked and they have a viable cargo delivery system (and are launching commerical satellites) then the argument is over. SX will likely occupy (or they will have failed) the “bottom” in launch cost and we will see ULA working very hard to try and figure out how to match those cost.

    Robert G. Oler

  • danwithaplan

    Fair points, all.

    But Look, folks, our constitution/government arrangement allowes for as
    quick as a new ‘plan’ in 3 years.

    It is just how our country works.

    Which could quickly re-instate the previous ESAS ‘miinterpretation’ of VSA, or introduce a new plan.

    The thing is that ‘your plan’ has to ‘throw anchor’ within 4 years. Otherwise, it’s a fodder for the next admin.

  • danwithaplan

    Mr. Oler, your posts are most interesting. Thank you.

  • Robert G. Oler

    danwithaplan wrote:

    Which could quickly re-instate the previous ESAS ‘miinterpretation’ of VSA, or introduce a new plan…

    I do not see that happening.

    For three reasons…in no particular order

    First the “go back to the moon” plan really has no support outside of the folks who support it for jobs. Everyday that goes by the “we love the vision” OR “save our space” people get weaker. Newt coming out for Obama’s plan gives the folks in the GOP who dont care about space, room to vote with it in a show of “bipartisanship” which doesnt really exist but people are looking for a reason to appear that way.

    Second….in my view things are going to get worse at least in terms of the economy AND the budget deficit. And by 2013 most of the current infrastructure will be simply to expensive to reactivate. There simply is not going to be enough money for “big projects to the solar system”.

    Third…commercial space will have (or have not) proved itself. If it has…the same people who are going “save our jobs” now will be arguing how many jobs that the commercial people create and all.

    Obama is really doing a “death panel” (grin) decision on the facade of big government human spaceflight. He is finally after four decades (or more correctly Bolden is) putting it down. It has been dying for quite sometime.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    danwithaplan…thank you Robert G. Oler

  • danwithaplan

    But, perhaps, Mr. Robert G. Oler – our next administration (or the one after that) has other ideas and other ‘plans’ on how to spend tax moneies that we are short of anyway?

  • Storm

    The ones who want HSF to deep space the most are the ones who realize that we need time to evolve critical facets to deep HSF. That includes VASMR, Radiation Shielding, ect. I don’t have quite the same pessimistic attitude as Oler about the economy, but we should certainly plan on things going south just in case. If you want to get an anchor down, just allocate more funding for COTS/HSF to LEO put off the Ion propulsion water finder fleet.

    If the administration thinks it needs to get a man in orbit so as to establish the precedent within 4 years, then good luck. I hope Musk talking real.

  • danwithaplan

    Mr. Oler, I’d like to apologize for perhaps being too ‘forward’

    We are actually agreeing, in the course of this discussion.

    We can’t even have a ‘plan’ as a taxpaying nation, to begin with.

    I was on NASA sites like these 8 years ago arguing about same things we are arguing about now.

    Are we just repeating ourselves?

  • Storm

    If a future administration cancels funding for HSF all together that will signal the significant shift in long term American decline so far. The ramifications over the long term would be big in my opinion. Super Power status would be gone for sure.

  • danwithaplan

    We are just repeating ourselves… continiously, as a nation, “industry”, it seems.

  • Storm

    danwithaplan

    How can you know what basic research needs to be done if you don’t have some kind of loosely defined plan. Having a plan like VSE may be too defined, but we should think about the future capabilities we want.

    Thats to:

    Get humans safely and cheaply to and through deep space

    Find and get fuel from low gravity objects

    Get huge telescope to Lagrange points, ect. ect.

    Without projecting where we want to be its hard to define a research agenda.

  • danwithaplan

    Storm,

    Ok, but Why? Is HSF really relevant to the human advancement in space?

    Our robotics is advancing far faster than the Human support (air, waste, etc…)

    Why not just rely on tele-robotics (teleoperated if you wish – same thing as human operation)

  • danwithaplan

    Strom,

    If one needs Information or Knowledge from space, one does not need humans “in space” precisely, just operating the robotic implements from their Earth bases.

    It is more efficient and effective than launching actual humans to the destination itself.

  • Storm

    I have asked the same question to myself. Could a large telescope be assembled by robotics? Currently, according to deliberations on robotic maintenance on HST I think it is not available. Will it be in the future? Probably.

    But here is where you and I differ. I’m projecting out 100 years and beyond. That is way too far for most people to define, but it works perfectly for me because it gets my species out into interstellar space – not just the robots. The idea of relying solely on robotics is depressing to me.

    Another reason is that the spin offs from HSF are enormous in the area of health are amazing. another is that it makes space exploration more tangible and fun for kids. If private space exploration can achieve this by itself then that’s fine, but NASA’s job is to expand the realm of HSF from LEO to deep space, so they have delve into the respective areas of study.

    Remember – NASA folds the envelope for all kinds of human accomplishment – not just exploration. Transportation too. It doesn’t mean they have to fly the people, but their job is to supply the capability.

  • danwithaplan

    I’d like SpaceX and the like to rely on PRIVATE DEMAND if there IS ANY (Bigelow, or whatever), not a $100bil dollar space taxpayer station. Otherwise they should die as a company, demand/supply you know.

    and, NASA should actually ABOLISH Human Space flight if it is of no use, as I THINK IT IS (of no use) and we can acomplish greater things with teleoperated robots.

  • Storm

    danwithaplan

    Ok, I understand

    My dream is to see autonomous AI/teleoperated robots do everything that is needed to explore the solar system as well as use the same technology to provide a mechanism to lower costs for HSF. Oler and I talked about this earlier. The basic premise if that you need NASA to help private space get the costs down to a point where market saturation can be achieved. Then you need to expand the limit of this transportation to deep space. I don’t see how you could expect private space to do this on their own.

    HSF has many uses – like I said – its ultimately a lifeboat for our species. Our species is a significant opportunity to “help the universe see itself” (Carl). Robotics cannot ensure (to my knowledge) a collective understanding and give humanity an cognizance of of our universe indefinitely. Eventually our species will cease to exist if we stay on Earth. Why would let that happen? The human race is a wonderful species, and the only one like it we know. Our ability to achieve great things is not based purely on cold logic. There is a fire in the belly of our species that drives us to expand into the unknown. Robotics can provide a precursor, but eventually we will want to go as well.

    I want our species to hurry up and get a large telescopes to the Lagrange points, or use any other technologies that will achieve the same feet, and I want us to find a planet like Earth, send the first robotic probes – then one day go ourselves. That is my goal. ISS, James Web, Ibex, are all part of that goal. It also provides the nuts and bolts of a competitive space industry for Americans. Space jobs are a critical foundation to the health of our economy. I can’t name all the reasons, but I feel your opinion is backwards. I fully understand your desire to do the most exploration at the lowest cost. But you are not building a bridge over the river – you are just throwing a rock.

  • Robert G. Oler

    danwithaplan wrote @ February 13th, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    the things is that “the vision” would still be going IF it was working.

    what killed it is not that this administration is anti (or pro) space (I think that they are mostly neutral ie dont care) but results are what is there.

    To make “The vision” work there was going to have to be AT LEAST 3 billion more dollars…and no one was excited about paying that.

    If you took a poll of The Republic and said “would you be for 3 billion more dollars a year for the next 20 years to take us back to the Moon”…support would be almost nothing

    Robert G. Oler

  • Storm

    “the vision”

    And “the vision” was also go-slow-approach compared to the current administration toward achieving the goal of SUSTAINABLE HSF. If its not sustainable and a clever approach to HSF it is a step backward. Do I still think we need HSF – Damn right! But we should approach HSF carefully – provided all the critical facets like I explained.

    ISRU
    radiation mitigation
    low cost transport to LEO
    low cost transport to GEO and beyond

  • Storm

    Oler,

    If Obama didn’t care about the NASA budget and HSF why were NASA and DoD the only departments to receive a spending boost in their budget proposal? I guess there were a few other exceptions like the Jobs stimulus plan as well.

    Answer:

    1. There are two wars going on.

    2. A bunch of space nuts like myself keep writing to Obama to ask for NASA funding because it is a strategic path we are taking toward an advanced society. The USA is in decline, and without seed money for new technologies and a fresh approach to navigating toward the horizon we will continue to decline.

    Remember – When the first small mechanical clocks made there way to the Chinese Court they were regarded with great amusement- A trivial piece- but not worth much more. The Emperor could not envision that soon such a device would lead to the mechanical gears for locamotive engines that could power steam ships to their nation, which dwarfed the economies of the West, and force China to its knees.

    It would be wise for the US to take heed of this history lesson by investing much more in R&D than we currently do. NASA is a critical part of this investment approach. HSF is also a critical part of NASA that will yield mechanisms that may seem trivial to begin with, but will evolve into central pieces in our technological prowess. Almost all breakthroughs, no matter how trivial lead to something much more significant, more critical than we could have envisioned.

  • Storm

    As far as I’m concerned there is only one thing we need to do. That is go to the stars. And everything else will fall neatly into place.

  • David Davenport

    Palin and LImbaugh are outside of their very narrow audience (mostly older white and rural) are in fact losing a bit of horsepower mutually. …

    Robert G. Oler

    Mr. Oiler, I bet that you aren’t a member of the younger generation either.

  • Robert G. Oler

    David Davenport wrote @ February 14th, 2010 at 10:09 am

    DAvid…it is “Oler”…thats ok someone wished my wife a miscarriage the other day so misspelling my name is small stuff.

    The point of my post was not that “I was” a member of the younger generation but that just about the only people who are part of the ditto rooms are part of the older generation…and an even more important point is that the “Limbaugh nation” does not even include a large part of that group.

    Limbaugh is an amazing showman…he convinces the weak of mind and then blusterss that he is larger then he is. In the FL primary Limbaugh railed against McCain but McCain won even in Limbaugh heavy areas…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Storm wrote @ February 13th, 2010 at 9:26 pm

    Glad the letter writing was so effective.

    I would not have given the DoD an increase. We can cut about 100 billion off the budget pretty easily Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2010/02/13/confusing-the-means-and-the-ends/comment-page-1/#comment-1217

    Paul S. comments are illustrative of people who simply do not understand why the “vision” is no longer viable.

    I hate line by line rebuttals…but a few are illustrative

    “That mission was not just the proposal of the former President; it was endorsed by two different Congresses (in 2005 and 2008), under the leadership of different parties, and both times, by huge bipartisan majorities.”

    that really is misleading. If one listens to the “claims” at NASA the reason and this is backed up by the Augustine commission the “excuse” that The vision is behind schedule is that the effort was never fully funded. The less it takes spending money the more bipartisan The Congress is. The last administration never really fought for the funding it was claimed the effort needed…hence there was little or no endorsement.

    “This new policy is striking in that, rather than serving America’s national security, economic and scientific interests, it undermines them. ”

    this is where Spudis and the Vision folks really leave the track. The new policy enhances American security, and economic interest and by default our scientific interest.

    The DoD might have started the internet(s) but had it hung on to them much as NASA wants to hang on to human spaceflight…the entire effort would have gone nowhere…

    Spudis nor Whittington nor really any of the band of Moon folks can point out a single solid real national security interest that is served by returning to the Moon. They have completly invented the Chinese threat out of thin air and some fear.

    The reality is that not only the system meant to implement it, but the entire notion of a national policy aimed at some human space goal that is simply a trophy…with no sense of how the American economic system takes advantage of it…is ludicrous.

    that is why outside of the space junkies and the pork system…there is no real support for the position Spudis rolls out.

    Robert G. Oler

  • President Obama’s move to ax Project Constellation is the most awful thing a President has ever done, with regard to the space program! What does he really think he is doing?! NASA is just going to fall over a cliff! The agency will simply regress to boring business-as-usual in LEO, for the next two decades! Is this really what the American people want to happen? For China to go ahead and develop a heavy-lift/ heavy cargo launcher, while we put all our reliance on some commercial/ private firm to deliver us some miniature version of the Space Shuttle? All a private sector company is going to do is build a puny, minor league rocket system, which will only have applications for low earth orbit. All we’ll do then is ferry astronaut crews to the ISS, and NOTHING MORE! It’ll be 1981 all over again. We of the space advocacy community have got to campaign for NASA to do more. WE NEED CONSTELLATION, because it is the only proposal that gets us out of LEO and into deep space. I for one, will be petitioning Congress to restore funding to this daring project. Even if it falls a bit behind schedule, and gets us to the Moon by 2025, that scenario is infinitely better than having us shuttling over & over again to the ISS, a mere 200 miles up. May Congress review & revise this awful presidential decision, and change it!

  • […] this year there was some concern in Alabama that former Congressman Bud Cramer, picked by local leaders to head Huntsville’s “Second to None” lobbying effort to preserve Constellation, might have a conflict of interest: he works for Wexler & Walker […]

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>