An article in today’s Houston Chronicle reviews the “uphill battle” by freshman Republican Rep. Pete Olson to win support for Constellation, particularly given his “zero clout” with the White House and Democratic leadership in the House. What’s interesting are comments by the man Olson beat in the 2008 election, Nick Lampson:
Former Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Stafford, who had been in line to lead the House panel overseeing NASA before losing his seat to Olson, blames Texas’ current predicament squarely on the sweeping congressional redistricting fashioned by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land.
“Texas has suffered greatly,†said Lampson, who lost races in two congressional districts as a result.
“Without that redistricting, I would have been chairman of the space subcommittee representing JSC and in direct contact with the president and House leadership. That would have made a difference.â€
Would it have made a difference? One thing to keep in mind is that another Democrat with the ear of the White House on space issues, Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, wasn’t able to steer space policy in a direction that would avoid the loss of thousands of jobs at KSC—the concern now facing Olson and his constituents in and around JSC.
The example of Nelson was precisely what came to mind. His pointed questions of the head of OMB show his clout, considerably more of a threat to the administration than House members with little seniority or in the wrong party, does not yet sleep.
Nelson seems determined at least to maintain some of the Orion Block One capability.
From what I remember, the BO and Bolden didn’t consult anyone outside the administration before roll-out.
Gently chiding the writer here – as a happy Lampson supporter, the headline is not what he is quoted as saying. Made a difference is not the same as stopped termination.
That being said, Joel and Set it straight are absolutely correct – the Obama Administration officials who made the decisions obviously did not consult with anyone. Certainly not with anyone who has ever managed a big change like this! Nick Lampson would have been as out of the loop as Sen Bill Nelson was.
What Nick Lampson actually meant, we do not know. It could have easily meant that he would have been unceremoniously flung out of office as many other Democrats are about to be. He would have been seen as an Obama supporter and it would have stopped his career.
As it is, he is a beloved former member of Congress who is untainted by association with the current Administration.
Of course Pete Olson is now considered a courageous defender of the space program, and will now be positioned well if the Republicans do make great gains in the mid-term elections. Which is the typical reaction in mid-term elections after a sweeping victory by either party.
“From what I remember, the BO and Bolden didn’t consult anyone outside the administration before roll-out.”
“That being said, Joel and Set it straight are absolutely correct – the Obama Administration officials who made the decisions obviously did not consult with anyone.”
You folks have heard of the Augustine Committee, right? And are aware of all their consultations, right?
FWIW…
“Major Tom” The Augustine Committee did not contemplate the total shut down of all space exploration beyond LEO, but rather offered alternatives to the “program of record.” The members were as shocked and blindsided as was everyone else.
Stop trying to spread disinformation.
Mr. Whittington,
Did you read the budget remarks by Charles Bolden? He certainly does not want to shut down all space exploration beyond LEO. In fact he wants to send robotic exploration precursor missions to the Moon, Mars and Asteroids ahead of Human exploration of those objects. And he wants additional technologies to get Humans to those targets.
The Augustine Commission did not consult with Congress. That is a fact. President Bush’s Commission on Moon, Mars, and Beyond did consult with Congress as did the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) as it put together it recommendations regarding the future direction of U.S. space policy.
Also, one aspect that hasn’t been touched addressed much revolves around President Obama’s total silence on this “bold, new direction” for the Agency. Bush did an address on the Constellation effort. Reagan discussed the Space Station in a televised address. It just seems odd that President Obama has not even put out a statement on this new direction. I suspect this indicates that the Administration is setting this whole “new direction” up as a bargaining chip with Red State Senators and Reps on things that the Administration really wants.
Don’t be surprised if Obama’s support for the new NASA plan is only about an inch deep.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ February 15th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
of course not all space exploration beyond LEO has stopped…there is no human exploration beyond LEO currently happening…and there are a great many uncrewed explorations going on NOW.
It is very likely that by the end of the first term of this administration the there will be vehicles in orbit around Mercury, Venus, Earths Moon, Mars, an asteroid, Jupiter and Saturn in all but one case all bearing the Flag of The United States….doing amazing exploration.
what exploration do you think Ares is doing now?
Ah, you think the viewgraphs are real…got it
Robert G. Oler
Olson is playing a sizable role, but look at the letter sent to Administrator Bolden and you’ll notice that Rep. Arthur Davis (D AL-7) is a signature. Davis has worked to built-up a bi-partisan coalition, is a Dem., is likely the next Governor of Alabama and the first African-American to hold that seat. Then there’s Representatives Robert Aderholt and John Culbertson, both Republicans on the House Appropriations Science Subcommittee.
I liked Lampson and his passion for space. I firmly believe he’ll have a future in Texas politics down the road.
Jim Hillhouse wrote @ February 15th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
I liked Lampson and his passion for space. I firmly believe he’ll have a future in Texas politics down the road…
that depends in no small measure on the course Bill White (no the other Bill White) charts as a gov. candidate (self disclosure I am supporting White)…
if White wins, it is the restart of the Dem party in Texas (and I think so far this far out White has an excellent chance at winning)….if White wins then KBH comes up for reelect in 12 at the Senate and one could see a scenario where Lampson runs against her with some strong White Support (Particularly if White is able to salvage the state budget which is a formidable problem).
I dont agree with Lampson about where things would be if he were 22…but Lampson is a bright person who at least had some inkling about where things were going and would at least tell the NASA leadership that.
Robert G. Oler
FYI There is a report that Sen Mikulski, patron saint of Goddard, might be announcing her retirement this week.
http://thevailspot.blogspot.com/2010/02/senator-mikulski-of-maryland-to-retire.html
“The Augustine Committee did not contemplate the total shut down of all space exploration beyond LEO,”
Sure they did. Option 1, the Program of Record, resulted in an Ares V in the 2030s with no exploration hardware to put on it. That would have been a “total shut down of all space exploration beyond LEO”.
Don’t make things up.
And how does something that doesn’t exist, like human space exploration beyond LEO which hasn’t existed since Apollo, get “shut down” anyway?
Think before you post.
“The members were as shocked and blindsided”
Who was shocked and blindsided?
Former astronaut and committee member Sally Ride was quoted after the budget release stating “The previous trajectory that NASA was on was simply not sustainable.”
XCOR President and committee member Jeff Greason was quoted after the budget release stating that Senator Shelby’s attack was “over-the-top and not correct”, and that “What’s going on there is a grieving process of admitting that the Constellation plan doesn’t now and never did have the budgetary backing to be completed.” He went on to say that it was a “truly unfortunate state of affairs” not created by the budget blueprint.
And Augustine himself issued a statement the day of the budget release endorsing the new budget and plan.
Forget shock or being blindsided, none of these statements from committee members express dissatisfaction with the new budget and plan.
Don’t make things up.
“Stop trying to spread disinformation.”
I’m not the one making false claims about the Augustine report and its members.
FWIW…
“The Augustine Commission did not consult with Congress. That is a fact.”
No it’s not. The Augustine Committee took at least 14 statements from members of Congress. Copying from the Committee’s website:
– Representative Olson Statement to Committee (6-17-09) (pdf, 72k)
– Senator Vitter Statement to Committee (6-17-09) (pdf, 16k)
– Representative Gordon Statement to Committee (6-17-09) (pdf, 424k)
– Representative Hall Statement to Committee (6-17-09) (pdf, 16k)
– Senator Hutchison Statement to Committee (6-17-09) (pdf, 14k)
– Representative Meek Statement to the Committee (7-30-09) (pdf, 31k)
– Representative Posey Statement to the Committee (7-30-09) (pdf, 18k)
– Representative Kosmas Statement to the Committee (7-30-09) (pdf, 28k)
– Senator Martinez Statement to the Committee (7-30-09) (pdf, 48k)
– Senator Shelby Statement to the Committee (7-30-09) (pdf, 2MB)
– Representative Kucinich Statement to the Committee (08-04-09) (pdf, 140k)
– Senator Hatch Letter to the Committee (08-26-09) (pdf, 68k)
– Statement of the Honorable Ralph Hall (R-TX) (pdf, 16k)
– Statement of the Honorable Pete Olson (R-TX) (pdf, 69k)
On top of these, several members of Congress gave addresses or spoke directly with the Committee during the Committee’s meetings.
(And it was a “Committee”, not a commission.)
C’mon people, stop making stuff up.
“Also, one aspect that hasn’t been touched addressed much revolves around President Obama’s total silence… I suspect this indicates that the Administration is setting this whole “new direction†up as a bargaining chip with Red State Senators and Reps on things that the Administration really wants.”
There’s no logic to that. If an Administration wants to set up a bargaining chip, they’ll want to make it as strong as possible so they can get as much for it as possible. If you think that a Presidential address makes a position stronger (and it doesn’t necessarily, depending on the topic), then the President would have made an address on NASA so he could get more from Congress.
And for the hypothesis to be complete, you also have to identify the concessions the Administration wants from these particular congressmen, and how those concessions are related to the appropriations bills for NASA’s budget. Otherwise, the hypothesis is half-baked, at best.
FWIW…
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16elon.html
despite the Constellation huggers…the future rolls on
Robert G. Oler
“Did you read the budget remarks by Charles Bolden? He certainly does not want to shut down all space exploration beyond LEO. In fact he wants to send robotic exploration precursor missions to the Moon, Mars and Asteroids ahead of Human exploration of those objects. And he wants additional technologies to get Humans to those targets.”
“It is very likely that by the end of the first term of this administration the there will be vehicles in orbit around Mercury, Venus, Earths Moon, Mars, an asteroid, Jupiter and Saturn in all but one case all bearing the Flag of The United States….doing amazing exploration.”
As for the first comment above, what a no-brainer. These missions occur on a regular basis already; Discovery Program, Mars Scout Program, New Frontiers Program, the occasional Flagship mission. Bolden isn’t creating anything new, just highlighting what is already being done within SMD and talking as if this is something unique to the new plan. As to Oler’s comment, I would agree that some very amazing exploration is taking place. None can be attributed to the current administration. The latest awards, the three New Frontiers missions were started under the last administration. The last mission to get to confirmation was MAVEN, again a Bush-era mission. The next line-up, Discovery, was in the planning/pre-noi phase before Presbo took office. Will awards occur during his admin? Yes, but not because of his new vision for NASA. And no, I don’t particularly give Bush credit for the last Mars Scout
and last Discovery awards either. Just solid SMD mission planning and a clear vision and plan for the future of robotic exploration. Too bad ESMD can’t say the same, either with the old vision or the new vision. My $0.02.
@Oler
Gee, that future sure looks like 1959. If all goes well, it’ll look like 1966.
Aerospace Engineer wrote @ February 15th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
well just on its face that is far more of a future then two decades of building Ares…and Orion and Altair and then giving the moon landing a try after 2 decades…
If we are lucky private ops in space will in the next few years recreate 1966…Gemini was almost an operational vehicle
Robert G. Oler
Major Tom, don’t mistake public statements from members to the Augustine panel as true consultation. I guarantee you Members of Congress don’t.
Your analysis of White House positioning on issues and what constitutes a bargaining chip needs more work. This policy is in play, and that is exactly what the Administration had in mind.
Jim D. wrote @ February 15th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
I agree and dont agree with your comments.
The policy is going to be the new direction of the government…what is being tossed about (and one should expect that it would) is some “sweetners” and “methods” to get a reasonable number of people on board.
There is no way that this thing stops “cold turkey”…that wouldnt be desired in a reform program anyway…
there is some horsetrading going on…but the essence of hte effort (end of “Constellation”) is going to happen.
Robert G. Oler
“I guarantee you Members of Congress don’t.”
Evidence?
14 members of Congress and their staffs each wrote multipage statements for the Augustine Committee, some of which were delivered in person, and they didn’t think that was consultation?
Then what did these congressmen think they had done? Written and delivered book reports?
“This policy is in play, and that is exactly what the Administration had in mind.”
Evidence?
Did the President or NASA Administrator consult with you on this?
Or do you just think that you can read minds at the White House?
Oy vey…
You guys sure are a hoot to read – lots of different opinions and views on what’s going on:
Questions for the group.
1. With the emphasis in “game-changing” technologies, will NASA bring back the Advanced Concept Group that was cancelled years back to help pay for CX?
2.No one has talked about it yet, but one long-term game changing technology would be the Elevator. Granted, given the challenge with materials, etc, it’s at least a hundred years away. But even a demo-elevator for small satellites would change everyones perspective on space as a place to do business.
My 2 cents…..
Lampson wouldn’t have made a difference. Constellation as in the formal POR is over. Contellation as part of a “flexible path” is very much in play. Bolden doesn’t have plan but some aspirational goals. Tom, Oler, and a few other have some sort of an agenda which isn’t in the best interest of the space program.
Obama is the worst president ever and is in the process of destroying the Democratic Party. His clout is fading fast.
Was someone handing out gold stars? If so, could I have gotten one?
“Contellation as part of a “flexible path†is very much in play.”
Constellation can’t support Flexible Path. It doesn’t deliver an HLV until 2028 at the earliest and there won’t be any transit stage, crew module, or lander for it to launch.
If Constellation could have supported Flexible Path, the Augustine Committee would have incorporated Constellation into the Flexible Path options. They didn’t.
“Bolden doesn’t have plan”
Why do you insist on repeating this ignorant lie? 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
not a 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.
“Tom, Oler, and a few other have some sort of an agenda which isn’t in the best interest of the space program.”
Yes, refuting repeated ignorant lies “isn’t in the best interest of the space program”.
Oy vey…
GuessWho wrote:
“As for the first comment above, what a no-brainer. These missions occur on a regular basis already; Discovery Program, Mars Scout Program, New Frontiers Program, the occasional Flagship mission. Bolden isn’t creating anything new, just highlighting what is already being done within SMD and talking as if this is something unique to the new plan.”
Yes, it’s a no brainer, but it’s a reaction on Mr. Whittington’s comment that all beyond LEO activities would cease to be if Charles Bolden gets it his way. And, as you point out as well, that is not the case.
John wrote @ February 16th, 2010 at 12:40 am
Tom, Oler, and a few other have some sort of an agenda which isn’t in the best interest of the space program.
Obama is the worst president ever and is in the process of destroying the Democratic Party. His clout is fading fast…..
when the topic turns to other people’s agendas, other then the politics at hand…usually that means the side talking about “the other people” has lost the debate.
but I will make it easy for you. I really dont care about the best interest of the “space program”…indeed I htink that one thing that is completly wrong with NASA and its “advocates” is that they only have the interest of the “program” at heart…not the interest of The Republic.
Human spaceflight since Apollo has had a lot to do with keeping jobs at NASA and not a lot to do with the advocacy of the future of The Republic.
there is no other agency that gets so much money that is so completely disconnected from the day to day life of The Republic.
Ares/Constellation is the poster program for that…but take the space station. NASA has spent over 100 billion dollars and consumed two decades and yet it has no idea for advocacy of what the space station should do, what role it should play in American life…except just keep those jobs in Texas FL and a lot of other places.
It is the only infrastructure of such cost that I am aware of that was built specifically for use by a government agency with no hint of how that agency used it in the prosecution of a better American economy.
Now we just move on to another program (according to some) that will spend another two decades (having spent almost and about another 100-more billion to send those same astronauts back to the Moon…all “in the interest of the space program”.
and that should not be up for debate.
As for the Obama administration…if next year this time things are still the same…Obama will face a Democratic challenger…that is how weak I think his administration is.
Robert G. Oler
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1378
this is pretty good.
Robert G. Oler
Robert G. Oler wrote @ Feb 16th, 2010 at 10:47 in reference to a web site article ” this is pretty good ” I guess so, if your of that mind set. Fortunately most people on this site are not.
“Fortunately most people on this site are not.”
If I may speak for our host Jeff Foust, this is a site devoted to space policy, and not to human space flight cheerleading. Jeff Volosin’s piece is a powerful and provocative space policy statement, whether you agree with it or not. This is a great forum to discuss it, but simple dismissal on the basis of a self-perceived referendum isn’t constructive. I’m not even going to ask for your stats, because they don’t matter.
There are people who frequent this forum who could contribute interesting thoughts about that piece. You haven’t.
Donald W. Ernst wrote @ February 16th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Robert G. Oler wrote @ Feb 16th, 2010 at 10:47 in reference to a web site article †this is pretty good †I guess so, if your of that mind set. Fortunately most people on this site are not…
your post is almost valuless. It states something as fact which is clearly not in evidence nor does it even attempt to repudiate or refute the argument basis of the piece I quoted.
The thing that I find most amusing is that supporters of the status quo seem to take enormous offense when the “reasons” that they give for preserving the status quo are completly repudiated by the facts.
Spudis made a claim that the Chinese are going back to the Moon and hence we should all rush foward with some project to go back ourselves…the problem is that Spudis can produce not a shred of evidence to support his claims…yet we are suppose to accept them at face value.
Spudis has a blog over at Air & Space and he pretty rigorously cleanses it of any comments that are opposed to his.
Like most supporters of “the vision” and this system (which he does not support) Spudis can make claims but cannot hold the ground when challenged on them
Robert G. Oler
For all of you who think that Obama’s little new plan for commercial access to the ISS is so great ask yourself this, If this is such a workable idea, if it’s so simple to build a large new expendable like the Falcon 9 and fly a space capsule on it such as the Dragon why doesn’t Lockheed with it’s vast money, talent and engineering resources build some LEO version of Orion and fly that on that on a Atlas V ? Why not give Lockheed some of that NASA commerical funding ? Surely with their own resources and the NASA money they could do it.
“why doesn’t Lockheed with it’s vast money, talent and engineering resources build some LEO version of Orion and fly that on that on a Atlas V ?”
They’ve been working on it with Bigelow:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090814-orion-lite.html
“Why not give Lockheed some of that NASA commerical funding?”
ULA won a CCDev award to develop emergency detection systems for crew abort on their Atlas V and Delta IV vehicles.
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/02/01/2191461.aspx
ULA and LockMart will probably win more under the $6 billion Commercial Crew Program.
FWIW…
“If this is such a workable idea, if it’s so simple to build a large new expendable like the Falcon 9 and fly a space capsule on it such as the Dragon why doesn’t Lockheed with it’s vast money, talent and engineering resources build some LEO version of Orion and fly that on that on a Atlas V ?”
Great question. It’s one that Norm Augustine, retired Lockheed CEO, must have had the answer to when he stated in his report “Commercial services to deliver crew to low-Earth orbit are within reach.” He knows all about Lockheed’s vast money, talent and engineering resources.
In fact, Lockheed and Boeing are most likely to compete in this arena, and are welcome to do so. Lockheed has criticized the start-up companies, but why wouldn’t it do so? They’re competition. Lockheed was very happy with the cost-plus contract they landed for Orion, and a more restrictive kind of contract that is likely to come out of a neo-commercial plan is not as attractive to them.
“Why not give Lockheed some of that NASA commerical funding?â€
Because you don’t just “give” cash away. There is a procurement and bidding process to get cash. Otherwise why not give it to me? Commercial means the best wins not the most influencial wins.
Oh well.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ February 16th, 2010 at 10:47 am
“http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1378
this is pretty good.
Robert G. Oler”
Yeah, it was pretty good, but it was lacking on the details of satellite repair that we were starting to get into on a previous thread. GuessWho stated that 85% of repairs on satellites did not need to be done by humans – they could be done through teleoperation or AI.
The article talks about a single stage to orbit capability. Does that mean we go back to the expensive X-33-type program or continue on with scramjet technology. So far I have not heard any source describe how scramjets could enable mach 25 propulsion requirements –
Oler “wrong with NASA and its “advocates†is that they only have the interest of the “program†at heart…not the interest of The Republic.”
I agree with this statement – Lets develop the security apparatus to maintain the peace in orbit as well as on the fringes of deep space where robotic destroyers could stalk and kill our satellites from above.
But I disagree that Obama doesn’t have this mind. He has stated that NASA is a part of our security apparatus. That is why it is receiving a spending boost. Perhaps he doesn’t take it to heart as much as you, but to say he doesn’t have any clue is wrong.
Oler,
I also agree with you premise that ArianeSpace is a good model we need to catch up with, and I would take it a lot further with the new tech you were referring to including a magnetic scoop that could pick up space junk and drive it toward reentry then return to the prop depot.
In the article you pasted I was also impressed by the conviction of bringing back Prometheus. I’ve never seen so much support for nukes in space. I guess I couldn’t think of a better place to put nukes.
The article talks about a single stage to orbit capability. Does that mean we go back to the expensive X-33-type program or continue on with scramjet technology.
Are those the only two options?
“Are those the only two options?”
Well I’m looking that up right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-stage-to-orbit
There’s a turbo ramjet that the British have announced. I’m not sure if that’s more than a daydream.
I’ve been pushing hard for an automated scramjet that could take over robotic repair where the space shuttle left off. It could also be great for the airforce.
Many of Oler’s critiques of NASA I would push off to the airforce – get those boys home from Iraq and Central Asia home asap so we can divert to that funding to these projects. NASA could and Airforce should combine forces on the turboramjet/scramjet bird
To see the potential civilian spinoffs here’s a security debrief.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-11/air-force-seeks-better-space-technology-are-star-wars-upon-us
http://deepbluehorizon.blogspot.com/2008/10/blackswift-cancelled-or-turned-black.html
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/asd/2010/02/04/02.xml&headline=Darpa%20Eyes%20SM-3%20For%20Hypersonic%20Strike
https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread396001/pg1
http://www.arnold.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123143887
Donald W. Ernst wrote @ February 16th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
For all of you who think that Obama’s little new plan for commercial access to the ISS is so great ask yourself this, If this is such a workable idea, if it’s so simple to build a large new expendable like the Falcon 9 and fly a space capsule on it such as the Dragon why doesn’t Lockheed with it’s vast money, talent and engineering resources build some LEO version of Orion and fly that on that on a Atlas V ?..
easy answer. The goal of the program is to get Lockmart and a few other companies to at least compete and probably fly something EXACTLY like what you are talking about.
The weakness of the system that Griffin laid out is not specifically the various parts of Ares/Constellation (Orion/Altair) although that is enormously weak…it is that Griffin did the same old thing…he ran out a design done by the desk jockeys at NASA and then that got the commercial troops to fall in line as they fell over themselves bidding for the contract.
The entire idea of this process (and admittably it is slow) is as a first step to get back to something approximating the era where two or more different companies would bid/fly a design that was internal with their own notion of what “worked” and then let performance at least play a role in what was picked.
I have no doubt that the expertise exist at Lockmart/Boeing/SpaceX/OSC and a few other places (along with some assets) to make their own notions of exactly what you state work.
That to my mind will be a great day…it will be the start of commercial ops in space…and the end of designs by NASA desk jockeys.
Robert G. Oler
Storm wrote @ February 16th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Oler,
I also agree with you premise that ArianeSpace is a good model we need to catch up with..
to borrow a line from one of my Space News op eds…we are the only country that never had a national airline and yet we insist on having a government agency meddle in everything about national space flight.
I dont want to “catch” up with ArianeSpace, I want to bring the assets of American commercial products to the launch industry. I cannot imagine that given the tools and the inspiration Boeing cannot do in rockets what it is doing in airplanes to the Europeans.
Robert G. Oler
There is not a single chance for a SCRAM/RAM/Turbo/rocket/whatever jet anytime soon as a real life vehicle. Way too difficult. There are many other types of vehicle we could look at though. An X-33 like SSTO might be one. You gotta start somewhere. The SCRAM things are now more applicable to DoD requirements and probably for un-crewed vehicles like long range cruise missiles or reco.
Oler,
I dont want to “catch†up with ArianeSpace, I want to bring the assets of American commercial products to the launch industry. I cannot imagine that given the tools and the inspiration Boeing cannot do in rockets what it is doing in airplanes to the Europeans.
How is NASA presently stopping Boeing from doing this on their own? The Russia and the Airforce put so much effort in to the EELV program. Why hasn’t this platform taken off? Too expensive? Doesn’t Boeing have the capital to invest in a low cost rocket? Why should NASA pay for such a thing? Why not the Airforce? Won’t more competitors like SpaceX provide the stimulus for Boeing to build a low cost rocket as you said?
Common Sense
“There is not a single chance for a SCRAM/RAM/Turbo/rocket/whatever jet anytime soon as a real life vehicle. Way too difficult. There are many other types of vehicle we could look at though. An X-33 like SSTO might be one. You gotta start somewhere. The SCRAM things are now more applicable to DoD requirements and probably for un-crewed vehicles like long range cruise missiles or reco.”
Right, the mach 25 capability is the first hurtle I see because I don’t see any mention of that. The next hurtle is how do you provide the space propulsion even if you can get such a combined cycle propulsion system delivered, and won’t the space propulsion bog down the aircraft when it is in air-breathing mode?
Common Sense,
My dream of an autonomous scramjet shuttle with teleoperated robotic repair arm will have to wait. Sounds like it needs basic research.
Oler,
You really need to unleash your vision – Where does NASA get out of the way?
And I hope you guys read the security debrief links because it really illustrates where fighting a bunch of bush bunnies in Iraq and Central Asia have gotten us.
We should try to sue for peace with the Taliban and get out – keep the drones and American intelligence there on the ground and keep wacking Al Qeada and bad Taliban chiefs until our Sun runs out of hydrogen fuel.
“Right, the mach 25 capability is the first hurtle I see because I don’t see any mention of that.”
Acutally the very first hurdle isto accelerate off to “low” Mach when you can actually light the SCRAMJET. You see there is a huge un-used nozzle in the back of your vehicle that creates tremendous tail drag. And I would say that is the first thing to overcome. Once it is lit and provided you have enough propellant the thing is going to go like crazy. Check ou the X-43 flights of a few years ago: A really cool feat out of DFRC very poorly advertised I would say, nonetheless very important. The follow up is X-51… Yet again AF and NASA requirements are and will most likely be very different.
Storm wrote @ February 16th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
How is NASA presently stopping Boeing from doing this on their own? …
you and I both sale apples. I sale mine for 2.00 an apple because I have a customer who will buy them for 2.00 an apple. You sale them for 1.80 an apple but you live outside the US
Why should my customer buy my apples instead of yours? I am lucky, my customer wont even think about buying your apples because the customer cannot buy apples not picked in the US. (OK its alright if at least part of the tree came from outside the US …the engines on Lockheeds booster but lets move on).
Now there is a third customer. The customer comes to me and says “I will buy your apples but you have to sale them to me at 1.80 an apple” (to make it easy)…why should I do that? I am selling all the apples I need to my favorite client at 2.00 an apple and if I sale one to another customer at 1.80 heck my favorite customer might want the same deal.
So the third customer goes to you…since I wont sale to him at 1.80 and he is a walk in you probably can get to 1.85 or something.
There is really no incentive for me to sale at 1.80 (particularly if I am making a lot of money at 2.00) or really even to broaden my customer base by selling at 1.80 because I am at full use anyway, I might ahve to expand and things are going just fine.
Now at some point something strange happens. Someone else builds an orchard. It takes awhile for the trees to make apples but finally they do…because their orchard is set up for maximium commercial use…well they might be able to sale their apples at 1.80 or zounds even lower.
As long as my favorite customer “likes me” well I dont care. But if the new person starts taking some of the business of my favorite customer (or an affiliate of my favorite customer) zounds that might be incentive for me to figure out how to lower my cost enough to lower the cost of my product.
And in the process the “new person” might actually threaten your 1.80 price. Particularly if “wow” the product of the new person is a sweeter apple. If that happens “you” might have to figure out how to lower your cost to keep getting the 1.80 business.
Plus as the price of apples comes down, more people might find a desire for apples…particularly if the apple is a new kind (like can fly humans in space).
It is not rocket science here…it is economics and what is annoying is that for to long economics has been completely out of human spaceflight. That is how the Ares 1X test flight ends up costing 1/2 billion dollars and no one at NASA says “wow thats just to much”.
Robert G. Oler
So Oler,
My question to you then is how could the United States ensure that it could do expensive long term research on radiation mitigation for space use? I don’t care how you feel about the subject, but I care how you think it could be done if there was no NASA. Where would the incentive to do such basic research?
Oler, maybe I’m looking at this from the wrong angle.
Perhaps you are just upset with NASA’s subsidy of SpaceX. You don’t want to see more competitors like SX are the market perhaps. But is seems like you would go farther and eliminate ISS as well. Do you think ISS steals the market from Bigelow. You think Bigelow would do all that research on his own? I don’t think he would be inspired to do that much science.
My dream of an autonomous scramjet shuttle with teleoperated robotic repair arm will have to wait.
Why do you dream of such things? Why does it have to be an airbreather? You should dream of what works, regardless of its propulsion system.
The argument I have is that the science is what expands our boundaries. Not the market – by itself. The market does have some R&D, but their not pushing envelopes. Perhaps NASA has retained too much control over well established regimes like the LV market, and should vacate like the President is doing, but their are fundamental leaps taking place on the ground, and now there is a floating station in the sky for doing it up there. Bigelow is sitting, to some extent, on NASA’s shoulders, going down the trail NASA has blazed. Bigelow is the macaque sitting on the Elephant’s head (NASA) reaching for the mango high in the tree, when all of a sudden the elephant flaps its ears shoo a fly. The ear ear hits poor macaque in the act of grabbing the mango and drops the mango. Macaque then angrily jumps off the elephant to look for food on the ground instead of trying to wait on elephants head for the next high fruit.
Rand Simberg
“Why do you dream of such things? Why does it have to be an airbreather? You should dream of what works, regardless of its propulsion system.”
Very simple – its all about versatility, efficiency, convenience, low cost. How do you know what basic research to shoot for without having a goal in mind?
Other than that your right – we should just launch a satellite with a robot arm. Perhaps the prop depots will be sufficient to keep those birds working.
@Storm:
NASA and commercial actors are not, I should say “should not be”, competitors. NASA does what it does best and the comercials do the same. This senseless competition has not come from the commercials, rather from NASA trying to protect their turf. ISS will never compete with Bigelow and conversely. NASA will be here to handle long-haul research and development, then pass on the knowledge to the commercials that will be able to use it “efficiently”. NASA should not take on all the roles, they just can’t: Constellation is the proof in the pudding. At least they cannot TODAY. The smart thing as written in the VSE was to have the commercials support NASA wherever they are able to. Until we go this modus operandi HSF is doomed, just doomed. The required changes at NASA will take several decades to fix the problems. The commercial today offer a hard-reboot. Yes HARD reboot. It is a chance to see something come out of NASA that is acheivable and achieved within “my lifetime”. Arrgghh I just said the words. Would I rather see a VASIMR like engine work or another set of footsteps on the Moon? Would you rather see SCRAMJET come online or SRBs fly forever? What is it that will make us go forward as a nation as a species? What do you think?
When I say NASA please understand NASA, Congress and its/their contractors. NASA often is the victim in all that, except when given a chance they blow up…
Of course I want to see Scramjets come online. And space elevators too. I’m seeing breakthroughs in the mass production of graphene and wondering how long will it really be before we actually can build a space elevator. Its incredible to be alive and see it unfolding faster and faster. This is what the government does -
storm wrote:
“How is NASA presently stopping Boeing from doing this on their own? The Russia and the Airforce put so much effort in to the EELV program. Why hasn’t this platform taken off? Too expensive? Doesn’t Boeing have the capital to invest in a low cost rocket?”
If you were the CEO of Boeing and you could do cost plus contracting with a guaranteed profit with NASA or do 100% commercial, self financing, no guaranted profit commercial venture … what route would you take?
The EELV’s have not taken off because what can they launch to increase the flight rate?
The number one planetary economic activity of humanity is tourism. Launching people into space with a destination they can stay at long enough to require cargo is the key, in my opinion, to increasing the flight rate and gain economies of scale. I do not believe RLV tech will be developed for HSF but for cargo versions first.
Vladislaw wrote @ February 16th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
“If you were the CEO of Boeing and you could do cost plus contracting with a guaranteed profit with NASA or do 100% commercial, self financing, no guaranted profit commercial venture … what route would you take?”
Why doesn’t Boeing offer both services? They offer planes to the private sector as well as the government. Why can’t they supply rockets to both as well?
If we go with Oler’s plan to PAY FOR SERVICES RENDERED for launch vehicles I think we’re moving in a good direction. But first I think you’d better have some competitors in the market (spacx).
“The number one planetary economic activity of humanity is tourism. Launching people into space with a destination they can stay at long enough to require cargo is the key, in my opinion, to increasing the flight rate and gain economies of scale.”
Where’s the science?
Ok you got space hotels full of cancer ridden bell hops that shake there heads NO vigorously when you ask if they want a boost up to GEO.
Again, why can’t Bigelow and or Boeing provide spacehabs for commercial use? Maybe there is more money in the ISS version, but that doesn’t stop them from turning right around and building one for Richard Branson.
We’re not arguing about whether or not the launch market is mature – we’re arguing about the maturity of LEO HSF. Remember- Bigelow doesn’t even have a human on his space station yet. And there are no tourists on ISS.
Although you could argue that Boeing and Lockheed – not spacex are the only real potential US players on the market. And they should be given room to compete with spacex.
“Although you could argue that Boeing and Lockheed – not spacex are the only real potential US players on the market.”
Since when? Please substantiate your argument.
“And they should be given room to compete with spacex”
Nope they should be given nothing. They are free to compete though.
Very simple – its all about versatility, efficiency, convenience, low cost.
What does that have to do with scramjets? Whence comes your scramjet fetish? Are you interested in what works, or scamjets (misspelling intentional…)?
“Constellation can’t support Flexible Path. It doesn’t deliver an HLV until 2028 at the earliest and there won’t be any transit stage, crew module, or lander for it to launch.”
Where do you get these arbitary dates? It all depends on funding. Predicting that far out is not possible. Actually if we are back on the moon by 2028 given the last 40 years I say that would be a miricle. The point is that Constellation can be carried out in increments…that is the flexibility.
“but I will make it easy for you. I really dont care about the best interest of the ‘space program’ ”
Exactly…you have a backward looking view on HSF. You remind me of the old folks from years ago. This way anyone who think we should progress in space should be very suspicious of your rants. I’ve explained before why the Obama plan could easily spiral into the end of our HSF capablility.
“not the interest of The Republic”
The country won’t be seriously harmed by an program that cost 0.5% of the Federal budget.
I’ll close this post with some comments about the idea of using the small commercial companies to replace the Space Shuttle. The most advance at present is SpaceX with the Flacon 9/Dragon. I like what I read about this company but at present they have only 40% success rate with their five launches of the simpler Flacon I. It’s just supid to turn over HSF to them at this point. Bloden/Garver are going to be laughed out of Congress with this proposal.
Common Sense
“Nope they should be given nothing. They are free to compete though.”
Right now SpaceX is being given a subsidy to compete for NASA’s COTS program. This is not being given to Boeing or Lockheed. One could ask why? Why didn’t we approach this from a purely PAY FOR SERVICES RENDERED? Why didn’t we let the dominant players go on providing for the market? The answer is we want multiple players that are driven to break cost barriers – at least that is my argument, which is what is needed in the launch market more than the jumbo jet market, but I would argue its needed in the jumbo jet industry as well. That takes subsidies, and that is exactly what EADES/ArianSpace is driven by. It’s a government fantasy that became a reality with the wave of the majic wand.
Rand Simberg wrote @ February 16th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
No I didn’t intentionally spell “scamjets” – Sorry I need to proof my writing before I post. I realized its hard to understand many of my posts. I’m just busy.
“Are you interested in what works, or scamjets ”
I’m interested in developing what works for now, but I AM interested in basic research in scramjets, and lots of it. I don’t understand why more basic research has to be done in HLV’s. I don’t know where the cost saving are going to come from. You might find more performance, but cost? I don’t think so. Prove me wrong.
scramjets might provide the platform to use air as fuel. This is easy enough to understand. It could take off and land like a plane. Rockets are also polluting the atmosphere. The new ones are much better, but compared to scramjets they are much greater offenders.
Oler
“but I will make it easy for you. I really dont care about the best interest of the ’space program’ â€
Well, you have John coming at you from the Right, and now I’m coming from the left.
If Bigelow wanted to expand his hotel business into GEO, or Moon orbit how can you begin to imagine how he’d do the required research to make it safe?? He doesn’t have that kind of money. He’s riding on the elephant’s head to pick the fruit. The elephant is the government. NASA doesn’t just do pure science – they also do applied.
I just don’t see how you’re going to get the apple cart to market without NASA science.
John,
As for your argument – why can’t we just keep HSF under some kind of reasonable cost control and stick with ISS and emerge into GEO for studies on radiation? Why not give other departments some funding to do their studies so we can have a comprehensive approach to space science? Plus I argued as did Oler and others that the launch market is mature. I don’t see how it will ever break any barriers in the science, but only through barriers in the economic model at this point. Why is it progressive to take existing technology to the extreme just so you can demonstrate the construction of Regolith bricks when this has already been demonstrated in the lab?
Asteroids on the other hand, are loaded with resources – not just water. There are $20 trillion dollar rocks floating around. If NASA shows us how to harvest these resources in a sustainable way I will show you the money. Humans might be capable of this, but why would we even attempt if we know it can be done through remote control and autonomous operation?
John wrote @ February 16th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
“Constellation can’t support Flexible Path. It doesn’t deliver an HLV until 2028 at the earliest and there won’t be any transit stage, crew module, or lander for it to launch.â€
Where do you get these arbitary dates? It all depends on funding. Predicting that far out is not possible. Actually if we are back on the moon by 2028 given the last 40 years I say that would be a miricle. The point is that Constellation can be carried out in increments…that is the flexibility.
“but I will make it easy for you. I really dont care about the best interest of the ’space program’ â€
Exactly…you have a backward looking view on HSF…
negative. it is the folks who are supporting Constellation/Ares who have the backward view of human spaceflight. In fact you prove it…
this is what you wrote:
“I’ll close this post with some comments about the idea of using the small commercial companies to replace the Space Shuttle. The most advance at present is SpaceX with the Flacon 9/Dragon. I like what I read about this company but at present they have only 40% success rate with their five launches of the simpler Flacon I. It’s just supid to turn over HSF to them at this point”
I’ve heard that tired stat from supporters of the status quo, and all it shows is that you dont have a clue.
To start a business from scratch, assemble a team, form it into a coherent group; determine the technology to use, crank up almost all of the production of the system yourself and then start launching…
that it took them “three” times to get it right is an amazingly impressive stat…if one understands technology and technological programs. Particularly when you look at the sums that it was done for. You obviously have never been connected with a large scale technological program; particularly from scratch.
A guess is that SX spent just slightly more doing FAlcon 1 (including the three failures you mention) then NASA spent tossing a bunch of steel into the ocean with a test (Ares 1X ) that had almost nothing to do with the production vehicle.
this statement of yours seems even more bizarre considering that SX and whoever else gives commercial access a try will do it well before NASA with its billions could get Ares 1 working
this leads to the next statement (although out of order)
”
“not the interest of The Republicâ€
The country won’t be seriously harmed by an program that cost 0.5% of the Federal budget.”
again old thinking. The money spent on Ares/Vision might be not a lot in total BUT IT IS ALL that The Republic is spending on human spaceflight.
The future will be harmed if we continue a program, which you support which hasa all the elements of “old thinking”.
enjoy
Robert G. Oler
Storm wrote @ February 16th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
If Bigelow wanted to expand his hotel business into GEO, or Moon orbit how can you begin to imagine how he’d do the required research to make it safe?? He doesn’t have that kind of money. He’s riding on the elephant’s head to pick the fruit. The elephant is the government. NASA doesn’t just do pure science – they also do applied. ..
two points.
first I am not sure that you are correct about Bigelow. He has taken inflatables far farther then NASA ever managed to do on far less money. Research is not simply about tossing money at the entire thing…it is tossing money in a coherent fashion with coherent goals.
I dont know how many billions NASA wasted on modules for the station that will never fly. They finally gave up on building most of the US nodes “here”. the one being installed now was built in Italy.
Second…I’ve never argued that there is not an applied part of NASA’s program execution.
Robert G. Oler
Storm wrote @ February 16th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Although you could argue that Boeing and Lockheed – not spacex are the only real potential US players on the market..
I think we are going to see all three (and a few more) take a run at it.
Just “my view” but I would fashion a program that gets at least four or so of the folks into the mix…see who makes it work
Robert G. Oler
Oler,
“Research is not simply about tossing money at the entire thing…it is tossing money in a coherent fashion with coherent goals.”
Coherent goals to do science, or make money?
With respect to the long term I would largely agree. Within 10-15 years I would like to see government get out of lording over the development of their infrastructure in LEO just like its doing in the launch market. But I also think the governments job is to extend their mission into HSF research beyond LEO once NASA starts paying for services rendered for LEO infrastructure. And I agree with you that is the way it should be done.
But what I don’t see is how Bigelow could afford to mine for water off a comet and then get the water to GEO, inflate the Modules with H2O, then propel their module to Moon’s orbit. If that is what we determine is required for deep space flight (and thats a big if), then Government is at your service. After Government demonstrates this task investors poor money into the private markets to accomplish the same thing because they have been shown that it can be done.
Oler
I’m just trying to say,
After Government does it the stupid expensive way the commercial market has the liberty of looking at government’s mistakes in hinesight, and correcting the methodology in a way that is geared to high profit margins. But without the government trail blazing I don’t see Bigelow following behind. Why didn’t commercial space launch a space station before ISS? space stations were nothing new. Why did it take so long for some rich guy to say “Hey I think I’ll build my own space station”.
But remember, Bigelow has made smart moves in designing and building a station, but he still doesn’t have people in it – and they weren’t designed for that. And will he ever have the money? NASA should buy his modules, but they weren’t available when ISS went in to planning.
I could see NASA paying for services rendered in this way.
NASA says to Bigelow: We need a water inflatable module for GEO testing on humans. The module must meet xyz specs to dock and transfer water from our inflatable to your inflatable to fill the module.
So NASA’s space tug pulls the inflatable tank, which could also be made by Bigelow via a NASA designed and built space tug. And the mining equipment would also be NASA built at first. The tug pulls the tank into GEO, docks with the Bigelow water inflatable and fills it up.
But even with this model I think NASA would have to be ready to throw in some development funds in case Bigelow ran into problems demonstrating these technological feets.
Does my idea hold water? haha lol
Storm.
I think that you are outlining a realistic plan…
Look…if I were Bolden (and I am not nore am I advising him) here is what I would do.
First…I would make sure that SX, Lockmart, Boeing, and probably OSC have a shot at some vehicle to the station and some sort of module. There is money to do it (If OSC can make their rocket work) particularly if it is cleverly structured so that a substantial investment by the company is required. These might not all be “go up go down” or even crew/cargo machines. I Might for instance look at the notion of a crew rated space tug. a LM style vehicle that is useful (perhaps with a robotic arm on it) around the station…and is probably the first true “spacevehicle” since the LM. this could turn into some sort of ISS reboost as well.
Second…I would drive a couple of high value tech systems. Bigelow with his balloon vehicles, some vehicles to try prop transfer…also (and this is just me) I would try some aerobraking vehicles and new type propulsion (VASIMR… Dennis Wingo was at one point doing some sort of ION work)..
third at some point I would announce as a goal a “station” at either at one of the L points or in lunar orbit.
done well and carefully there is money for this
Robert G. Oler
Oler,
Your idea sounds very reasonable and ground breaking. Good science.
Right – the mining equipment for comets and asteroids is a intimidating sounding exercise. It sounds complicated, but I don’t think it is. I think that landing spirit and opportunity rovers was much more complicated than running rovers to asteroids and comets, which don’t need to enter any atmosphere. All they need to do is fix to the ground with rocket propulsion – so it can dig in with the heating coils, or just scoop up the ice for purification. Once the Rover tank is full it drives to the Bigelow tank, which is waiting, fastened to a tether and tug.
The only problem I can see with mining is that it will require expensive nuclear power to run. The tug may need to be nuclear powered too unless it could transfer some of the water from the take it was pulling for fuel.
If you are going to send a space station to L1 or Lunar orbit I’m saying that we need to solve the radiation problem. Hydrogen-rich plastics may solve the equation, making the mining operation unnecessary in the short term, but if 12′ of water works best then we need the ISRU.
But if we are going to follow the money then we need to look at the big rocks with the dollar signs. Once we figure out which ones have the big $ signs we can go there. But from what I’ve heard of the Moon there still needs to be research on where the resources are, and there is a big gravity well to deal with also, albeit much less than Earth.
“Would I rather see a VASIMR like engine work or another set of footsteps on the Moon? Would you rather see SCRAMJET come online or SRBs fly forever? What is it that will make us go forward as a nation as a species? What do you think?”
Perhaps some people on here are taking a little wrong. I’m not against very advanced space technology development. In fact I’m generally in different forums quite for the big technology push. However, I see the whole HSF enterprise under attack. Obama is one punch and next comes the Tea Party punch.
So I’m working on survival at present. I’d like to save the Shuttle but I think that is likely beyond the limits of politically possible now. I’d like to save the Moon mission but with the economy and politics that also seems lost. I tend to agree that tech development is important. So my take on is to back down to the Ares I/Orion for now to support ISS for now while have elements that can expand later.
My thoughts on going to a Scramjet/rocket SSTO spaceplane is that we haven’t developed the enabling technologies over the past 40 years to make that a feasible option now. We could have been there by now but given our work to date it is out beyond 2030. Also, if we are have trouble doing Cx how can we seriously undertake that at this time?
We can pursue VASIMR because the initial steps are relatively cheap compared with any of these other issues, i.e. Cx, COTS, ISS. The next step is to develop a working example engine that would do orbit maintainance for the ISS. Another step might well be to develop VASIMR engines that would power unmanned probes or “space tugs” to do orbit transfers for satellites. An engine that would do LEO to GEO transfers for large satellites would be a good step to before using it for HSF missions, i.e. Mars or asteroids.
The real trick is the going to be to develop a space nuclear reactor to power interplanetary HSF missions. This is going to be not only technically challenging put also have a lot political conflict as well.
So my view on the next ten years is that we accept the administration plan to focus on research based on the ISS. If we spent the fortune ($100 billion is often cited) then we should use it not throw it away. The Ares I/Orions maintains NASA ability to fly to the ISS (or rather require that ability). COTS would go forward for ISS supply but we would stretch out their entry into HSF. There is an obvious fall back position going from Ares I to a heavy EELV but that would undermine the anti-administration position.
Ok John, your close to the Oler Storm Major camp now but you still have Ares sticking out there. I’m also down with the LM with robot arm and propulsion. I’m also down with the GEO Platform and Prop depots, but I don’t have a clear picture yet on how it all fits together.
But John and Oler haven’t yet gotten into radiation that much.
“Ok John, your close to the Oler Storm Major camp now but you still have Ares sticking out there.”
I not so sure. I maybe close to you (Storm) on the long-term goals. But, the short-term I see a complete “hard reboot” as too risky. I could accept extend Shuttle + COTS HSF or Ares I + Orion + COST (Supply Only for now). The one thing that either of these options gives is an active development of the component we will need for an eventual HLV. I just then to think that the Shuttle argument is lost (I sure Oler Storm Major don’t even think that is a question). So the second option seem the strongest of the two.
I think that the big mistake was not doing something on a Shuttle replacement or alternative back in the mid-90s. That way we could have phased out the Shuttle and had continuous access to LEO. But, what is done is done.
John wrote @ February 17th, 2010 at 1:24 am
I think that the big mistake was not doing something on a Shuttle replacement or alternative back in the mid-90s. ..
they tried…spent billions and failed. typical
It doesnt matter John Constellation is dead.
As for Obama and the tea party…hummm I dont worry much about the tea party. Sarah Palin and some others are dooming the movement to a bit role in the next election
Robert G. Oler
I do not think that SpaceX company is a panacea. But whatever tickles your fancy.
Obama and his are also Fed money ‘mommy’ bound
Storm,
What’s up with SpaceX, they are just a supply player at this point. The demand is still as lax as it has been (i.e. gobernment only)
The “private” demand consists of the ISS.
That is pathetic. Musk should go home.
How come there is no private demand for Mr. Musk’s orbital (at least) services?
Human spaceflight at least, not that Mr. Musk’s Falcon’s unmanned fortunes are any more approacheable.
Storm,
So, you are basically saying that there is no demand for human space flight other than the geo-political posturing with the ISS? Well, no shit, NASA’s known that for decades.
I *still* don’t see why the US citizens should subsidize a selected *private* company like SpaceX or Boeing or LM, or ULA, or ULS, for unknown benefits with unknown probabilities.
Let Private folks pay for Falcons and all that stuff if they need it, it is the only way we’ll get to any human space ‘market’
danwithaplan
“Let Private folks pay for Falcons and all that stuff if they need it, it is the only way we’ll get to any human space ‘market”
There is no “human space market” except in Russia with Soyuz because there is no commercial human rated vehicle in the US, or anywhere.
Then, do you suggest giving NASA a manufacturing capability? Because without that, we are still subsidizing private companies, for unknown benefits.
John: “Where do you get these arbitary dates? It all depends on funding. Predicting that far out is not possible.”
These are from the Augustine Committee and its assessment by the Aerospace Corporation. You could also check other independent assessments of Constellation (eg: GAO) – they’re just as bad. Of course you could also evaluate what would happen with a politically unrealistic $3B/year boost. That still leaves Constellation extremely late (but not as late), and still leave the ISS in the ocean in 2015 before Ares I/Orion can service it, no technology program, and NASA Science/Aeronautics devestated.
John: “Actually if we are back on the moon by 2028 given the last 40 years I say that would be a miricle.”
This would only be Ares V in 2028. We would not be on the Moon because there would be no money for any hardware to put on Ares V. That would have to come much later. You start to see why Constellation is completely unrealistic.
Plus, even if we were somehow back on the Moon in 2028, so what? There’s virtually no investment in things like ISRU to make the trip worthwhile. There are no more HSF robotic precursors like LRO (science missions are a separate thing). There’s no commercial or international participation to give it support and make use of the steps along the way. The transportation infrastructure is to expensive. It would be empty and unsustainable.
John: “The point is that Constellation can be carried out in increments…that is the flexibility.”
Actually Constellation is pretty inflexible, and there’s really just 1 huge step along the way (Ares I/Orion to LEO with nowhere to go and nothing to do). Other options have many more payoffs along the way to help us get there.
John: “The country won’t be seriously harmed by an program that cost 0.5% of the Federal budget.”
Constellation is causing serious harm to the U.S. because it’s devestating our NASA and commercial space work in commerce, education, aeronautics, science, security, etc.
John: “I’ll close this post with some comments about the idea of using the small commercial companies to replace the Space Shuttle.”
There is nothing about the size of the companies in the commercial crew options. Some of the potential competitors are big: Lockheed, Boeing, ULA, ATK, etc. Some are smaller but with good financial backing (the internet entrepreneurs turned to space). Then there are companies like Orbital that are mid-sized but with a good track record.
Remember: The commercial space industry is not equivalent to SpaceX.
red,
but that all seems to be in the supply side of the market. Who (and more importantlh with what money) is Demanding HSF launches?
Other than the Uncle Sugar with its ISS *program*.
danwithaplan wrote @ February 17th, 2010 at 3:06 am
I *still* don’t see why the US citizens should subsidize a selected *private* company like SpaceX or Boeing or LM, or ULA, or ULS, for unknown benefits with unknown probabilities…
but you have no problem with them virtually keeping ATK afloat?
try and learn some economics.
Robert G. Oler
Mr. Oler, Huh? Try to make some sense of YOUR “economics”
And why did you assume I am for the ATK’s plan?
If you did, well – you are wrong.
Ferris Valyn,
I suggest NASA should be simply a research agency, nothing more, noting less…
Private companies should be (abolish ITAR and inane ‘NASA manrating reqs’) free to launch whoever they want.
Actually, I think “scamjet” is a quite proper designation for this idiotic way to launch payload into useful orbits
dandwithaplan
See, ok, but if its a research agency,
1. Does its research include researching new market development?
2. Who actually builds the hardware?
3. How is the hardware to be constructed?
4. Who is doing the ultimate hardware design?
5. Are we gonna call Earth to LEO flight basic research?
“market development”? WTF? Either there is a market, or there is not. In terms of HSF I’d say there is not one.
danwithaplan – markets are not a binary state. The fact that you seem to think so demonstrates you don’t really understand them. NASA can act as a business risk reduction mechanism, through some of its work. That would result in market development, and make it so more people are willing to invest in money.
er, that last line should read make it so more people are willing to invest money in space