It’s a study in diminished returns technically, costly and above all risky.
If the gov’t is going to be complicit in pumping up dollars on ‘make work projects’ why not balance dollars on space technology advancement with laying asphalt ???

Why not include states like Alabama, Florida, Idaho, California, New Mexico, Ohio, Arizona and Nevada to develop and test nuclear rocket engines 80% of which is technology off the shelf reactivated that can develop the type of quality thrust that would make any mission planner and flight dynamics officers happy.

Can anyone tell me how many young and old engineers and workers would love to be involved with a project like this ??

From the Feb. 2004 Vision for Space exploration:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf

“Goal and Objectives
The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program. In support of this goal, the United States will:

• Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and beyond;

• Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations;

• Develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructures both to explore and to support decisions about the destinations for human exploration; and

• Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security,
and economic interests.”

page 15

“For cargo transport to the Space Station after 2010, NASA will rely on existing or new commercial cargo transport systems, as well as international partner cargo transport systems. NASA does not plan to
develop new launch vehicle capabilities except where critical NASA needs—such as heavy lift—are not met by commercial or military systems.
Depending on future human mission designs, NASA could decide to develop or acquire a heavy lift vehicle later this decade. Such a vehicle could be derived from elements of the Space Shuttle, existing
commercial launch vehicles, or new designs.”

NASA was expressly told, as far as U.S. public space policy was concerned, NOT to build ANY new launch capability EXCEPT for heavy lift, from the space shuttle or new.

Actually, President Bush called for commercial funding of cargo and crew in the vision for Exloration. The President expected commercial handling everything but heavy lift and lunar exloration.

Also NASA was directed to:

“In the days of the Apollo program, human exploration systems employed expendable, single-use vehicles requiring large ground crews and careful monitoring. For future, sustainable exploration programs,
NASA requires cost-effective vehicles that may be reused, have systems that could be applied to more than one destination, and are highly reliable
and need only small ground crews. NASA plans to invest in a number of new approaches to exploration, such as robotic networks, modular systems, pre-positioned propellants, advanced power and propulsion, and in-space assembly, that could enable these kinds of vehicles. These technologies will be demonstrated on the ground, at the Space Station and other locations in Earth orbit, and on the Moon starting this decade and into the next. Other breakthrough technologies, such as nuclear power and propulsion, optical communications, and potential
use of space resources, will be demonstrated as part of robotic exploration missions.”

Now call me crazy, but President Bush is CLEARLY calling for in space assembly of space based vehicles, with in space refueling and advanced propulsion.

It should be obvious that President Bush was expecting commercial space to be offering crew and cargo services, and some kind of down and dirty 10 year “direct type mission” to the moon with 3-4 crew and at the same time funding R&D for a reusable space based vehicle, assemblied in space to replace it after they used up the junk from the shuttle program used for HLV to launch the parts to build it.

There was like 70+ shuttle main engines, enough for 23 heavt lift launches. More than enough to put a few people on the moon and the parts for a reusable nuclear powered mars vessel.

Is this what is laid out in the, thrown together in 60 days, ESAS report proposed by Griffin? That gutted programs like promethus? JIMO?

Where is commercial crew or a commercially launched, smaller, CEV?

A shuttle sidemount or stacked HLV ? President Bush called for a lunar landing as early as 2015! He wanted something cobbled together as absolutely fast and as cheap as possible to show results so that funding would continue for the assembly of the space based ship.

This was feb 04, on the moon in 11 years with a commercial launch of a CEV, dock with the reusable EDS, fuel it from a fuel depot. Land on the moon a few times before you pick the spot you are going to set up a base camp. In the mean time you have funded commercial crew and cargo so even if the lunar doesnt take off in time, you will still have orbital assembly, refueling and testing going on at the ISS until 2016.

I just do not see any of this happening under the program of record.

Final thought

“NASA does not plan to develop new launch vehicle capabilities except where critical NASA needs—such as heavy lift—are not met by commercial or military systems.”

No Ares1 at all. Commercial or ULA for a lunar CEV. How much in total has NASA burned through since 2005 for the Ares 1 the J2, and the oversized CEV orion?

Would we be close to launching a CEV from a Delta IV or Atlas V or a heavy lift sidemount shuttle by now? Would commercial be closer to launching a crew by now?

Your so-called analysis is inane.

Ares was supposed to be ready in 2012. At best, with more money than anyone will give NASA, it could be ready in 2017. And that would require splashing the ISS that demands “safe simple soon” in the first place.

If you and your denialists try really hard, you can steer the boat back and hit the iceberg a few more times to convince yourself it was really there in the first place.

Me I’d rather save the passengers and build a new boat.

– Jim

should add to that “…has been built since Saturn”

Robert G. Oler

a few points and I’ll start at the “rear”

I didnt like the policy when it was announced, but the reason it is unhinging is not that it was “Bush’s”…but it was the fact that the Bush managers and people like Jeff Hanely took the program and turned it into a pigs breakfast of excessive cost and ridiculous program management.

If they had had any sense…the shuttle replacement would have been flying by “now” and none of this would be happening. It isnt Bolden’s fault that they system picked (Ares) for the booster was far to much engineering for the abilities of the people who were managing the program. Where as both Boeing and Lockmart were able to finish complete operational systems with 2 billion a some years…NASA has consumed 5-6 billion on Ares 1 and has really nothing to show for it.

15000 jobs. We can lose them.

Those are all personal tragedies and it really isnt any of those people’s fault, and sadly the people like Jeff Hanley and others who cocked the program up will skate…but then thats the system. Those jobs really contribute very little for the dollars they eat.

Take 100 (just to pick a number) “skilled” workers and put them on say rebuilding the ATC system or put the same workers on launching a space shuttle…at the end of both projects the space shuttle launch is done and we will still have the ATC system which gives us value for the cost.

to be fair to Obama if he were trulyl Nero while Rome burned, he would keep the jobs doing nothing of value (since that is what most of the stimulus package does)…the folks working on 646 in front of the house in Santa Fe are doing more “value for cost” then the highest paid shuttle worker.

As for your diatribe against spacex..

YOu obviously are either very biased or have no real clue about project management.

Ares was being worked on by a very mature industrial base (ATK etc) which were doing nothing but building derivative vehicles (albiet dervatives in the last ounce of performance but that is a NASA trait) and they have constantly fallen behind and cost far more money then advertised OR then any other booster system that has been built.

SpaceX took a team from scratch, took developed but non integrated technology and is putting together a team and management process and SURPRISE has had some setbacks…

but if I have to have a choice of a private company which has invested a lot of its own money falling behind or a government run organization that has fallen farther behind and consumed a whole lot more tax payer money…I’ll chose the former.

Rome is burning in large measure because we have to many programs like Shuttle/Ares

none of this of course changes the political reality. The Vision is quite dead. We are going another direction. Watch

Robert G. Oler

Everything has changed? Last I checked, the engineering behind rocketry hasn’t changed, SpaceX is still two years behind on its Falcon 9 launch, the Air Force still yanked its TSat-1 launch because Falcon 1 was also 2 years late–TSat-2 beat it to orbit! Here’s more non-change; Orion will be IOC by 2013, Falcon 9, if it ever gets off the ground, can’t carry it but can carry the Dragon, which if you use the time-delay of SpaceX’s promise-to-reality, won’t be ready til 2016, and none of the EELV’s are any closer to human-rating than they were 2 years ago. Yes, change you can work with…

Here’s what’s changed. We’re in a recession, and just as Nero played the flute while Rome burned, the President is going to blow out the door over 15,000 highly skilled aerospace industrial base jobs, never mind Ashton Carter’s, DoD’s Acquisition chief, concerns about this nation’s shrinking aerospace industrial base. Further, Holdren and Bolden write some partisan screed about how “Bush” space policy is this or that. If this is the best the White House can do, then this lil’ chicken is cooked.

“Barb”–as you like to call Sen. Mikulski–may do as she did last year and side with Shelby and Cochran so long as NASA’s science budget gets what she wants. After all, what is so different this year over last? Nothing…

everything is different. everything.

what people who support “the vision” gloss over are two salient facts.

First to continue the “vision” the agency needs 3 billion dollars more a year OR the thing gets stretched out past the second coming. anyone who tells you (or who thinks) that the Agency is going to get 3 billion more dollars in this environment period, but in a time when deficit reduction is about to become the premier national issue…has been doing to many drugs.

Second. The project is essentially being shut down. A great line in the Corps is “do what is right, ask forgiveness later”. Shuttle and Constellation are at the death panels right now (Sorry Mark cant miss mocking Palin now that bush is gone) with their plug being pulled

I should add third…Babs and Nelson are actually two bright lights in the Senate they can see where the thing is going and that is why they are getting on board.

This time next year Constellation and “the vision” will, as they say in the TV business be “dark”. the end times are near

Robert G. Oler