But what is the usefulness of the ISS? It seems to be underused and under-subscribed for any scientific research.

Shuttle system -> General Motors. ISS -> a failing shopping mall.

Until there is a Oldsmobile … replacement, for both launch and landing, ISS pretty much has its hands tied. Sure we can send crew up there by hitching a ride with the Russians (at a cost which no doubt will be growing considerably in another couple years) but there is little up payload mass capacity, and essentially NO down mass capacity.

What additional large modules do you propose to deliver to the ISS?

We have to hang on to and bail out the big New York banks … not only because of the considerable investment we’ve made in time and money, but because its all we are left with that is real right now.

…

But one thing I think you’ve missed relates to ISS usefulness in the next decade.

Until there is a Shuttle replacement, for both launch and landing, ISS pretty much has its hands tied. Sure we can send crew up there by hitching a ride with the Russians (at a cost which no doubt will be growing considerably in another couple years) but there is little up payload mass capacity, and essentially NO down mass capacity.

We have to hang on to ISS, not only because of the considerable investment we’ve made in time and money, but because its all we are left with that is real right now.

Orion-Ares doesn’t solve the up mass down mass problem for another 7-9 years, which when you think about it, is ridiculous given the simplicity of the design. The costs associated with the program are similarly ridiculous. Someone needs to be looking seriously at why the costs and schedule are out of line with anything ever done previously.

Maybe the best we can hope for is the COTS 2016 solution. But until we have a solution, ISS really can not be used adequately.

“Garver is basically a space cadet.”

Who isn’t a space cadet that is involved with space, do you want to put those elements in the religious right that are against science to lead the charge?

“She has far less technical qualifications in this field than I do.”

Can you provide a link for the official federal guidelines for the technical requirements needed to be appointed to her administrative position?

“I think she really believes she will “open the space frontier” and all that.”

I agree with you, she does believe that, but not through her personal efforts as a engineer that bends and cuts medal. More in her ability to remove political and policy road blocks that impedes commercial space access.

“But, behind them are political snakes in the policy making areas of the administration that know that this is doomed to fail.”

Could you put names to those snakes? Is it two snakes? Three snakes? 100’s of snakes?

Could you define “this”? What or who is going to fail? SpaceX? Delta? Atlas? Orbital? Nuclear propulsion? Auto docking? Orbital fuel storage? Orbital fuel transfer? Heavy lift research? et cetera, et cetera.

The Obama budget is proposing a massive change in spending priorities and research, development, testing and build outs are going to be occuring on multiple fronts, can you specifically name everything that is going to fail under the broadbrush “this”.

“Buy the time it is clear that it won’t work there will be no Shuttle, no Cx, nothing. HSF for America goes away.”

Can you define “it” won’t work?

If your ideas are so set in concrete what would be needed to plastize them a little? What can or should NASA do to MAKE “it” work? What would it take, in your mind, for this to succeed?

I would much more like to hear thoughts on how America moves foreward and makes this effort just another, in a long list of accomplishments, typical American commercial success story.

It is strange, but no one seems to take in account what is going to happen the day after the soyuz contract runs out. There is going to be upward pressure on prices, widening the profit margin for providing commercial space access to LEO.

That is EXTRA normal profits, and capital always flows towards it. Congress will have a hissy fit, sound bites will appear about how much it is costing NASA to send astronauts to the ISS and pressure will mount for the commercials to get to it. Maybe even toss Ares1/orion style money at it.

I can already hear the ranting about commercial should pay for it themselves. We are talking about the INDUSTRIALIZATION of space. For the federal government to kickstart an industry that America could capture the global market for and dominate for decades is what is important.

I proposed in 2000 when, Bush took office, and had a 238 billion budget surplus, a commercial “pop & drop” space access program should be funded for rocket/capsule vehicles.

phase 1 – 12 teams 250 mil
phase 2 – 6 teams 500 mil
phase 3 – 4 teams 750 mil

total cost 9 billion over 4 years. I wrote about this again in 2004 and 2008. Obama finally did it with 6 billion. I would have liked a bigger amount as inflation over a decade has lowered the purchasing power of the dollar.

With 7000 potential global customers at 20 million a seat this is a commercial market America should have already dominated by the late 70’s early 80’s. Compared to what NASA has been given it would be peanuts for what it would take to get commercial going.

At this point, I honestly do not care about NASA’s ability to get astronauts into LEO with their own systems. I am concerned about America’s leadership role in commercial space. Either we fund the start up for industrialized commercial space operations or we wait for india or china to start it and try and play catch up.

What a bunch of BS

Why would you care? All that ATK lobbying support over the past five years hasn’t given NASA the budget that was promised in the VSE. It didn’t even get NASA a one-time, $1 billion budget boost even when the chair of NASA’s Senate appropriations subcommittee wanted it.

Whoop-dee-doo.

“Two it doens’t have the promise for a heavy lift vehicle that the Ares I first stage has, i.e. leading to Ares V.”

Totally false. There are growth paths for Atlas V to get over 125,000 lbs. to LEO:

http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/product_sheet/AtlasProductCardFinal.pdf

Same goes for Delta IV, up to over 90 mT to LEO:

http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/DeltaIVLaunchVehicle%20GrowthOptionstoSupportNASA'sSpaceExplorationVision.pdf

Don’t make stuff up.

“I think that some lean messures are in order.”

Ares I/Orion cost what they cost. They involve multiple new engine developments, push design limits in many areas like parachutes and composite rocket nozzles and reentry shielding, have very thin margins necessitating repeated redesigns, and involve untested capabilities for things like mitigating thrust oscillation and launch abort scenarios.

They were just bad conceptual designs to start with — less capable but harder to develop than the Shuttle in many dimensions. Leanness has nothing to do with it.

“I also think that Augustine and the GAO were out to kill Cx as so while grant the expertise there is reason to be mistrustful.”

Think whatever you want, but GAO and Augustine are both highly regarded, independent agents with no parochial interest or political axe to grind. If you can’t trust them, then you can’t trust anyone.

FWIW…

How do you know? Do you work in the White House? Can you read the minds of OMB and OSTP staffers?

Don’t make stuff up.

“Buy the time it is clear that it won’t work there will be no Shuttle, no Cx, nothing. HSF for America goes away.”

How can U.S. civil human space flight “go away” when ISS is being extended to 2020?

How can U.S. civil human space flight “go away” when $6 billion is being spent to put in place at least two commercial providers of ETO crew transport by 2016?

How can U.S. civil human space flight “go away” when billions are being spent to put in place an operational HLV by the 2020?

Goofy…

“The little guys don’t have the skills at this stage and need time to grow. The big guys are too bureaucratic to really pull this off either.”

So do nothing?

Oy vey…

I’m as much for successful commercial space as any of you are but I’m harshly realistic about all of this. The little guys don’t have the skills at this stage and need time to grow. The big guys are too bureaucratic to really pull this off either.

Bravo! Very well stated.

I offer this summation. (While I know calling it the Garver Plan is part of the anti-Obama smear job, lets swing with it just this once to her credit.)

The Garver Plan would open the space frontier for expansion of the American economy in line with the original Vision for Space Exploration. Constellation would keep the frontier closed to Americans for another generation.