In some of his first public comments since the release of the NASA budget proposal two weeks ago, Norm Augustine, chairman of the Review of US Human Spaceflight Plans Committee (aka the Augustine Committee), largely endorsed the agency’s new direction, but offered some caveats and concerns, primarily about funding.
Speaking Monday morning at the “April” meeting of the American Physical Society in Washington (so named because the meeting normally takes place in April, not February), Augustine reviewed the work os his committee and the outcome. “The space program is probably at a tipping point,” he said in his opening remarks. “It’s been almost 40 years since an astronaut traveled more than 400 miles form the surface of the Earth. We tend to forget that.” Going to the public and asking for large sums of money to return to the Moon in a decade or two “is a very hard case to make for a human spaceflight program.”
Augustine walked through the committee’s work, taking time to summarize the wide variety of emails he received from the public during the committee’s deliberations, ranging from calls to cancel spaceflight entirely to spend money on other efforts to various, often contradictory, calls for spending more money and/or spend it differently on various human spaceflight programs. “These views were religiously held,” he noted. “Nothing that I’ve been involved in seems to quite inspire the passion that the spaceflight program does, particularly the human spaceflight program. But the problem is that even those who do agree in a strong human spaceflight program generally don’t agree on which human spaceflight program they believe in.” (I humbly submit that the same conclusion can be reached by perusing the comments to various posts here.)
Augustine, both in his speech and in brief comments with reporters afterwards, indicated that he was not surprised to see Ares 1 get cancelled. “Our conclusion is that it would like be a very fine launch vehicle, it would be very reliable; the question wasn’t can we build it, the question was should we build it,” he said in his speech.
“The current step, if you think about, was almost preordained,” Augustine said later. “The view of our committee, the unanimous view, was that at least the Ares 1 had little chance of ever providing a useful role. I’m not questioning its technology, just its utility. Since the Ares 5 had just begun, you can understand why he [President Obama] did what he did.”
Augustine also took note of some of the criticism that the new plan’s emphasis on commercial crew and cargo providers—something included in most of the Augustine committee’s options—had received on Capitol Hill. “I find it remarkable that those same leaders have allocated money to pay the Russians to carry our astronauts into orbit, but they don’t think US industry can do it,” he said. “Not much of a vote of confidence.”
One area of concern that Augustine noted was the funding that NASA received. The committee found that an increase of $3 billion a year was needed for a “substantive” space exploration program. The administration’s budget request instead calls for an average of $1.2 billion a year over the next five years. “The program the president proposed is presumably the strongest program that the nation could afford with today’s budget,” he said. “To its credit it matches the means to the ends. But in my view the true test is not today. The true test will be after the technology development program is conducted: what then will be the mission of the human spaceflight program, and, importantly, will enough money be allocated to carry it out in a safe, responsible fashion.”
Not having an immediate firm direction for the human spaceflight program now isn’t a problem, he said, so long as this state doesn’t last for more than a few years. “I would be concerned if we wait a decade to make a decision as to what we’re going to do,” he said after his talk. “But if, after a few years, we were to make a decision that, for example, we’re going to follow the Flexible Path… then I think that’s a better plan than the one we have today.”
While the administration’s budget fell short of the recommendation of the committee, Augustine said he understood the situation. “I’m a space advocate. I would hope that the nation could afford additional funds,” he said. However, “I do realize that we’re in a tough financial period, and I also realize that he [Obama] did add money to the space program,” one of the few agencies that did get an increase. “I think it’s a question of whether you look at the glass as half-full or half-empty.”
And how does he see it? “I’m always a half-full guy.”
it just gets more dim for Ares and “The Vision” huggers every day. the only people of substance supporting the plan are the folks who are doing it for pork…
I must admit to enjoying the “brown out”. Robert G. Oler
Norm Augustine is being a bit optimistic. “Half full?” Maybe a quarter full, if that, with the rest poisoned.
I find Augustine’s thoughts highly compelling and worthy of serious debate. Constellation is dead due in large part to the efforts of Mr. Augustine and his panel. However none of his main recommendations were adopted by the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration kind of adopts their version of Augustine’s option 5, the flexible path, only it does so without a heavy lift vehicle or a vision for future exploration, I call it the Potemkin Plan. I can understand why Augustine said “I would be concerned if we wait a decade to make a decision as to what we’re going to do,†he said after his talk. “But if, after a few years, we were to make a decision that, for example, we’re going to follow the Flexible Path… then I think that’s a better plan than the one we have today.â€
Now I’ve read that Bolden is committing to a new architecture of some kind in the months or years to come. But I’ve also heard him say a new HLV in the 2020-2030 time frame. A plan without a procurement budget is so much pie in the sky. It will have little likelihood of implementation.
“the only people of substance supporting the plan are the folks who are doing it for pork.” First, the statement is not accurate, since the announcement of the Administration’s plans, former Apollo Astronauts such as Gene Cernan and Jack Schmitt have spoken out against it as well as columnists such as Charles Krauthhammer, and the best selling author of Rocket Boys, Homer Hickam. Obviously, current and former aerospace executives have spoke out against it, but I am also trying to show, without having to generate an exhaustive list in this limited space, that a variety of well placed Americans are concerned. However, to get to the essence of the “pork” charge, many critics of Constellation contend elected representatives from States and/or Districts with significant HSF assets are just in it for the pork. Could it be that these members also take the time to truly study the relevant issues associated with HSF activities since their constituents are engaged in the industry on a daily basis? It is not a stretch to assume that members invest their time in developing expertise in subject matters of importance to their districts and States. For example, we all eat, but go take a look at the members of the House Agriculture Committee. Are they from urban areas? No, they are predominately from rural districts where food is produced. So, no it doesn’t surprise me that the members who are best informed on our Nation’s space program are the ones that come from areas that are heavily involved in the aerospace sector.
Also, I would challenge you to go back and look at past NASA cancellations of space transportation efforts. They have not drawn the kind of intense reaction this one has. Yet, they did contain significant shifts in approach (SLI, OSP, the move from Constellation’s spiral development approach to the current acquisition model). The truth is those who have closely followed US civil space policy over the years recognize that this is a ill conceived plan that puts us on a path to nowhere.
Finally, do you really think the supporters of the commercial approach are doing it for anything less than profit motives? You charge the current industrial base with supporting pork, but you imply the motives of the commercial sector are altruistic. To me, their motives are even more suspect because they are asking to take on a job for which they have not demonstrated any capability to date. I’ve often heard Constellation charged as being nothing more than a repeat of Apollo. While I disagree with that based on the lunar science activities that are planned in conjunction with Constellation missions, I can’t help but wonder why the proponents of a Commercial effort don’t admit that the goals of their efforts are more in line with the Mercury and Gemini progams. After all, we are still awaiting Space X to demonstrate Mercury-like capabilities. Given that 88% of NASA’s current budget already is executed by private industry, it will be interesting to see if taxpayers are willing to give billions to Space X, Blue Origins, and others to see if they can duplicate Mercury and the on-orbit docking missions of Gemini.
I think we all need to get on board with the new plan. The reason being is this is going to get us to orbit a lot faster. And by “us” I mean all of us, not just NASA Astronauts. With the boost to private industry, we will all be able to buy tickets, if we can afford them, in the next decade or so. To rely on NASA’s old model, we would all be on the sidelines for a long time to come. And we would be stuck with the same budget fluctuations and overruns that turned the Shuttle, ISS and probably the Moon base into albatroses around NASA’s neck. A truly spacefaring nation is only going to become a reality if we pry the Governments hands off the throttle and take control ourselves.
KDH, this is what Augustine said “But if, after a few years, we were to make a decision that, for example, we’re going to follow the Flexible Path… then I think that’s a better plan than the one we have today.â€.
As he implies, there is no plan yet from Obama and it might take a few years to get one.
What plan are you referring too? Augustine doesn’t see one. What are you seeing that he doesn’t?
I think its terribly silly for all these adults to be ranting over there not being a “firm plan”. “Oh no, we’re not going to the Moon, we’re not going to Mars”. It’s like your mom is not telling you whats wrapped up under the christmas tree.
I’m assuming that all of you are aware that our plans for LEO are firm with Obama: That we will sue for rapid development of multiple commercial options for getting to ISS and that the floating lab, which has unprecedented size and capability will continue to be the home astronauts, and provide cutting edge research, at least until 2020.
The truth is that the flexible path means something very firm. It means that we will pursue the R&D that will allow us to go to the Moon and Mars, or anywhere else in the inner solar system. That means that you must have a staging area for refueling in LEO and above LEO, such as GEO. That also means that we’re looking for fuel that is already out of the gravity well – WATER. Water is on asteroids and comets in much larger quantities than the Moon.
So the vision is clear, the plan is clear. Get it together people and quit sobbing. Our vision is to have platforms for refueling in GEO and beyond, and our vision is to “follow the water”.
I’m sorry that it is a little more complicated than blasting off in a big rocket to the Moon, but sometimes a CONSTRUCT built around sustainable development is a little more complicated than a single shot like Apollo.
Our vision is infrastructure for flexibility to go where ever we deem necessary. The Constellation advocates only vision died almost 40 years ago when Nixon canceled Apollo because it wasn’t sustainable.
richardb: “However none of his main recommendations were adopted by the Obama Administration.”
Stepping aside the bit about the word “recommendations”, the following Augustine option sounds fairly close. Of course there are some differences:
“Option 2. ISS and Lunar Exploration, Constrained to FY 2010 Budget. This option extends the ISS to 2020, and begins a program of lunar exploration using a derivative of Ares V, referred to here as the Ares V Lite. The option assumes completion of the Shuttle manifest in FY 2011, and it includes a technology development program, a program to develop commercial services to transport crew to low-Earth orbit, and funds for enhanced utilization of the ISS. This option does not deliver heavy-lift capability until the late 2020s and does not have funds to develop the systems needed to land on or explore the Moon in the next two decades.”
Mark: “Maybe a quarter full”
That’s better than totally empty, which is where we are with Constellation. Personally, I’d call it 3 quarters full compared to Constellation’s “totally empty”.
Jim D.: “it doesn’t surprise me that the members who are best informed on our Nation’s space program are the ones that come from areas that are heavily involved in the aerospace sector.”
You must not have seen some of the whoppers that Jeff F. has pointed out on this site recently.
It’s pretty obvious that the states with lots of Constellation money are the ones with Congresspeople up in arms. You don’t hear a lot from space states like California, Maryland, Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, Nevada, or New Mexico, probably because, even if they have some Constellation work, they stand to gain much more than they lose from this change.
Jim D.: “They have not drawn the kind of intense reaction this one has.”
That’s because of the incredible expense of Constellation. The expectation that it would involve many billions of dollars of funding through 2035 or so to get to the Moon, and many billions of dollars per mission after that, is a big incentive for Congresspeople whose districts get that funding.
Jim D.: “I’ve often heard Constellation charged as being nothing more than a repeat of Apollo. While I disagree with that based on the lunar science activities that are planned in conjunction with Constellation missions, I can’t help but wonder why the proponents of a Commercial effort don’t admit that the goals of their efforts are more in line with the Mercury and Gemini progams.”
In spite of the controversy that Sen. Shelby tried to cause, this is not a case of commercial crew to ISS vs. Constellation, so it doesn’t make sense to compare them this way. In fact commercial crew was one of the parts of the Vision for Space Exploration that could have saved Constellation had Griffin not ignored the VSE – commercial services handling ISS and allowing the government spacecraft to focus on exploration.
Now with the new budget the real contrast is Constellation delivering astronaut boots to the Moon in year 2035 or so vs. all of the following:
– exploration technology demonstrations for inflatable structures, ISRU, refueling, close-loop life support, in-space propulsion, etc
– HLV and propulsion R&D
– a strong HSF robotic precursor series of missions
– extending the ISS to 2020 or later
– actually using the ISS
– adding to ISS capabilities
– ensuring Shuttle completes the current round of ISS missions
– accelerating commercial cargo
– a robust commercial crew program for multiple new spacecraft compatible with multiple launchers to service the ISS to decrease the “gapâ€
– modernizing KSC
– a much stronger general space technology program
– increases in NASA Earth science missions
– increases in Planetary science, including addressing NASA’s NEO search obligation and NASA’s Plutonium-238 dependency on Russia
– an increase in Aeronautics
– NASA science, technology development, and aeronautics in general in the sense of Constellation cost overruns being a threat to future budgets in those areas
richardb, you imply that essentially no progress can be made in human space exploration until a new, heavy-lift launch vehicle is developed. I don’t think that’s correct; at least, not for the next decade or two. And also keep in mind what both Augustine and the Administration have pointed out: Ares-V itself was not gonna happen – period. The Constellation architecture was underfunded from here on out by approximately $3B/yr; and in the process of carrying it forward it was eating up almost 100% of the seed corn. NASA, in the last 5 years has ceased to be a high-tech agency. We would have developed Constellation – only if we got those additional billions – and only by not having one whit of real game-changing technology developed otherwise. It was a failed strategy, and against the national interest, on just about every level.
I’m ecstatic that the Administration’s budget increases the Agency by a billion a year – that was hardly a given – and intelligently re-focuses it on making NASA a true enabler of game-changing innovative technology and a new way of doing business. While I would like a ‘destination(s)’ set out as well, at least we’re now building the future to go to space, to stay. We were not doing that before; in fact, we were digging ourselves into a deeper hole.
And now for something completely different:
a little bit of criticism from the other side (i.e. not from the side of Der Griffinshaftians (who, I should add, aren’t really all that von Braunian)).
I’ve noticed Norm Augustine and Charles Bolden both play real nice and play down the technical difficulties of the “current” Ares I and the likely technical impossibilities of the original Ares I (they changed the design for a reason, or more like ten).
Why be so nice Bolden and Augustine? Is it the diplomatic public face and olive branch of face-saving for the likes of Griffin and Shelby? But the likes of Griffin and Shelby seem way too dense to appreciate it so I hope that when the time comes you won’t hesitate to –if needed– burn them on the stake by unleashing knowledge of the less flattering facts in private.
And if that doesn’t get to them then go public.
And if that doesn’t get to them then involve criminal investigations (joint FBI and Secret Service operation?). Raid their homes, raid their offices, raid certain companies, raid NASA, take it all and look for obviously missing pieces as well as details concerning Ares I and in particular it’s first stage.
If pandering the egos of Griffin and Shelby et al doesn’t mollify them then stop doing it and start cracking a few eggs.
And by “play real nice” I should specify that it entails Bolden being so overly diplomatic on the subject that I laughingly comment out loud “bull**** but you sold that lie well” (although I noticed you had trouble saying it with a straight face) and “if it helps then so be it”.
Jim D. wrote @ February 15th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
interesting post.
Sorry for my imprecision…I am aware of Homer (in fact I have mocked his logic about as hard as anyones) and Paul S and all the other “save our program folks”…what I thought context would reveal coupled with the thread is that I was refering to politicians.
But it doesnt matter…I can see where you would draw that conclusion…so I can widen out my statement “the only people of substance supporting this thing are politicians with pork in their district and a bunch of folks who are all supporting it for reasons which long ago faded as ones with merit”.
As to your point. NO I dont think that most politicians who are supporting this have a clue about what they are talking about. I live in 22(Texas) and have gone to the debates, worked in a few of the campaigns (or given money) to the folks who would replace DeLay…and as I noted in another post I have classmates who have worked (in some substantive positions) for the political class from Texas.
At one point (but not any longer) I was a very minor political figure in Clear Lake…so I at least had “standing access” (ie I could in a group of people actually talk to some of the “higherups” that came to Clear Lake and glad handed with the local people).
The only current pol of any national stature who has any clue as to what is actually going on in the human spaceflight world is in my view KBH. Bill White is spending some time educating himself on the issues.(he is running for Gov)..but most of the people who are local (and that includes the Congress folks) are Pete Olsenish…ie they have the golden rule in politics which is “support the home bacon”.
In Pete’s case that is to bad. He has the intellectual horsepower and background to understand the issue…and he has the staff expertise to manuever semi effectivly…but at least in the local Q&A (townhall meetings) and other events where the topic has come up he is really just babbling the “Pro vision/Ares/Constellation” babble…that is clearly wrong on its face “safest vehicle in human spaceflight” is one phrase that is akin to “the docking is at 17,500 mph” (he has used that phrase as well and as a Naval Aviator he has to know that is wrong.
There is a case “I” could make for “Constellation” but any case includes some substantial management changes, changes in focus, etc.
What the supporters want you to believe is “another 3 billion a year and things are fine”…and that statement alone shows them as NASA Toady’s.
If Pete had any stature in the debate he would have some time ago been telling NASA officials “you have to make this work before you lose the project” and he was told that by a lot of people and ignored it (or they ignored him).
there are public officials who make themselves “real” experts (ie past the words of staff). Russ Fiengold is one such person …he has taken the time (after McCain beat him up pretty hard) to learn how the DoD operates and the strategeries involved in it. I dont agree with him on everything but his logic and reasoning are “sound” in almost everything he puts out.
Pete has so far been a disappointment
Robert G. Oler
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ February 15th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
it is more full then the opposition which is running on empty.
enjoy this time Mark…yet another bush bad penny is dying…(death panels)
Robert G. Oler
“Maybe a quarter full, if that, with the rest poisoned.”
There’s some insightful, well-backed analysis.
Oy vey…
Dave, I make the claim that Obama didn’t follow any of the Augustine recommended options very closely, essentially removing the high cost elements of the flexible path. I make the claim that Obama hasn’t offered any plan to replace the VSE. I make the claim that Augustine offered a sober assessment of the funding requirements for a meaningful manned space mission and Obama didn’t come close to reaching it. I think that is why Augustine said that Obama provided the funds to match his plan. Obama has implicitly removed a meaningful HSF from Nasa’s charter, so the funds now match the ambition.
I didn’t claim that we don’t progress unless we have HLV. However Obama is allowing our only HLV to be shut down and replaced with hope that SpaceX or ULA will provide a ride by 2016 or so. That is not progress in my eyes.
Incidentally I don’t believe that 6 billion dollars is enough to get SpaceX or ULA to the finish line. Not by a long shot. When they go over budget and slip the schedule to the right will all the alt-space buffs demand cancellation? The only market for their wares is the ISS. If Congress lags in supporting that costly lab, so too will their desire to bail out SpaceX or ULA.
“However none of his main recommendations were adopted by the Obama Administration.”
The new plan incorporates commercial crew, which the Augustine Committee baselined into all of its non-POR options.
The new plan extends ISS life to 2020, which the Augustine Committee baselined into all of its non-POR options.
The new plan incorporates HLV development, which the Augustine Committee baselined into all of its non-POR options. In fact, the new plan is pursuing a LOX/RP-based, commercially-derived HLV, which the Augustine Committee scored highest of all the non-POR options.
The new plan incorporates significant spending on exploration technology development, which the Augustine Committee baselined into all of its non-POR options.
Don’t make stuff up.
“The Obama Administration kind of adopts their version of Augustine’s option 5, the flexible path, only it does so without a heavy lift vehicle… A plan without a procurement budget is so much pie in the sky.”
You do realize that the new budget proposes spending over $3 billion on HLV development?
That’s $3 billion more than would have been spent under the POR throught the budget runout.
Don’t make stuff up.
FWIW…
“To me, their motives are even more suspect because they are asking to take on a job for which they have not demonstrated any capability to date.”
You do realize that U.S. industry built the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo vehicles, the Space Shuttle, and ISS, right?
You do realize that U.S. industry does most Space Shuttle operations today, right?
“While I disagree with that based on the lunar science activities that are planned in conjunction with Constellation missions,”
Reference?
“I can’t help but wonder why the proponents of a Commercial effort don’t admit that the goals of their efforts are more in line with the Mercury and Gemini progams.”
They have admitted that. The Commercial Spaceflight Federation has repeatedly stated in Congressional testimony and press releases that replicating a Gemini-like capability to go back and forth to the ISS is relatively easy and well within industry’s baliwick. They’ve repeatedly argued that NASA should let industry do this, instead of getting wrapped around the routine ETO axle as happened with Ares I/Orion, so that NASA can focus on exploration beyond Earth orbit.
(That said, Space Adventures and Bigelow do talk about commercial lunar missions.)
“After all, we are still awaiting Space X to demonstrate Mercury-like capabilities.”
We’re going to have to wait another 7 to 9 years for Ares I/Orion to demonstrate the same.
FWIW…
“this is what Augustine said ‘But if, after a few years, we were to make a decision that, for example, we’re going to follow the Flexible Path… then I think that’s a better plan than the one we have today.’
As he implies, there is no plan yet from Obama”
Augustine said no such thing. He said a plan to follow the Flexible Path a few years down the road would be better than the plan (“the one”) we have today.
Don’t make stuff up.
FWIW…
Major Tom
“In fact, the new plan is pursuing a LOX/RP-based, commercially-derived HLV,”
Post link please. Prove it.
Or are you just making stuff up?
“If pandering the egos of Griffin and Shelby et al doesn’t mollify them then stop doing it and start cracking a few eggs.”
Well I think an actual cancellation proposal of all that is Constellation is pretty close to your wishes… No need to bark out loud. Termination is worth 1000s words.
“I make the claim that Obama didn’t follow any of the Augustine recommended options very closely,”
Why do you insist on repeating this ignorant lie?
The new plan incorporates commercial crew, which the Augustine Committee baselined into all of its non-POR options.
The new plan extends ISS life to 2020, which the Augustine Committee baselined into all of its non-POR options.
The new plan incorporates HLV development, which the Augustine Committee baselined into all of its non-POR options. In fact, the new plan is pursuing a LOX/RP-based, commercially-derived HLV, which the Augustine Committee scored highest of all the non-POR options.
The new plan incorporates significant spending on exploration technology development, which the Augustine Committee baselined into all of its non-POR options.
Don’t make stuff up.
“essentially removing the high cost elements of the flexible path.”
Like what? The highest cost element is the HLV, and the new budget funds that element to the tune of $3.1 billion.
That’s $3 billion more than the POR would have been spent on Ares V through the budget runout.
Don’t make stuff up.
“I make the claim that Obama hasn’t offered any plan to replace the VSE… Obama has implicitly removed a meaningful HSF from Nasa’s charter”
You make the claim, but you provide no factual evidence. Your statements about the new budget and plan are repeatedly false.
“However Obama is allowing our only HLV to be shut down”
The POR was also going to shut down Shuttle and wasn’t going to field a new HLV (Ares V) until 2028 or later.
The new budget funds a new HLV now to the tune of $3.1 billion. That’s $3 billion more than the POR would have been spent on Ares V through the budget runout.
Don’t make stuff up.
“Incidentally I don’t believe that 6 billion dollars is enough to get SpaceX or ULA to the finish line.”
You can believe whatever you want, but the final report of the Augustine Committee conservatively estimated $5 billion to put at least two commercial crew providers by 2016.
The new budget provides $6 billion for the Commercial Crew program.
Do the math.
“When they go over budget and slip the schedule to the right will all the alt-space buffs demand cancellation?”
It doesn’t matter what the buffs think. It matters what NASA and the government do. And in this area, they’ve demonstrated an ability to terminate failures and redirect funding to new competitions. Rocketplane/Kistler’s COTS Space Act Agreement was cancelled when they fell behind on their milestones and the funding was redirected to OSC after a new competition.
“The only market for their wares is the ISS.”
You have heard of Bigelow, right?
You have heard of paying private customers for Soyuz seats, right?
You do realize that Dragon has paying customers for unmanned, free flights, right?
You do realize that EELVs, Falcon 9, and Taurus II also launch unmanned payloads and satellites, right?
“If Congress lags in supporting that costly lab”
The new budget proposes extending ISS to 2020 and adding to its capabilities (inflatable module and/or centrifuge).
FWIW…
The Augustine Committee suggested that a 3 billion dollar increase in the NASA budget was needed for a robust human deep space exploration program. The Obama NASA budget recommendation is only an increase of 1.2 billion over the next five years. And it’s even worse than that since much of that 1.2 billion increase has nothing to do with manned spaceflight, such as the 382 million increase for Earth Observation science.
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/100205-nasa-budget-beneficiaries-science.html
Real debate would proceed a lot better without the constant use of strawman argument.
Just because a person is critical of the Obama plan DOES NOT make them a supporter of Constellation. Resorting to such misrepresentation only demonstrates a weak position and an arrogant mind.
Yet again and again the response to criticism of the Obama plan is, “Maybe, but Constellation was even worse!”, when the critic hadn’t even written a defense of Constellation. Give it a rest.
Sheesh!
Red
———————–
Stepping aside the bit about the word “recommendationsâ€, the following Augustine option sounds fairly close. Of course there are some differences:
“Option 2. ISS and Lunar Exploration, Constrained to FY 2010 Budget. This option extends the ISS to 2020, and begins a program of lunar exploration using a derivative of Ares V, referred to here as the Ares V Lite. The option assumes completion of the Shuttle manifest in FY 2011, and it includes a technology development program, a program to develop commercial services to transport crew to low-Earth orbit, and funds for enhanced utilization of the ISS. This option does not deliver heavy-lift capability until the late 2020s and does not have funds to develop the systems needed to land on or explore the Moon in the next two decades.â€
——————————-
Good call. That also fits with the Bolden claim that he hopes an HLV would fly sometime between 2020 to 2030.
That schedule is as slow as the most pessimistic estimates of the Constellation plan in how long before any manned mission beyond LEO takes place. Some fix. The bad has been replaced with bad.
The oddest part of the Obama plan, and the surest indication that flight beyond LEO has been abandoned in all but name, is the cancellation of Orion.
Of all the components of Constellation, Orion seemed the best managed, least costly, and most flexible. If Orion had been continued it could serve as the high end of a high/low mix for near term access to orbit, with commercial providers for the low end. For near term LEO missions Orion doesn’t need the extra mass of TEI propellant, so many current launch vehicles could serve the Orion instead of the Ares I.
Preserving Orion would also open up the possibility of near term beyond LEO missions. That way some modest missions could be flown before the probable availability of HLV in the late 2020’s. Or better yet HLV would be abandoned entirely in favor of orbital refueling and high ISP rocket technology.
Preserving Orion would also give those in Congress who disagree with the new Obama direction a means of compromise with the administration. (Of course that wouldn’t satisfy those in Congress who want Ares I/V continued for reasons of pork.)
Unlike Ares I/V, it seems wasteful to abandon Orion after all the money spent for it’s development when it’s so close to realization. Most of the trouble with Orion can be directly traced to the problems with Ares I/V and the whole ESAS plan.
But should Orion end up cancelled, I won’t shed a tear. The Apollo moldline NASA insisted on was always going to be a limiting factor to expanded missions for Orion, and I thought the original Lockheed-Martin concept superior to what NASA wanted.
“Yet again and again the response to criticism of the Obama plan is, “Maybe, but Constellation was even worse!â€, when the critic hadn’t even written a defense of Constellation.”
“That schedule is as slow as the most pessimistic estimates of the Constellation plan in how long before any manned mission beyond LEO takes place.”
So first you criticize other posters for making comparisons between the old Constellation plan and the new budget plan.
Then you make such a comparison yourself.
Pot, kettle, black, and all that.
FWIW…
Brad wrote @ February 15th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
my problem with Orion (and I agree it is the best managed of the whole goofy thing) is what “orion” says about any future space effort.
The design (at least now) of Orion is to Apollo redux. Why every voyage of exploration NASA does has to start and end on earth with people getting out of a vehicle that launches them into space and then recovers them (and it is the same vehicle) is beyond me.
Had someone been thinking the “Orion” crew module would have been designed to never see Earth again. It would derive heritage from space station modules, it would be designed to depart the space station and then return to it…where it and the rest of the “show” would have been reset for future use.
Robert G. Oler
Major strawman
still making stuff up I see.
Robert
My biggest problem with the Orion was it’s size (too big) and the insistence by NASA that it would be used for missions beyond the Moon, such as Mars. The last Mars DRM, which included Orion, was an awful mess compared to the previous DRM.
“The oddest part of the Obama plan, and the surest indication that flight beyond LEO has been abandoned in all but name, is the cancellation of Orion.”
Why?
It’s a very expensive means of taking crew to ISS or LEO.
It’s unclear that it’s the right vehicle for a multi-destination approach to exploration.
Numerous compromises had been made to its redundancy and safety systems to accommodate Ares I.
And it has no launch vehicle after Ares I’s termination.
“Of all the components of Constellation, Orion seemed the best managed, least costly, and most flexible.”
That’s not saying much as the only other component of Constellation to see development was Ares I.
“If Orion had been continued it could serve as the high end of a high/low mix for near term access to orbit, with commercial providers for the low end.”
What are you talking about? Crew is crew. Cargo is cargo.
“For near term LEO missions Orion doesn’t need the extra mass of TEI propellant, so many current launch vehicles could serve the Orion instead of the Ares I.”
Why is Orion needed for LEO? SpaceX will start testing Dragon on the next launch. Bigelow and LockMart are pursuing Orion-Lite. Either of these options will be ready well before Orion.
“Or better yet HLV would be abandoned entirely in favor of orbital refueling and high ISP rocket technology.”
Amen. Now you’re talking.
“Unlike Ares I/V, it seems wasteful to abandon Orion after all the money spent for it’s development when it’s so close to realization.”
Sunk costs are a poor argument. Throwing good money after bad is not sound management.
“Most of the trouble with Orion can be directly traced to the problems with Ares I/V and the whole ESAS plan.”
Regardless of the cause, that doesn’t mean that Orion wasn’t compromised as a design and program. It’s a hunk of metal and plastic — it’s not a person. Blame doesn’t enter into this decision.
“But should Orion end up cancelled, I won’t shed a tear.”
Then why go through this argument?
“Major strawman
still making stuff up I see.”
I pointed out that you were being hypocritical, quoting directly from two of your prior posts. How is that “making stuff up”?
FWIW…
“But if, after a few years, we were to make a decision that, for example, we’re going to follow the Flexible Path… then I think that’s a better plan than the one we have today.â€
Just a potent reminder that what the WH has proposed to do, at least for FY11, is NOT Flexible Path. Not yet. The renovation/rehabilitation of the U.S. human space flight effort has some of the hallmarks of Flexible Path, but not all of them. Especially destinations and rationale for those destinations. Many people are upset because they think we’re doing Flexible Path. Unfortunately, we’re not. Of course, that’s consistent with the fact that, in the proposal, NASA isn’t getting $3B more to do Flexible Path right.
Brad wrote @ February 15th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Robert
My biggest problem with the Orion was it’s size (too big) and the insistence by NASA that it would be used for missions beyond the Moon, such as Mars…
Orion is to big for servicing the space station…and with all due respect to the “Apollo on steroids” group again I dont get the theory of the basic “we launch the people and then have to recover them” in the same capsule.
In fact I dont understand the entire “theory”.
I understand the theory that Apollo operated under…one is trying to get to the Moon in a hurry and really only getting to the Moon (and back) is what matters.
But that was then and now…the theory is to try and use Orion to go back to the Moon and “stay”…so a lot of effort is put into this large command module structure…that if one believes the press is more or less “controlled from the ground” during the time that the folks on the Moon are there…and then the entire thing is expended as the mission goes on.
I knew that at least the implementation of “the vision” was BS when one saw “Apollo on steroids”…no use of the space station no use of in orbit assembly…no use of simple taxis…just massive builds.
As for Mars…yeah I can see how this works, the crew after years of being off the earth is subject to a reentry with all the g forces.
works for me
Robert G. Oler
@ Robert G. Oler,
As far as I understand it, Orion (or, more specifically the CEV) was meant to be a ‘general purpose’ spacecraft. What this meant is that you would have a very stripped down basic spacecraft whose only real unique function was to carry crew to and from space. You would then add on various other bits to optimise it for other functions – mission modules, EDS, landers, etc.
There has always been two basic philosophies for human space travel archetecture:
1) Specialisation – Build highly-optimised spacecraft for each application such as crew taxi, interplanetary spacecraft, etc. This is the original plan that most 40s- and 50s-era thinkers such as Von Braun and Korolev preferred. Unfortunately, it is very costly and various parts of it are cancellation fodder. However, in the long term, specialisation lends itself to reusability and greatly reduced costs. The original Space Transportation System plan is a good example of a highly-specialised archetecture;
2) Generalisation – This requires that you build cheaper vehicles that can be ‘trimmed’ to multiple different missions using different mission modules. Becuase you are only building mission pods for a single spacecraft ‘family’, the costs are theoretically reduced as you are not developing multiple different spacecraft. Generalised designs are beloved of some theoreticians because it is harder to cancel bits that you don’t like as it reduces the overall effectivenes of the system. Apollo and Soyuz are good examples of generalised archetectures. The Apollo Applications Program is an excellent example of how generalisation allows for a very flexible spaceflight system.
It is clear to me that NASA’s big error with its response to VSE was to attempt to combine generalisation in specialisation in a way that maximised costs and minimised capabilities. The Orion is a good example of a generalised CV. However, the Ares Launch System was specialised in a way that maximised costs and massively limited the utility of the Orion without the use of a seperately-developed launcher for the mission modules. I will not go into how Ares-I’s failure to meet its original performance massively hampered Orion as that argument has been rehearsed innumerable times.
If Dr. Griffin and his collaborators had followed the generalisation theory to the next logical step, the Exploration Launch Vehicle and CEV would have been able to perform LEO functions and be scalable upwards (with minimum extra developmental cost) to various BEO configurations for other missions, both crewed and otherwise. This would have compressed timelines and freed up more money for mission equipment rather than needing an enormous R&D outlay just for the LV.
Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ February 16th, 2010 at 9:23 am
I dont disagree with the intent of Constellation/Orion/Ares…what I dont understand is why they tried that.
The task of keeping the station crewed and resupplied is not the same (particularly in crewing) as the needs of going to the Moon much less Mars.
It is about like saying one can adapt a 747 to do the job of a 737…
Robert G. Oler
“I didn’t claim that we don’t progress unless we have HLV. However Obama is allowing our only HLV to be shut down and replaced with hope that SpaceX or ULA will provide a ride by 2016 or so. That is not progress in my eyes.
Incidentally I don’t believe that 6 billion dollars is enough to get SpaceX or ULA to the finish line. Not by a long shot. When they go over budget and slip the schedule to the right will all the alt-space buffs demand cancellation? The only market for their wares is the ISS.”
The program of record is going to build access to LEO but plans to dump the only market into the pacific ocean before it comes online. The International space station would be deorbited ( the only market) before the Ares I / orion come online.
The budget proposal appears to take a different approach. Keep the only market currently available, ISS, in orbit until 2020 and plan for new markets joining the current one (Sundancer, Bigelow Aerospace) and fund multiple entries to expand access to the current and emerging markets in LEO by the commercial space transportation sector.
Personally, the new budget proposal is going to put America on a better flight path than the program of record.
Doug wrote: “Just a potent reminder that what the WH has proposed to do, at least for FY11, is NOT Flexible Path. Not yet. The renovation/rehabilitation of the U.S. human space flight effort has some of the hallmarks of Flexible Path, but not all of them. Especially destinations and rationale for those destinations. Many people are upset because they think we’re doing Flexible Path. Unfortunately, we’re not. Of course, that’s consistent with the fact that, in the proposal, NASA isn’t getting $3B more to do Flexible Path right.”
Completely correct. The point that some here don’t understand.
I’m baffled how anyone with an interest of getting humans BEO can be happy with Obama’s new rudderless direction for Nasa. I’m baffled how anyone can have confidence in Bolden after his bizarre rollout of a Nasa vision more akin to a Potemkin Village. Lots of mixed metaphors for a plan that seems to mean different things to different people. Dare I say it, its a mirage?
But this fakery won’t last long since Congress will eventually get around to vote on it. Given the way political winds are blowing, Congress 2011 will be decidedly Republican, decidedly freshman members with anti-Obama campaign rhetoric filling their sails. Bad news for an agency that just spent $9 billion for nothing and still needs another 2.5 billion to bury it. Nasa will be lucky to get $15 billion after the new Congress is seated. Even less there after.
“I’m baffled how anyone with an interest of getting humans BEO can be happy with Obama’s new rudderless direction for Nasa. I’m baffled how anyone can have confidence in Bolden after his bizarre rollout of a Nasa vision more akin to a Potemkin Village. Lots of mixed metaphors for a plan that seems to mean different things to different people.”
I’m baffled how anyone with an interest of getting humans BEO could have been happy with what was going on with Constellation. There may have been a rudder (with Cap’n Mike at the wheel!), but there wasn’t enough gas in the tank. Not by a long shot. I’m also baffled how anyone with even a shred of political sense could believe that an extra $3B/year to NASA was in any way affordable or fiscally sensible right now.
No mixed metaphors in the FY11 budget. Commercial space, technology development, and full-up use of ISS were clear fundamentals. It should mean one thing to everyone — a clear investment in technologies and expertise with which to move outward at lower cost.
But what is certainly missing in the budget proposal is some kind of a vision for what one does with this stuff. Again, no metaphors, but just no rationale. Is human space flight about going to the Moon? If so why? Lagrange points? Why? NEOs? Why? There must be a reason we’re making these investments, but the budget document itself isn’t telling us. I’m hoping Bolden will have an answer for the S&T committee next week when they ask him for one.
The confusion about flexible path is a simple one. The FY11 budget proposal isn’t going to do it, but it’s probably presenting the right way to get there from here.
“But what is certainly missing in the budget proposal is some kind of a vision for what one does with this stuff. ”
Maybe so but I believe some people are still assessing what the privates can, or not, do. It includes SpaceX and OSC but all the CCDev bidders as well. I would come up with a plan once I know what my capabilities are and not before like a famous program called Constellation. There are a lot of unknowns and it will take some time to figure them all if not most. The privates may be the cornerstone of any new plan. Be patient.
“I’m baffled how anyone with an interest of getting humans BEO can be happy with Obama’s…”
Oh, gee, maybe because the new budget is proposing to spend:
— $3.1 billion on HLV development;
— $7.8 billion on key exploration technologies like in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems, in situ resource utilization, and advanced in-space propulsion;
— $3.0 billion for robotic precursor missions to future human exploration missions; and
— $2.0 billion for ISS research and enhancements, including activities like an inflatable module and centrifuge research that could enhance or enable human space exploration.
Duh…
“I’m baffled how anyone can have confidence in Bolden after his bizarre rollout of a Nasa vision more akin to a Potemkin Village. Lots of mixed metaphors… its [sic] a mirage?”
The only person throwing mixed metaphors around is you. A Potemkin village is not the same thing as a mirage, and when discussing human space exploration, neither apply to a budget that proposes to spend something north of $13 billion on actual exploration hardware development. No NASA budget has proposed to spend so much on exploration hardware since before Griffin.
“Given the way political winds are blowing, Congress 2011 will be decidedly Republican,”
Highly unlikely. After parties have won the White House, they’ve lost an average of 17 seats in the House at the following mid-term election since WWII. The Democrats are ahead of the Republicans by 78 seats in the House. The Republicans would have to do almost five times better than the historical average to take over the House. For better or worse, that’s almost certainly not going to happen. (Even in the off-the-charts 1994 Republican Revolution, the Republican Party gained only 54 seats in the House.)
The Senate is harder to predict statistically, but independent political analyses are projecting that the Republicans will take fewer seats than needed to take power. For example, CQ Quarterly is projecting that the Republicans are certain to take only four seats, when they need eight to gain a majority in the Senate.
“decidedly freshman members with anti-Obama campaign rhetoric filling their sails”
Freshmen members have little power. They rarely chair or rank on committees or serve on appropriations.
“Nasa will be lucky to get $15 billion after the new Congress is seated. Even less there after.”
Why? Why would congressmen with NASA workers in their districts and states reduce that flow of money to their constituents?
Goofy…
The Democrats are ahead of the Republicans by 78 seats in the House. The Republicans would have to do almost five times better than the historical average to take over the House. For better or worse, that’s almost certainly not going to happen. (Even in the off-the-charts 1994 Republican Revolution, the Republican Party gained only 54 seats in the House.)
Actually, while the lead is 78 seats (if that’s correct) it means that only forty need to change to give it to Republicans. The Democrats’ political environment is currently worse than it was in 1994. If the election were held today, they’d almost certainly lose the House. And the Senate is looking more questionable by the week, with Bayh’s announcement to retire.
“The Republicans would have to do almost five times better than the historical average to take over the House. For better or worse, that’s almost certainly not going to happen.”
I wish somehow I would share your optimism. Today stakes are pretty high and of course I am not talking about NASA. If this WH does not pass a healtcare bill sooner rather than later than the very poorly managed MA election are bound to repeat elsewhere. The Democrats, unlike the Republicans apparently, are unable to follow their leaders. They have an image problem they will obviously never be able to solve if history is any indication. Suffice to read Sen. Nelson words about the current plan. If the WH cannot count on their own for NASA then what about healtcare, the economy, the wars. You know those little things that the WH have to do first
I have a strong feeling that if the WH and the Democrats don’t get their act together theey maybe toast or near toast come the next elections. But not because of NASA…
“But what is certainly missing in the budget proposal is some kind of a vision for what one does with this stuff. â€
“Maybe so but I believe some people are still assessing what the privates can, or not, do.”
I was thinking primarily of stuff beyond LEO (ISS being a training ground for human factors). Certainly, as you say, the commercial folks will have their own good ideas about what to do in LEO. But still, you would like to believe that a large federal investment in commercial space flight would include, in a budget proposal for it, some good reasons for doing it.
@Doug:
I understood what you meant. However if the commercials are to be the cornerstone of our HSF then there must be a reality check pretty soon, unlike with Constellation. They will be given a chance and maybe more than one I assume before any plan is to come online.
The good reason today, the only good reason today is this: There is an ISS that must be serviced. We could either buy Soyuz or Shenzhou seats but we might as well give some of that cash to our own US companies. Considering that these are high paying jobs that help the economy and the nation’s lead in technology I would not think twice. So yes there is a market today: ISS. As a nation we should favor our own companies so not to become subservient to others in the future. But the economical argument might win and therefore we’ll buy seats on… Shenzhou. Remember a whil ago what Holdern was saying?…
For those who enjoy milestones and deadlines please peruse all the way to slide 8:
http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/conferences/NCAS2005/papers/1E_-_Prince_ESMD_v1_0.ppt#476,8,
Doug, this isn’t just about Constellation. I’m not grousing about its cancellation. I’m grousing about no there, there. We had VSE, a pretty good vision. Now we have nothing but empty rhetoric about game changing technologies and maybe building a HLV after 2020 or 2030 or later and maybe getting another vision together. Bolden is the Chancy Gardener of Nasa administrators.
You’re also right about introducing commercial operations to the extent possible at Nasa. However it was NASA that almost killed the commercial launchers when the shuttle went “operational” in the 80’s. Only the Challenger accident brought it back but it was much weaker and lost out to Ariane and others. The government might just try to kill off commercial again. It happened before.
What is the incentive for the commercial guys? Making money to pay off their investors. The only way is to fly rides to the ISS. Two problems. One is they can’t be sure Congress won’t stop supporting ISS before they make a profit. The second is competing against another government operation, Soyuz. I’d say we are very far from SpaceX or ULA funding a taxi using purely market conditions to fund their work. They will be like ATK or any other commercial company dealing with Nasa, beholden to government money. Government money is fickle, go ask ATK about it.
Do you really think an extra 3 billion dollars was fiscally irresponsible? That is 1/500 of the increase in the national debt passed last week and about 1/1200 of the federal spending in 2010. 3 billion dollars is the USG’s monthly rounding error when balancing its books, heck maybe its weekly. The fact is Nasa just isn’t that important across the Federal government and hasn’t been for decades.
When the Congress changes this November due to the anti-incumbent fever sweeping the land, Nasa IMHO, will be among many federal agencies in the fight for their lives. Congressman love pork but they love their jobs even more.
They will make a show of fiscal restraint by scalping some of the more dismal agencies. Nasa after blowing 9 billion, according to Obama and Bolden is probably in line for a buzz haircut, maybe worse. New Congressman will rightly ask why Nasa needs so many employees when the Shuttle is retired, Constellation is cancelled and the ISS is finally completed? For those who claim it’s goofy that Congress would cut Nasa, see if you can find someone that worked on Project Apollo. Ask them what happened when their program was killed. Now we have two of Nasa’s largest programs getting killed at the same time. Nasa will see severe employment declines and severe budget declines, of course.
“We had VSE, a pretty good vision. Now we have nothing but empty rhetoric about game changing technologies and maybe building a HLV after 2020 or 2030 or later and maybe getting another vision together.”
How com on stop it. Constellation was cancelled nothing has been said about the VSE, so far. And Constellation was going nowhere but the ditch.
“What is the incentive for the commercial guys? Making money to pay off their investors”
Duh???
“The only way is to fly rides to the ISS. ”
How do you know? Did you consult with their marketing plans?
Etc, etc, etc… Tiresome.
“Nasa will see severe employment declines and severe budget declines, of course.”
Do you know of any industry that does not go through employment/budget corrections over the years?
“Do you really think an extra 3 billion dollars was fiscally irresponsible?”
You still don’t get it, sorry. What is irresponsible is funding a program that is bankrupting the entire NASA and not just HSF. Is it clear now?
I think 3 billion dollars more for NASA are fiscally irresponsible.
Feeding SpaceX off taxmonies makes no sense. They are a private company and should stay that way. And rely on private Demand (if any)
danwithaplan, how naive of you.
See this for details on how Elon Musk has his fingers deep in the public purse.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/02/elon-musk-private-jet/
SpaceX is already taking public monies on the COTS-D program. He is taking hundreds of millions already in taxpayer monies on his two pet programs. He is becoming more and more a purely government contractor.
Common Sense, you don’t read too well. For one, I am not saying spend whatever it takes on Constellation. I’m saying Bolden and Obama have taken the VSE off the table, they said it not me. They said they need to spend months, perhaps more, working with Congress on a new plan. Now there is no plan for Nasa in an upcoming era of drastic fiscal cutbacks. I think that is very bad news for Nasa. Second, 3 billion dollars a year is nothing to this government. Its pocket change to us ordinary citizens. Yet again it shows that the USG doesn’t really care all that much for a HSF.
Here is what I’d have preferred Obama doing. Stand behind the VSE, work with Nasa on a more affordable alternative to Ares I/V. Call it Direct, call it Super EELV, call it the Musk Prize, whatever. Bump NASA by the amount Augustine said they need for a meaningful HSF.
He didn’t do it. Instead he is terminating NASA’s biggest programs with nothing to replace them.
“SpaceX is already taking public monies on the COTS-D program”
This is total utter ignorance or lie: There is NO COTS-D program. The reason why people arte trying COTS type contract is to get rid of this kind of attitude. Welcome to the free market! Reference to SpaceX “taking” public monies? There was a bid and they won along with Orbital. I assume OSC is all fine and dandy. Were you rejected at an interview with SpaceX? What is your problem? What if Boeing makes somethign out of CCDev on a fixed contract? Are you going to say they are taking public monies? Plleeeeaaaseee!
“I’m saying Bolden and Obama have taken the VSE off the table, they said it not me.”
When? Reference?
“Yet again it shows that the USG doesn’t really care all that much for a HSF. ”
Nobody, NOBODY gives a hoot about HSF. This is REALITY. What do you think? A few of us bloggers are an important influencial group???
“Stand behind the VSE, work with Nasa on a more affordable alternative to Ares I/V.”
This almost is exactly what they are doing. Show us where they actually are going against VSE. Because there is no date? No destination? Get real, Constellation was supposed to have a first flight in 2008, yes 2.0.0.8. The only flight they got was this Ares-1X abomination that does not even support the Constellation vehicles.
There is cargo-to-I
SS program. Why SpaceX won it I have no Idea, Boeing and LM could have done it faster.
I think it is about raising puppies.
It’s how you raise ‘em.
Cargo to ISS is called COTS and actually CRS is the contract not COTS-D which is a crew transportation program. Get your facts straight it will help your case. But I think you are starting to troll around now so I’ll leave it to others to try and set you straight. Read this below first is my suggestion.
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/dec/HQ_C08-069_ISS_Resupply.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26868
[…] represented. Holdren and Bolden are obviously in support of the new direction for NASA, and Augustine has largely supported the plan as well. Armstrong and Cernan, on the other hand, signed a letter last month sharply critical of […]