Although last week’s “Snowmageddon” forced the Space Frontier Foundation to cancel its lobbying event, “Take Back Space 2010″ (a wise move given the blizzard that hit a few days later), other lobbying efforts are still on track for the coming weeks. The Space Exploration Alliance is hosting its 2010 Legislative Blitz next week, with training on February 21 and Hill visits the following two days. The SEA hasn’t issued a detailed agenda or platform yet, although it looks like some of the language on the Blitz page could use some updating. “In the current economic climate, however, it is uncertain which path our nation’s leaders will now take in response to the Augustine Commission’s findings. An increase in funding is not necessarily the path that will be chosen,” the SEA states. Arguably true, one supposes, since Congress hasn’t acted on the president’s budget request that does increase NASA’s budget, although not at the levels necessarily desired by space advocates.
One of the key members of the SEA, the National Space Society, issued its own take on the budget proposal earlier this month that hints at what might be in the SEA platform. The NSS supports the technology development programs included in the budget proposal but “calls for the President and Congress to restore funding for human spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit”. In particular, it called for amending a goal from the original Vision for Space Exploration, with a human return to the Moon by 2025, instead of 2020.
After the SEA’s visits on the Hill, ProSpace arrives the following week for March Storm 2010. Its take on the budget proposal is markedly different from the NSS’s. “For more than a decade, participants in ProSpace’s annual March Storm have advocated for NASA’s use of commercial crew and cargo service providers to access the International Space Station and low-Earth orbit,” the organization states in a February 3 press release. “This week, we got what we’ve been asking for.”
ProSpace’s agenda, included in the press release, focuses on three areas: spaceport infrastructure, commercial crew and cargo services, and export control reform. They will be performing training on February 28th (presumably not the 29th, as stated in the press release), and making visits to the Hill on March 1 and 2.
Where the public stands……..
Space.com poll
http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=22508&start=0
15,000 votes
60% AGAINST Obama plan
LA Times poll
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/02/poll-president-obamas-cancellation-of-nasas-constellation-program.html
1200 votes
58% AGAINST Obama plan
“Where the public stands…”
It’s not where the public stands. These are unscientific, self-selecting, internet polls. (The LA Times blog even states such.) They represent the votes (some probably repeated multiple times) of interested or outraged space cadets, not the public.
Scientific polls that actually sample the public at random, especially those that weigh a human lunar return against other national priorities, are usually negative on additional or current public spending for this goal. Here’s one from mid-January from Rasmussen, for example:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2010/50_favor_cutting_back_on_space_exploration
In this scientific poll, “Twenty-six percent (26%) like the idea [of a human lunar return], but twice as money (52%) are opposed to sending someone to the moon as one of the current goals of the space program.”
The actual public, not just space cadets paying attention on the internet, is heavily against a human lunar return, like the one Constellation was supposed to be focused on.
FWIW…
On the campaign trail, I had a past and current aid to a very senior Senator laugh at the thought that Senators and Representatives are influenced by the space advocacy community.
The problem is one of numbers of members, which are few, while the number of groups is large, which only disperses the impact these groups have in getting their message out. If NSS argues one way, Planetary another, Space Frontier a third, and so on, the one thing a Representative, never mind Senator, can rest easy knowing is that there is no over-riding message.
And forget message, what about voters? Right now, thousands are jazzed-up about space. But the space advocacy groups don’t influence those voters, Facebook does. For example, the 4,000 folks who are fans of the Planetary Society group on Facebook, who supposedly agree 100% with the Society’s statement that ending Constellation is fine, is less than all of the other 4 groups supporting Constellation and is in fact less than 10% of the total number of supporters of Constellation on Facebook.
Ok, forget Facebook, the real issue is money. The space advocacy community is poor. Too poor to influence an election and too poor to get their word out. Until these starry-eyed folks can afford a full-page ad in the NYTimes, Wall Street Journal, or do a media blitz that influences an election, their message is one that only a few hear and possibly listen to. I can tell you from working space in 2008 that never once did a voter ask me how our space platform agreed with NSS’, Planetary’s, or certainly Space Frontier’s.
One group that is listened to are the NASA workers. They represent real votes, real jobs, and real money in local communities. Right now, the NASA folks are probably no more keen on loosing their jobs than their representatives are seeing their communities hurt.
Two weeks ago, I was pessimistic that Constellation had a chance. Now I am much more optimistic. And who knows, the changes that may occur as a result of Obama’s attempt at killing America’s human space flight program may make it stronger, constituting an irony.
OK, Major, CommonSense, and Oler…fire away!
Jim…no need to…in the end we are changing course. watch
Robert G. Oler
“Right now, the NASA folks are probably no more keen on loosing their jobs”
Who said anyone at NASA is losing their job? Just this weekend, Deputy Adminstrator Garver made a public speech in which she stated that Constellation workers are not to blame for the current mess on and cancellation of that program and that they deserve to work on executable programs.
“And who knows, the changes that may occur as a result of Obama’s attempt at killing America’s human space flight program…”
How is a budget that is spending billions to:
— put in place at least two commercial providers of ETO crew transport by 2016,
— extend ISS to 2020,
— develop an operational HLV by the 2020s,
— fly robotic exploration precursor missions this decade, and
— develop key exploration technologies like in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems, in situ resource utilization, and advanced in-space propulsion
supposed to be “killing America’s human space flight program”?
Are you repeating this lie out of actual or willful ignorance? Have you not read the budget documents and statements? Or are you just too lazy to argue the facts as they exist and find it easier to misrepresent reality?
FWIW…
I think that the Obama/Bolden/Garver non-plan will be rejected by Congress. Given that key elements of Constellation will continue. The Major/Oler & Co. must have some special agenda. I expect that Bolden and Garver will have a less than friendly reception when the go to testify.
The Plantary Society want the end of HSF so they can spend all of the money on unmanned probes. What they don’t get is that the public cares less about space science than do about HSF. So if you think the support for HSF is low what they want is even less.
“I think that the Obama/Bolden/Garver non-plan”
How is a budget that is spending billions to:
– put in place at least two commercial providers of ETO crew transport by 2016,
– extend ISS to 2020,
– develop an operational HLV by the 2020s,
– fly robotic exploration precursor missions this decade, and
– develop key exploration technologies like in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems, in situ resource utilization, and advanced in-space propulsion
a “non-plan”?
If you don’t like the plan for what it contains or lacks, then debate those specifics.
But don’t claim that there is no plan when there clearly is one.
“will be rejected by Congress.”
Unlikely based on the history of Apollo, Shuttle, Freedom, ISS, and the VSE. The White House leads and Congress follows when it comes to major, funded changes in the direction of the civil human space flight program.
“Given that key elements of Constellation will continue.”
Unlikely given that the program’s couple dozen supporters will have to convince hundreds of other congressmen to take money away from their priorities to keep Constellation alive and to spend political capital opposing the White House on Constellation’s termination — every year for the next 3-7 years (depending on how long this Administration is in power).
“The Major/Oler & Co. must have some special agenda.”
Yes, correcting false statements about “non-plans”.
[rolls eyes]
“I expect that Bolden and Garver will have a less than friendly reception when the go to testify.”
Well, no duh…
“The Plantary Society want the end of HSF so they can spend all of the money on unmanned probes.”
You do realize that the Planetary Society sponsored a study led by Griffin before he was Administrator that pointed out, among other options, the vehicle configuration for Ares I, right?
“What they don’t get is that the public cares less about space science than do about HSF.”
How do you know? For example, when was the last time STS or ISS made the front pages of major newspapers, versus a Hubble discovery or Mars rover?
FWIW…
John wrote @ February 14th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
I think that the Obama/Bolden/Garver non-plan will be rejected by Congress. Given that key elements of Constellation will continue. The Major/Oler & Co. must have some special agenda…
just trying to keep the record straight.
as for planetary science. Right as I type this the “folks on orbit” are doing the eva thing…no one cares.
Robert G. Oler
Does anyone know how the A committee came up with the “projected” dates that Ares/Orion would be able to fly? Seriously, what assumptions were made and how bad / good were those assumptions? If they were SWAGs how can anyone treat those dates with any certainty or uncertainty?
Questioning:
You have a very good point. NASA says 2015, the A commission says 2017, and the Cx critics here are saying 2019 or beyond. I think that if we had a management shake up we could get this thing done by 2015 (Orion launched by an Ares I). We did the Manhattan Project in less time. The Cx plan to get to the Moon by 2020 is longer than it took Apollo the first time. This a managemen problem more than a technological challenge.
Its still interesting that Obama hasn’t said a word about his new NASA budget proposal. This seems to suggest that either he’s not really concerned about NASA and such a relatively tiny budget matter or that he really believes that a government manned space program is a waste of tax payer dollars which is why he’s slashing funds related to to the manned space program from $8.4 billion in 2009 to $4.9 billion in 2011 and down to $4.1 billion by 2015.
The Augustine Commission, however, recommended that he raise the manned space budget by $3 billion annually, which would have raised the annual manned space budget to $11.4 billion. There’s big difference between the Augustine Commission’s annual $11.4 billion a year manned space budget proposal and Obama’s $4.1 billion a year manned space budget.
Still even $11.4 billion is tiny compared to– titanically expensive– military, medicare, and medicaid budgets which waste several hundred billion tax payer dollars every year in appalling inefficiency or unnecessary conflicts.
“How is a budget that is spending billions to:
– put in place at least two commercial providers of ETO crew transport by 2016,
– extend ISS to 2020,
– develop an operational HLV by the 2020s,
– fly robotic exploration precursor missions this decade, and
– develop key exploration technologies like in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems, in situ resource utilization, and advanced in-space propulsion
supposed to be “killing America’s human space flight programâ€?”
Sorry, the current NASA vision is not an executable plan, at least not yet. It does represent a idealistic goal, nothing more. In my opinion.
A true commercial approach to human space flight? NASA should issue an RFP for delivery of crew to station with payment only on delivery. No up front development funding to selected winners, no progress payments before launch, etc. COTS and CRS are just government contracts wrapped up in different colored paper.
The same applies for a HLV. Contract for services, not for hardware. Payment upon service rendered.
As for the advanced technologies; on-orbit propellant transfer? DARPA has already demonstrated this. NASA is late to the table on this one but it sure sounds good to the uninformed. The technologies exist and have been demonstrated in space. All that is lacking is a market that needs it. Certainly don’t need it to go to ISS and BEO is far enough away that investment can wait 10-15 years. Autonomous rendezvous and docking? DARPA has already demonstrated this robotically and the russians quasi do this on ISS already. Why does NASA need to invest to reinvent the wheel? If they need the service for something, issue an RFQ for delivered services and pay for them upon delivery. Let private industry put the infrastructure in place and sell the service under a business case that closes. Advanced in-space propulsion? NASA had this program up and running (anyone remember ISTP?) in 2002. The top-priority technologies were high power electric thrusters, solar sails, and tethers. All were designed for deep-space robotic science missions. None went anywhere. Tethers were built and flown in space experiments and failed. Numerous solar sails have been attempted with grand plans espoused by their champions. None have even come close to flying. High power electric thrusters? Prometheus/JIMO was the perfect vehicle to flight demo these technologies. NASA couldn’t keep the program alive for more than 6 months. VASIMR has been around for decades and might, just might, actually conduct a significantly reduced small scale demo on ISS sometime in the next 4-5 years. Having reviewed there technology and their business plan (at their request), they are at least 15 years or better away from having a flight system that could meet the necessary performance and life requirements needed to be economically viable. But again, why should NASA spend any further money on this technology? All that is required is a business plan that is sustainable and NASA can purchase use of this transportation service like they do any other taxi/bus/rental car/delivery truck/etc. What Major Tom offers is just a repeat of the Bolden/Garver gee-whiz wouldn’t this be cool thought experiment with no clue as to how to execute it. They/he (and Oler) offer no clear plan as to how they would achieve these goals. There are no mission requirements because there is no mission. There is no criteria for selecting which technologies are of interest (they all are!) because they don’t know what they need and why. There are no schedules and milestones because there is no commitment to achieve anything (but hey, we’re flexible). In Major Tom and Oler’s world, somehow a need for these technologies emerges if only we just start going somewhere with something different than CxP. Oler loves to shoot down the current concept (which isn’t all that difficult given NASA’s inability to deliver on either cost, performance, or schedule) but doesn’t offer a viable alternative that doesn’t rely almost exclusively on Government funding. SpaceX is dependent upon up-front NASA funding for COTS/CRS as his commercial launch service (Falcon I) hasn’t yielded any return on investment and Falcon IX hasn’t flow yet despite being two+ years behind schedule. Where is Oler’s outrage at that lack of program execution? Gone is SpaceX’s claim of reusability (too expensive and too massive to implement). Launch prices continue to spiral up as Elon learns that design engineers aren’t manufacturing engineers. Yet another case of less than advertised performance at higher than advertised costs on a longer than advertised schedule. Sound like CxP/ARES to me yet Oler still defends SpaceX as the vision of the future and the basket to entrust HSF’s eggs.
“On the campaign trail, I had a past and current aid to a very senior Senator laugh at the thought that Senators and Representatives are influenced by the space advocacy community.”
This is a point I like to highlight from time to time. Like it or not, we are not a priority on the national scale. Aside from a few national prestige points, most voters couldn’t care less about what’s on the moon, let alone how we could build a base there. Aside from Colbert’s stunt, Columbia, and SS1, space hasn’t held America’s attention for more than a day or two at a time, including the roll-out of the VSE. I’d be willing to bet over half of the country doesn’t know what Ares I/V is or what Orion is, other than the constellation with a belt.
Presidents get their priorities in space because no one cares enough to get congress moving. And now that putting hundreds of tons in space and loading people on board is a relatively routine thing, we aren’t going to see a Sputnik or Gagarin moment again until someone heads to Mars. Let’s not forget, one of the reasons we were so keen to win the space race was mostly because we realized how badly we were losing it. The other reason, of course, being that if the Soviets could float a basketball over our heads and we couldn’t return the favor, we were in trouble.
Aside from the problems with Constellation as it was, there was no political oomph behind it. Bush was looking for some Kennedy-style publicity and he got it. And we all were more than happy to hitch a ride on his political train. But in the end, slow and steady private enterprise is the most sure course forward, not because is or isn’t safer, cheaper, more reliable, etc, etc, etc, but because a true space presence is not likely to exist without it. Let’s face it, NASA needs commercial space o take over LEO so it can go beyond because there’s no way in heck any politician, republican or democrat, is going to risk his/her skin for us or our agenda. Not Bush, not Obama, not Nelson, not Shelby. They support space, but not for space’s sake.
“the A commission says 2017, and the Cx critics here are saying 2019 or beyond”
No, the 2019 date doesn’t come from critics — it comes from the Augustine Committee (not “commission” — try to get the title right). The Augustine Committee’s final report stated that the earliest Ares I/Orion would be available is 2017 and that the most likely date was 2019.
“This a managemen problem more than a technological challenge.”
No, it’s a poor program formulation and design choice problem. Regardless of what the alternative is, NASA has to start over. The best management in the world can’t get a program that is overrunning by billions of dollars, years behind schedule, and facing multiple technical showstoppers back in the box.
FWIW…
“Does anyone know how the A committee came up with the “projected†dates that Ares/Orion would be able to fly? Seriously, what assumptions were made and how bad / good were those assumptions? If they were SWAGs how can anyone treat those dates with any certainty or uncertainty?”
Because when we bought into the constellation idea we were told we wouldn’t rely on the Russians beyond 2013, we’d build most of it out of shuttle parts, and it would be less expensive because of it. As it stands even Cx folks are now saying 2015, many of the shuttle components have been swapped out, the Orion has been repeatedly downgraded in capability to match its under-performing lifter and the end result promises to be one heck of an expensive taxi ride to the ISS. Now they’ve reworked a test flight because they would be unable to meet it’s deadline (a REALLY bad sign in my book. You don’t shorten a test program for a vehicle that flies astronauts). How much longer would it be before NASA was going to tell us 2017 anyway?
Do I know for a fact it wouldn’t fly until 2017? No, but their performance thus far hasn’t been promising, and frankly the pessimist’s view of the program’s future seems the more likely scenario to me. Throw in the likely budget support, or lack thereof, and I think it’s not unreasonable to believe the report’s findings.
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ February 15th, 2010 at 12:35 am
“Its still interesting that Obama hasn’t said a word about his new NASA budget proposal.”
No, its not interesting – there’s a very good reason for this. We’re emerging from one of our worst recessions in history – there are people out of work. Although Obama knows that NASA is extremely critical to long term economic and defense capability, he also knows that all those hungry families are going to feel forgotten if he comes out with big ideas for NASA, which happens to be one of the only departments receiving a funding boost under his budget proposal. Something akin to a wealthy woman going into a soup kitchen to show everyone her prada bag.
Of course killing NASA and giving those funds to soup kitchens would make a lot of poor people happy – but the implications to America’s strategic capabilities would be devastating over the course of 20 years.
GuessWho
“NASA should issue an RFP for delivery of crew to station with payment only on delivery.”
I’ve got a good idea on how to teach your baby to walk. Throw him/her into a pit of hungry lions and see if she feels inspired to get up and run for his/her life.
You’re sounding like a Potato(e) chip.
“NASA should issue an RFP for delivery of crew to station with payment only on delivery. No up front development funding to selected winners, no progress payments before launch, etc… The same applies for a HLV. Contract for services, not for hardware. Payment upon service rendered.”
I don’t disagree with the thrust here. The only question is what private investors will bear. If they’re going to pony up multi-hundred million and billion dollar sums, they may require some return of their funds before the final service is delivered.
“COTS and CRS are just government contracts wrapped up in different colored paper.
I disagree here. Even if they don’t meet your ideal pay-only-for-successful-delivery-of-service model, there is a substantial difference between a typical, cost-plus, pay-for-work, no-skin-in-game FAR contract and a fixed-price, pay-upon-milestone-success, skin-in-game Space Act agreement.
“As for the advanced technologies; on-orbit propellant transfer? DARPA has already demonstrated this.”
For modest amounts of hydrazine on smallsats (Astro/NextSat), yes. For large amounts of cryogens on human spacecraft, no.
“Autonomous rendezvous and docking? DARPA has already demonstrated this robotically”
Which would need to be adapted to a human-sized spacecraft.
“Advanced in-space propulsion? NASA had this program up and running (anyone remember ISTP?) in 2002. The top-priority technologies were high power electric thrusters, solar sails, and tethers. All were designed for deep-space robotic science missions.”
Exactly. The scale of the propulsion involved in human space exploration is very different.
“High power electric thrusters? Prometheus/JIMO was the perfect vehicle to flight demo these technologies. NASA couldn’t keep the program alive for more than 6 months.”
Because Griffin needed the funding for Ares I/Orion, not because of anything inherently wrong with Prometheus management. (JIMO is certainly debatable, though.)
“Having reviewed there technology and their business plan (at their request), they are at least 15 years or better away from having a flight system that could meet the necessary performance and life requirements needed to be economically viable.”
So you know, I’m actually on the record here in other threads as being skeptical of VASIMR.
“What Major Tom offers is just a repeat of the Bolden/Garver gee-whiz wouldn’t this be cool thought experiment with no clue as to how to execute it.”
I actually havn’t weighed in on execution. You shouldn’t presume what I (or anyone else) thinks on the topic, especially since I actually agree with some of your arguments.
All I was doing was responding to hyperbole in earlier posts about “non-plans” that are “killing America’s space program” when it’s clear from the budget documents that there is a plan consisting of several program elements that do several things to extend and enhance the civil human space flight program.
I’d also point out that if you bothered to read those budget documents, there are actually some execution details in there. Not to the level you or I would like, but I’d read them before claiming they don’t exist.
“There are no mission requirements because there is no mission.”
That’s simply not true. The agency is pushing its investments via several new DRMs, in addition to the old Mars DRMs:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/taking-aim-phobos-nasa-flexible-path-precursor-mars/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/nasas-flexible-path-2025-human-mission-visit-asteroid/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/manned-mission-to-construct-huge-geo-and-deep-space-telescopes-proposed/
“Falcon IX hasn’t flow yet despite being two+ years behind schedule.”
No doubt. But I’ll take a Falcon 9 test flight this year over an Ares I test flight in 7-9 years.
There’s underperformance and then there’s _underperformance_.
FWIW…
GuessWho wrote @ February 15th, 2010 at 12:36 am
Where is Oler’s outrage at that lack of program execution? Gone is SpaceX’s claim of reusability (too expensive and too massive to implement). Launch prices continue to spiral up as Elon learns that design engineers aren’t manufacturing engineers. Yet another case of less than advertised performance at higher than advertised costs on a longer than advertised schedule..
you make a few points…let me respond
To the quote. There is no outrage on my part at SpaceX program execution, because I have a pretty good background in technical projects (both commercial and government) and nothing that SX has done (or taken their time doing) so far has really surprised me.
There are a few differences however between Musk and The turds running Ares. First and most important it is Musk money and so far at least he has spent about 1/5 to 1/6 the cash that Ares has. Ares is attempting to take things which have already been done, push them to performance limits and they have run into the problems of pushing technology. But they have spent an exorbitant amount of federal cash getting there. Musk has spent about twice the amount that the Ares folks spent on a demonstration shot (just the shot alone) that really had no technical value other then “wow we could spend 1/2 billion dollars”.
If Musk fails he will fail with his money. Ares and the folks who put it together put together a project that 1) had high legacy cost and 2) was going to push legacy hardware almost to its limit. Those are stupid moves.
“There are no schedules and milestones because there is no commitment to achieve anything (but hey, we’re flexible). In Major Tom and Oler’s world, somehow a need for these technologies emerges if only we just start going somewhere with something different than CxP.”
that is not a fair conclusion of my thoughts and I dont see it as representing Major Tom as well (but he can speak for himself).
my belief is that governments role in technology development is to test technology which “it” (aka government) might find useful for things (forward swept wings for instance or prop fans) but also things which have commercial spins. In space there are things like Syncom which define that sort of mixture that I think appropriate…you name a lot of technologies which NASA put some effort in but not a great deal and really did not follow the Hughes/NASA model.
As for schedules…and projects…it is early.. I assume that as the effort progresses some of thsoe will go forward, I suspect that they are part of the political “sweetners” being tossed.
“Oler loves to shoot down the current concept (which isn’t all that difficult given NASA’s inability to deliver on either cost, performance, or schedule) but doesn’t offer a viable alternative that doesn’t rely almost exclusively on Government funding.”
there is none. It is that simple. After 40 years of really bad judgments and policies almost all the “private efforts” at startup that could go without any government help have passed on.
The point is that government does need help. (and this is the point you cannot seem to grasp).
The government model of human spaceflight has completly failed. After the shuttle/station/a lot of other programs Ares finally came up with a infrastructure/program that was simply unaffordable given the political economic situation of The Republic.
You folks (Whittington/Spudis etc) cannot seem to grasp that reality. NASA is just broke; it barely has engineering competence, its management competence is non existant and it has no clue as to how to run a program that is economically viable.
Unless the effort gets some new blood, some new methods of design and operation, it is toast.
think about it.
Robert G. Oler
“Its still interesting that Obama hasn’t said a word about his new NASA budget proposal.”
Why should he? So fiscal conservatives and liberal partisans can criticize him directly for increasing NASA’s budget?
“he’s slashing funds related to to the manned space program from $8.4 billion in 2009 to $4.9 billion in 2011 and down to $4.1 billion by 2015.”
These numbers are junk. NASA human space flight spending, including exploration, is about $9 billion and increasing.
“The Augustine Commission, however, recommended that he raise the manned space budget by $3 billion annually”
No, they recommended that NASA’s budget ramp up to an increase of $3 billion over the current funding level. It wasn’t a $3 billion increase in every year.
“Obama’s $4.1 billion a year manned space budget”
The new budget proposes about $9 billion for human space flight, not $4 billion.
Don’t make stuff up and spread lies.
FWIW…
“The only question is what private investors will bear.”
ULA
Oler,
Its obvious that you only see one alternative. ULA right?
The money for services rendered is a great thing for Lockheed/Boeing – but I think that Space X needs the money and contracts upfront. Don’t eat the spring fawn before its up and running. Unless you can prove to me that SpaceX could get launch without those funds upfront.
oh how lovely – its another satirical cartoon.
Musk the spring fawn, his legs clutched under his breast, head barely peering above the grass. His mother, plucking the delicate shoots when all of a sudden the tiger (Oler) alerted a flock of pigeons, which sprang out of the bushes. Musk the tiny fawn never saw what was coming while mother deer (government) sprang into retreat.
Storm
Well guess what – that little fawn is appearing to have problems getting up, and so is my cock for that matter, which is really an indicator of where things are going
Allright, I give up,
Let’s have it the Constellation way. Drop the science. Drop the ISS. Put all the money in Ares I and Ares V.
Most optimistic projection: We’ll have Ares I by 2016, with nowhere to go, because ISS has dropped in the ocean. We’ll have Ares V by 2024 with nowhere to go. We’ll have Altair by 2030 to go to the moon to land at the Chinese or European/Russian/Japanese/Indian? moon enclave, and have a cup of Starbucks in the Bigelow hotel!
“We’ll have Ares V by 2024 with nowhere to go.’
Four years too soon. Per Augustine, Ares V won’t be ready until 2028, at the earliest.
“We’ll have Altair by 2030″
Probably more like 2035.
“to go to the moon to land at the Chinese or European/Russian/Japanese/Indian? moon enclave”
None of those countries have a human lunar program. Only two have a domestic human space flight capability.
FWIW…
You are absolutely right, Major Tom,
I’m just being cynical, and use numbers loosely based upon what I read in comments from various forums from the most optimistic pro-constellation visionaries (I guess in their eyes I am still negative with these numbers). And I combine these with the ‘watch the Chinese and Russians’ warnings from the same camp and the fact that some other players are entering the spaceflight elite. It is in no way meant to be realistic.
I do hope they’ll have a Starbucks on the moon someday though
“I’m just being cynical”
I know. I was just pointing out that you weren’t being cynical enough to match reality. Stop being so positive.
FWIW…
Oh no,
you’re not giving up – the Major/Oler Committee decided on PAY-FOR-SERVICES-RENDERED for Lockheed/Boeing with a caveat: that they might need a little funding before launch. And Musk is still going to get his allowance until the dragon is pressurized and docking with ISS.
Major/Oler,
What seems to be the trouble with VASIMR? Isn’t it checking out ok in the in lab? It requires a vacuum to run, correct?
Sorry Major Tom but this budget does not spend $9 billion a year in 2011 on human space flight or developing the next manned vehicles for manned space flight. Either you didn’t read the new NASA budget– or you didn’t understand it!
“Gone is SpaceX’s claim of reusability (too expensive and too massive to implement).”
Says who? Another ill informed propaganda post against a small company trying to achieve on a shoestring budget what Constellation (NASA and contractors) was not above to do with an enormous budget. Get real.
Major pointed to Rasmussen’s January poll on NASA, but didn’t highlight the interesting part that, that among likely voters, thirty-five percent (35%) believe the government should pay for space research, while 38% think private interests should pick up the tab. Twenty-six percent (26%) aren’t sure which is best. Also, sixty-four percent (64%) of adults have at least a somewhat favorable view of NASA, including 18% with a very favorable opinion of the government’s chief space agency.
Space isn’t not important, it’s just that the how’s and why’s of whether to fund through government or private enterprise, which is not being done today, is too arcane for most people to grasp. So the quarter of voters undecided are in essense leaving it up to their elected leaders to decide the best course.
And that is where the SpaceX’s in the world are going to have problems. In an excellent piece, Will NASA’s Embrace Kill NewSpace, Taylor Dinerman makes a good case for why this latest effort by the Obama Administration will have no more success than President Bush’s SEI had in 1992. The reason are many but do include jobs.
Speaking of jobs, check out the Pro-Space Labor & Business Rally in Titusville, Florida. Not only is Mike Williams, President of the Florida AFL-CIO, showing up, but so is Rich Trumka, President of the national AFL-CIO. Ouch! Those are labor big-guns that no Democratic politician can just brush-off.
Also, if you want to see the details of NASA’s budget as projected both in its 2010 and 2011 estimates, so that pre- and post-Constellation actions can be compared, look at this spreadsheet. As for NASA’s impact on the budget, discretionary budget, and the deficit, these charts are based on the Obama Administration’s FY 2011 estimates.
Major, Marcel is right, $9B is definitely not spent on human space flight according to the FY 2011 NASA Budget.
“Sorry Major Tom but this budget does not spend $9 billion a year in 2011 on human space flight or developing the next manned vehicles for manned space flight.”
Yes, it does:
$4.3 billion for Exploration (Comm’l. Crew, HLV Dev., Expl. Tech.)
$4.9 billion for Space Operations (STS and ISS)
$9.2 billion total for human space flight
See the 2011 column in the table on the last page of this document:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/nasa.pdf
“Either you didn’t read the new NASA budget– or you didn’t understand it!”
Physician, heal thyself.
FWIW…
“Space isn’t not important,”
No one said it was. A human lunar return, however, is not important to the electorate, per the Rasmussen poll.
“it’s just that the how’s and why’s of whether to fund through government or private enterprise, which is not being done today, is too arcane for most people to grasp.”
The poll doesn’t say anything about what the public can or cannot understand. Even the quarter that are undecided are just undecided — it doesn’t mean that they don’t understand the choice. And of those who have decided, slightly more favor private investment.
Don’t make stuff up.
“And that is where the SpaceX’s in the world are going to have problems. In an excellent piece, Will NASA’s Embrace Kill NewSpace, Taylor Dinerman…”
Dinerman was refuted by Peter Diamandis in the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059350409331536.html
I’ll take the business analysis of a successful space entrepreneur like Diamandis over a journalist, any day.
“Also, if you want to see the details of NASA’s budget as projected both in its 2010 and 2011 estimates, so that pre- and post-Constellation actions can be compared, look at this spreadsheet. As for NASA’s impact on the budget, discretionary budget, and the deficit, these charts are based on the Obama Administration’s FY 2011 estimates.”
Why are you linking to weird Apple websites that can’t download? Just go to the OMB website. The relevant document is linked in my prior post.
“Major, Marcel is right, $9B is definitely not spent on human space flight according to the FY 2011 NASA Budget.”
I don’t know why you two can’t add $4.3 billion for Exploration and $4.9 billion for Space Operations, but those figures are what’s being spent on human space flight in the FY 2011 budget.
FWIW…
“What seems to be the trouble with VASIMR?”
It requires a very large megawatt-class power source to scale up to the kinds of thrust necessary for human exploration missions. No one has built a space-rated, megawatt-class nuclear reactor or the solar alternative. Lots of technical, budgetary, and political questions marks.
A more proven technology, like NERVA’s nuclear thermal tests from 1960s/70s, may turn out to be more expedient for the same application.
FWIW…
Jim Hillhouse used to be for commercial space before he was against it. It is amazing how Obama haters like Hillhouse will overtly contradict themselves just so they can dump on Obama.
Major Tom
“A more proven technology, like NERVA’s nuclear thermal tests from 1960s/70s, may turn out to be more expedient for the same application.”
Wow, I think you guys have a lot on your plate. Since the Russians are interested in a nuclear rocket, is this something that could be developed in concert with the Russians?
For the Administration to be sweating over such an ambitious goal this early in the game is heroic, but unescessary. I’m encouraged by the effort, but I was under the impression that we would tackle smaller megawatt-class solar power-based Plasma demonstrations. For example ISS. I was hoping for some kind of low cost high ISP, efficient engine for missions to explore our asteroids and comets for water. Send multiple spacecraft. I don’t know enough to determine if ion engines or VASIMR would be more suitable for such an application in which multiple small megawatt spacecraft (survey craft) would navigate their way around to many different NEO objects as well as deeper space objects. So small VASIMR engines would be suitable for ISS and perhaps the smaller spacecraft for the inner solar system survey craft.
But the main thrust of the administrations goal in addition to these things I’ve mentioned should be to develop working models of Prop Depots and a GEO platforms that use VASIMR for positioning like Oler and Valyen mentioned.
There’s a lot to do on the drawing board before we start sweating over high speed human missions, and we should consider what we want to do with the Russians on this if anything. I’m also aware that Indian Space Agency is interested in being a part of such missions and it seems they will be much more relevant to these kinds of talks in the near future. Should we consider promoting India as the next candidate to place a module at ISS? Or do we want to continue to contain India and watch them slip more slowly into Russia’s space/technology orbit, because that is exactly what is happening. The administration is not outreaching enough on this. I realize that India has issues like climate change policy that we need to overcome, but I don’t know how letting India slide more into the Russian orbit is going to solve our overarching problems.
““Gone is SpaceX’s claim of reusability (too expensive and too massive to implement).â€
Says who? Another ill informed propaganda post against a small company trying to achieve on a shoestring budget what Constellation (NASA and contractors) was not above to do with an enormous budget. Get real.”
Says Elon Musk, on September 10, 2009. I sat 20 feet away from him at the 2009 World Satellite Business Week in Paris where he spoke at the closing luncheon hosted by SpaceX. He lamented the fact that he still held out hopes that he could get a reusable system to work but such a system would eliminate his remaining 3% payload mass fraction.
Unlike you “common sense” I do live in reality and interact with both commercial space and USG-contractor space companies on a daily basis. To paraphrase Major Tom, if you can’t get your facts straight, quit posting here and taking up everyone’s time with inane comments. Sheesh!!
Oler – “You folks (Whittington/Spudis etc) cannot seem to grasp that reality. NASA is just broke; it barely has engineering competence, its management competence is non existant and it has no clue as to how to run a program that is economically viable.”
Don’t put me there. I think the majority of NASA should be BRAC’d. Certainly the HSF portion of NASA. They haven’t produced a single advance since Shuttle started flying. I do give SMD a lot of credit, when they compete science missions (JPL and un-competed efforts like MSL show why NASA can’t be trusted to perform in a purely lead role). ESMD has not, in any way shape or form, provided a positive return on investment of the taxpayer’s money. But I also don’t buy into the “Just give SpaceX more money” camp either. SpaceX is sucking at the USG teat just as hard as any other Govt.-contractor. He may have started with his own dollars, but he has long since become reliant on Government funding. People on this site tend to forget/ignore/dismiss the fact that Lockheed has invested more than $200M on CEV, or that they invested more than $350M in X33/Venturestar, or that they invested more than $1.5B on EELV. I can’t say how much Boeing invested in EELV but I would guess it is in the similar range. And I can’t say how much Boeing invested trying to win CEV or what they have sunk into ARES but I suspect that here as well, they have invested heavily. CEV appears to be a lost cause, through very little fault of LM as far as I can see based on an educated outsider’s view. X33 tanked in part due to NASA cold feet or shifting political priorities. And EELV is just starting to become profitable. Not a strong incentive to invest with the hope that the USG mission survives from one admin to the next. Elon may be riding high now, but the viability of his business plan has yet to be demonstrated. He has taken a fair amount of up-front funding betting that he can deliver cargo to ISS for the price point he signed up to. Until he actually begins to deliver that cargo however, his true operating costs are just estimates. Iridium had a great business plan too. It only succeeded once Iridium went bankrupt and the successor was able to acquire the initial assets for 10 cents on the dollar. History suggests Elon may end up in the same place.
Finally, Oler laments the fact that the US has lost the commercial LV market and thus SpaceX offers a ray of hope. From my perspective, it’s too early to tell. While US LV’s do not compete well except for niche opportunities, and thus Oler’s argument is true on its surface, it is more a consequence of the DoD tightly controlling ULA’s launch manifest and essentially filling up that manifest than one of US LV prices being too high. DoD demands certain levels of reliability and accessability that foreign launchers aren’t held to which comes at a price. There was a day when LM and Boeing were competing for USG&Commercial launches with $/kg numbers similar to what Elon is hawking now. Neither could make a business case close positively and thus ULA was born. SpaceX is not plowing new ground here. They are trying to establish market share via gross under-pricing. Ultimately the prices will come up. Just my prediction and my $0.02.
Oler,
Yeah at some point SpaceX has to sink or swim with the big boys. Where can I get the numbers that lockheed/boeing spent on past programs like CEV and X33? late 90’s NASA budgets will give some idea of the government investment, but the private capital investment? I would be surprised if Lockheed/boeing invested the kinds of money you’re talking about. The government paid lockheed/boeing to do that R&D.
“Wow, I think you guys have a lot on your plate.”
If you’re including me in “you guys”, just for the record, I don’t work for NASA or the Administration.
“Since the Russians are interested in a nuclear rocket, is this something that could be developed in concert with the Russians?”
The Soviet Union did run at least a couple kilowatt-class nuclear reactors in orbit for periods up to a year. Wikipedia “Topaz Nuclear Reactor”.
After the Cold War, western engineers were given access to the last generation of Soviet space nuclear reactors. They conducted unpowered ground tests on those reactors and presumably have the information necessary to replicate/improve on them.
“I was under the impression that we would tackle smaller megawatt-class solar power-based Plasma demonstrations. For example ISS… and perhaps the smaller spacecraft for the inner solar system survey craft.”
ISS reboost is a kilowatt-class VASIMR application. If by “survey craft” you mean robotic, those are probably also kilowatt-class. But if they’re crewed missions and you want them to beat chemical engines to those targets, you’re probably talking megawatt-class.
“Should we consider promoting India as the next candidate to place a module at ISS?”
With no manned space program, it’s hard to see how India could be invited into the partnership. India’s government may make a future, even near-future, decision to pursue such a program, but it would probably be sometime after that before the ISS partnership could extend an invitation. Their contribution would not necessarily have to be a module, and probably wouldn’t be given their lack of human space flight experience. There are probably more opportunities to cooperate with India in robotic missions for the time being.
FWIW…
“Until he actually begins to deliver that cargo however, his true operating costs are just estimates. Iridium had a great business plan too. It only succeeded once Iridium went bankrupt and the successor was able to acquire the initial assets for 10 cents on the dollar. History suggests Elon may end up in the same place.”
I don’t disagree with most of your post. But I wouldn’t draw a parallel between Iridium, where the market for the product fell out from underneath the company, and SpaceX. Falcon’s costs and prices may well come up, but that’s a different problem than lack of customer demand. SpaceX doesn’t appear to have much of a problem in that area.
FWIW…
Storm,
I assume you were directing the question of LM investment numbers to me and not to Oler. While I can’t divulge my sources, I did find this link:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/x33.htm
for the X33 investment. They seem to have a similar estimate to my own data.
You will have to find estimates of LM and Boeing CEV investments on your own. Sorry.
GuessWho wrote @ February 15th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
a few points (and there is a lot in your post I agree with).
First. I agree that Musk and SpaceX have not gotten the commercial launch business back to the US (that of course is obvious)…but if Musk doesnt do it, then it wont be done at least over the next five or so years.
It may not be possible to be done.
Musk might have some tragic flaw in his vehicle that makes it unwieldy, he might not be able to meet his cost …..there are a zillion things that can go wrong in terms of actually marketing a product…particularly when the cost structure has to compete with essentially government supported systems (the Russians and Europeans).
I’ve watched Boeing compete with Airbus in the commercial market…there is a reason Frontier ditched its Boeing fleet and bought Airbus…part of it is the airplane itself but most of it was that the folks who were leasing the Boeing’s wanted cash for them and Airbus was willing to work terms that were “generous” at least for the first year.
but the lesson there remains…
If “I” had to spend whatever was going to be spent on Constellation…I would far rather spend it (from a create jobs and advance technology viewpoint) on a US clone of Arrianespace…then on just one mindless mission after the next that does nothing really not even creating technology.
Where I just dont get the criticism of the “new way” at all…is that if the commercial cycle NEVER starts in The Republic then why on the Creators earth do we have a human spaceflight program?
It will never be more then a few astronauts in a can doing things that really dont matter to the economic cycle, other then creating federal welfare jobs…jobs which dont even do what the jobs subsidized in Europe (or Russia) do…
SpaceX or an energized by the “federal dollar” launch subsidy (and it is that) to ISS may never bring back the launcher business in The Republic…but it at least has the benefit of trying…the current method will never do it.
Plus…it might also start the cycle in terms of how human spaceflight is done on orbit…meaning there might be commercial oppurtunities to assemble and service vehicles on orbit…and we wont know that either as long as the only people giving a go at it…are government astronauts on government missions.
SpaceX (or a renergized launch industry) might flop on the new way…but it has to be better then what exist now…which is nothing.
Robert G. Oler
Storm wrote @ February 15th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Oler,
Yeah at some point SpaceX has to sink or swim with the big boys..
we are, as I have said endlessly going to find that out (if SX sinks or swims) very very quickly particularly if their technology works to see fi their economics do.
If they do, you are going to see both Boeing and Lockmart trying to figure out how to do the economics similarly.
I bet you that there is a launch price that is closer to SX then ULA’s out there…ie SX will have to see their cost rise some …but not as much as ULA will have to see them fall.
Robert G. Oler
Oler
“Plus…it might also start the cycle in terms of how human spaceflight is done on orbit…meaning there might be commercial oppurtunities to assemble and service vehicles on orbit…and we wont know that either as long as the only people giving a go at it…are government astronauts on government missions.”
NASA should get Boeing and Lockmart rolling on the GEO platform – if that is what you think will accomplish this repair capability. I wish we could also repair spacecraft in much farther orbits. If we could send them out to Kepler Telescope perhaps we could extend its mission. If I recall correctly Kepler only has a 3 year mission duration. But GEO Platform would also open up business to for Lockmart/Boeing to repair the myriad of GEO satellites.
Very good strategic point.
Perhaps a plasma driven module could transport astronauts to anywhere from ISS to GEO then beyond via plasma drive somewhere between kilowatt and megawatt class – hopefully much closer to kilowatt. And perhaps nukes could be used to generate this – i’m not thinking about Mars here. I’m thinking of GEO and periphery. But why not better solar panels? Or bigger? I understand there are always breakthroughs going on in the arena.
Perhaps we could even use these plasma modules to scoop up orbital space junk with a magnetic scoop, and take it to re-entry before it turns and head back to the GEO platform or Depot.
Storm wrote @ February 16th, 2010 at 12:00 am ..
there are in my view a whole slew of sweetners which are both in my view R&D and operationally oriented. I predict when “the new way” settles out in the next five years we will have some amazing test vehicles in space…sorry have to go now but later might detail what I htink they are going to be
take care
Robert G. Oler
“NASA should get Boeing and Lockmart rolling on the GEO platform – if that is what you think will accomplish this repair capability. I wish we could also repair spacecraft in much farther orbits. If we could send them out to Kepler Telescope perhaps we could extend its mission. If I recall correctly Kepler only has a 3 year mission duration. But GEO Platform would also open up business to for Lockmart/Boeing to repair the myriad of GEO satellites.”
Why should NASA be at the heart of this? I would submit that a purely commercially developed system will be a far cheaper solution that could be implemented sooner without NASA involvement, other than as a procuror of that service. If NASA funds it, they tend to want to own/operate it which will drive up cost and schedule. Also, I would submit that >85% of potential missions can be done robotically (either tele-operated or autonomously). Putting humans in space for these types of activities just isn’t warranted. IMHO. And don’t be surprised to see this happen sooner than you expect.
GuessWho
Also, I would submit that >85% of potential missions can be done robotically (either tele-operated or autonomously). Putting humans in space for these types of activities just isn’t warranted. IMHO. And don’t be surprised to see this happen sooner than you expect.
Good. Whenever we don’t have to send up a human, then why do it unless it is just to to conduct tests on equipment for NASA to protect astronauts on deep space missions, which like I said, is not my priority for a century. I favor ISS for conducting this testing as well as a plasma driven test bed to conduct tests on how the radiation affects their bodies in GEO – but I don’t favor having humans doing repair work if it is not absolutely required.
I don’t even think humans should fly aircraft. I’m sick and tired of the FAA trying to keep AI out of our civilian airspace with their old, defunct flight system.
Once space telescopes and the first robotic precursor missions to nearby solar systems pinpoint the exact place we want to go I would hope we would have the knowledge, technology, and infrastructure to send humans there.
I’m holding my breath
Mars doesn’t make me want to hold my breath. It might be interesting for some. I’m not totally against the idea.
“Unlike you “common sense†I do live in reality and interact with both commercial space and USG-contractor space companies on a daily basis. To paraphrase Major Tom, if you can’t get your facts straight, quit posting here and taking up everyone’s time with inane comments. Sheesh!!”
Glad you keep up to date with the whole business on a daily basis. And it looks like your sources are straight on. My apologies to someone who knows so much. True I live in the US not necessarily in reality. But we shall see soon I guess whose sources are right on. In the mean time I’ll keep posting to my heart’s content but you’re welcome to go elsewhere.
Oh well.
@GuessWho:
You may want to take some reading lessons. Read this “INAUGURAL FALCON 9 / DRAGON FLIGHT HARDWARE UPDATE” dated Monday, January 4, 2010 (http://www.spacex.com/updates.php) which is a little more current than your Sep. 10 2009 reference. I believe I know what he was talking about then BUT I’ll leave the research to you along with the reading classes.
Oh well…
“Recovery Preparations
Both the Falcon 9 first stage and Dragon spacecraft are designed to be recovered. For this first demonstration flight, the Dragon spacecraft will remain in orbit but our team will attempt recovery of the Falcon 9 first stage and has commenced with recovery testing operations (see photo below).”
“common sense”
That is PRIVATE spaceX business.
Why should NASA spend any funds on these flakes?
The US taxpayer owns nothing to SpaceX. And needs nothing from HSF.
So, spend your own money Mr. Musk. Be my guest.
@danwithaplan:
I have no idea what you’re talking about and I guess you don’t know what you’re talking about. You should get your medicine and chill out.
“Why should NASA spend any funds on these flakes?”
Because NASA wants to use SpaceX services to take cargo up and down from the International Space Station (and may want to use SpaceX services to take crew up and down from the International Space Station).
Duh…
“The US taxpayer owns nothing to SpaceX.”
Unless the federal government purchases their services.
Duh…