NASA

Garver: sorry, shuttle supporters, it’s too late

As efforts are ramping up on Capitol Hill to try and extend the life of the shuttle beyond this year to deal with the gap in US human space access, there’s a separate but related issue: is it even feasible, from a technical (as opposed to fiscal or legislative) perspective, to extend the shuttle by any meaningful degree? NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver, speaking this morning at a Women in Aerospace breakfast event in downtown Washington, said the answer is no.

“The first question I asked when I came back to NASA was, ‘Could we extend the shuttle?'” Garver said in response to a question on the subject. “I was told by the entire shuttle NASA folks that, in fact, that time had come and gone. It was not an issue of money at that point, it was an issue of second-tier suppliers, there would be at least a two-year gap between our last flight and the next one, et cetera.” That situation, she said, was a result a previous policies: “We inherited what we inherited.”

Garver didn’t address reports that a team at NASA is developing a “Plan B” alternative to the agency’s current plan, but gave every indication that the agency was committed to its current budget proposal. “Taking on the status quo is not easy,” she said. “I don’t feel that there’s tremendous surprise” within NASA to the budget proposal’s reaction in Congress. “However, I do feel that we that, as we do a better job communicating with them and educating them about what we actually plan to do, that there will be more receptivity. I definitely feel that this is the kind of program that there will be broad support for over the long run.”

Most of her prepared remarks covered familiar issues, including an overview of the budget and the various programs supported in the FY11 proposal. Briefly addressing complaints that the new policy doesn’t have any specific destinations and timelines for human exploration, she said, “Our work will be driven towards the capabilities we need for the destinations that we know we’ve wanted to go for decades: the Moon, the near Earth asteroids, Mars, and the moons of Mars are all still the destinations for human exploration and expansion into space,” he said. “That has not changed over the time since we could first look up and see the Moon. And with the technologies that we will develop with this budget, with the additional resources, we believe we can make more rapid strides.”

She also had a word for those seeking to preserve Constellation. She said she did not begrudge their efforts to try and save the program, but warned them of the budgetary consequences of preserving Constellation, noting that it would take an additional $5 billion a year to get the program back on track. “If Constellation is put back into that budget without that $5 billion a year increase, where will we cut the budget?” she said. “We need to talk honestly about these programs without at all being derogatory about the very, very capable workforce who have spent their time, energies, and lives working on this.”

“If we are not successful with this budget,” she warned, “I think there is a very real risk that the growth that is proposed in this budget… will not be sustained if we aren’t able to come together at some point over the next few months and work towards common ground.”

60 comments to Garver: sorry, shuttle supporters, it’s too late

  • Robert G. Oler

    If Bolden (and to some extent Garver) are as good as implementing programs as they are at Killing Constellation/Shuttle…well things are going to work out just fine.

    it is fun to watch the “death panel” go forward

    Robert G. Oler

  • Anon

    “I was told by the entire shuttle NASA folks that, in fact, that time had come and gone. It was not an issue of money at that point, it was an issue of second-tier suppliers, there would be at least a two-year gap between our last flight and the next one, et cetera.” That situation, she said, was a result a previous policies: “We inherited what we inherited.”

    What a crock. Commercial or nothing from her again.

  • MrEarl

    Her statements are quite interesting.
    I attended both the Augustine committee hearings in Washington last year and had a chance to talk with John Shannon about a shuttle extension. He told me that an extension of 3 to 5 years was possible at about 1 to 2 flights a year. He said that it would make sense if the plan was to go forward with a side mount HLV (as he was presenting).
    Also the Augustine commission stated that the POR would need an additional $3billion per year not $5.
    It’s going to be very interesting to see what transpires over the next few weeks.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ March 4th, 2010 at 1:29 pm

    1 or 2 a year then every flight cost what 2 billion a copy? Its dead jim

    yeah Robert G. Oler

  • Col. Carter

    I cannot agree with Robert more, the death panel will end the delusions of Garver and Bolden. The Congressional death panel is moving forward… Say goodbye to the new plan of years and years of projected R&D and going nowhere

  • common sense

    “John Shannon about a shuttle extension. He told me that an extension of 3 to 5 years was possible at about 1 to 2 flights a year. He said that it would make sense if the plan was to go forward with a side mount HLV (as he was presenting).”

    He also said that the sidemount was safe then NASA said not so much. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/bolden-review-hlv-friday-sidemount-doubt-in-linessme-boost/
    “HLV study summary from (Mr) Hanley – Sidemount doesn’t buy anything and takes hit on safety. .”

    Think what you will about Shanon’ss comments…

  • What is so difficult to comprehend is the conflicts of information that flows out from NASA concerning the new budget. Most critically, there is little or no clear expression of a specific goal or goals. The public, already exasperated, becomes even more so as they consider that NASA may be sliding into the dark.

    To have suspended the shuttle before we had a clear and positively proven alternative (other than Soyuz which is going to cost more) just does not make good sense. We have astronauts up in the ISS, we want the ISS to remain active for ten more years. What are we doing?

  • mark valah

    Does the Hutchison bill include specific funding provisions? I didn’t read the draft. The duel seems to be between the Senate and Garver now, I can’t see a direction from the adminitrator Bolden, only reactions to whatever comes his way.

  • sc220

    The Congressional death panel is moving forward.

    Not sure why anyone should believe this when congress has been unable and unwilling to match rhetoric with action over the last several fiscal cycles. Recall the attempts to add $B’s to NASA’s budget…all failed. The Exploration advocates within congress are a small and weakening minority. Their efforts will be even more vain in light of the desire to reduce deficit spending.

    Methinks that the Death Panel is working in the other direction…against VSE-inspired HSF.

  • MrEarl

    The point is Garver is lying. About what the shuttle people told her and the $5 billion per year for the POR.
    It’s an interesting development taken with the fact that Bolden is looking for a Plan B and congress is looking for one too.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Col. Carter wrote @ March 4th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
    The Congressional death panel is moving forward…..

    and there are still people who think that there was WMD in Iraq that could threaten the US…

    thanks to Mike Coats soon two things are going to be obvious and “the end”.

    The first is that the shuttle is to expensive to keep flying…as the number of flights go down and the parts suppliers shut down the cost to keep the thing flying will be well even higher then it is now…and there is no money.

    The SEcond is that Ares Plan A is toast…(this is where Mike has proven helpful)…and the new Plan B will actually need about the same money to do what Plan A was going to do (but had no chance of doing) and that will be the end of that.

    But we will see. See I predicted that there was no WMD in Iraq before the war…I predicted that “the vision” would flounder (on this board in 2004 and 5)..and that by 2010 nothing would be flying.

    willing to wait …to see it die. I am sort of enjoying this…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ March 4th, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    The point is Garver is lying…

    not really…she is in the words of Sir Humphrey of “Yes Minister” …

    “accentuating the facts that accelerate acceptance of her position”. the joys of having the papacy

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    “The point is Garver is lying. ”

    Is that the point? I am showing you what Shanon said about Sidemount and that it was later shown by NASA to not be true, yet the point is Garver is lying??? What kind of logic is that?

  • Nothing Lori Garver has to say is worthy of comment!

  • Major Tom

    “Also the Augustine commission stated that the POR would need an additional $3billion per year not $5.”

    No, for the “Unconstrained Program of Record” (i.e., keeping the POR on Constellation’s internal schedule), by FY 2016, the POR is $5 billion more than the FY 2010 budget for that year. See page 83 in the final report, Section 6.2.4, fourth bullet.

    And that still assumes ISS goes in the drink in 2016. On the next page, the “Unconstrained Program of Record With ISS Extension” adds another $1 billion by FY 2016, or $6 billion more than the FY 2010 budget for that year.

    FWIW…

  • Jeff Greason

    The Augustine Committee found $3B/year was needed to keep Constellation going *ASSUMING* that ISS cancellation was continued to happen 2015 and *ASSUMING* that NASA would continue to invest in no new technology.

    It also found that that approach was markedly inferior on the various figures of merit than alternatives.

    If you don’t plan to cancel ISS, then ramping up to more like $5B/year over current budget is closer to the right figure to keep Constellation in the current form alive.

  • MrEarl

    Take a breath CS
    Shannon stated at the hearings that additional study would be needed to determine if the side mount would be as safe as other alternatives. Further study determined that it would not. He didn’t lie.
    Garver stated that, “I was told by the entire shuttle NASA folks that, in fact, that time had come and gone.” I wasn’t there but from what I heard the Shuttle Manager say, I highly doubt her statement.
    She also said, “it would take an additional $5 billion a year to get the program back on track.” I don’t know where she got the $5billion figure but the Augustine Committee has stated it would take $3 billion per year.
    Also, knowing the history of how Bolden and Garver got their jobs it’s interesting to see the directions each is taking.
    Bolden got his through some heavy lobbying from Senator Nelson and seems to be looking for a compromise with congress that may include pieces of the POR and shuttle. That is only a month after the budget is reviled.
    Garver was the president’s pick and she’s still full steam ahead with the budget as is.
    I’m just saying it’s going to make for some interesting times on the 9th floor of NASA headquarters.

  • common sense

    “Shannon stated at the hearings that additional study would be needed to determine if the side mount would be as safe as other alternatives.”

    I wish I could find the statements but Shanon actually said he did not see any problem with Sidemount when it took me to look at it to actually “know” it would fail for any form of escape system compared to an inline vehicle. They went with an escape system, they should not have, and they said it was okay. Incompetence? Lies? Take your pick. BTW Jupiter will have also have a lot of issues associated with an escape system, anything with solid boosters a la Shuttle will. But enough of this. Shuttle is being terminated and has been since at least 2004.

    As to your statement about the $B read what Jeff Greason is telling you in his post above yours.

    So you are saying that Bolden and Garver are fighting head on? That Garver, the WH’s choice according to you, is somehow fighting for the WH’s budget but Bolden is not? Ae you sure?

    “I’m just saying it’s going to make for some interesting times on the 9th floor of NASA headquarters.”

    That much I don’t doubt. As well as at the various centers…

  • Major Tom

    “I cannot agree with Robert more, the death panel will end the delusions of Garver and Bolden. The Congressional death panel is moving forward… Say goodbye to the new plan of years and years of projected R&D and going nowhere”

    How can there be a “congressional death panel” when the draft Senate authorization supports the major space transportation and human space flight elements of NASA’s FY 2011 budget plan, including commercial crew and cargo, ISS extension to 2020, and HLV acceleration? And reduces Constellation to a study about whether Ares I/Orion could ever be economically and operationally efficient?

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    Mr. Earl: “The point is Garver is lying. About… the $5 billion per year for the POR.”

    Charlie: “Nothing Lori Garver has to say is worthy of comment!”

    Mr. Earl: “I don’t know where she got the $5billion figure but the Augustine Committee has stated it would take $3 billion per year.”

    Guys, I have no love lost for Garver personally, but we really shouldn’t be calling her a liar when the final report of the Augustine Committee confirms what she said (see my earlier post), and when a member of the Committee (Jeff Greason) has also posted here confirming her figures.

    Let’s take the ugliness elsewhere.

    Thanks…

  • Were Lori Garver half as conversant in any form of engineering as she is in postalizing her uneducated views concerning human space flight, her words might mean something. She is not so they do not.

    Until the ET jigs are torn, the machining rendered apart, the Shuttle program can continue, although there may be a delay as parts supplies whose manufacturers may have ceased production ramp back up.

    In 2008, John Shannon went on the record repeatedly that the Shuttle could stay active as long as the Orbiters had not been rendered inoperative.

    D.A. Garver is following a path that she has worn down of spreading misinformation while giving it a veneer of authority.

    Should Congress desire to continue Shuttle flights, whether or not this is possible will be revealed in Congressional hearings, not from the mouth of the NASA D.A.. Indeed, given the policy debacle presently unfolding, of which Ms. Garver is one of the key architects, it is debatable that D.A. Garver will even be at NASA much longer.

    It is interesting that some of the comments here appear as though they are from those actually looking for some insight into D.A. Garver’s statements about things she really does not understand. Sadly, their inquiries are drowned out by the incessant ravings of the many others who think they know what they are talking about, even as the evidence to the contrary is clearly noticable from the shear lack of depth of their analysis–very 0th order actually–concerning how the human space flight program works.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    NASA’s leadership seems to be descending into chaos. While Charlie Bolden is going rogue, Lori Garver is preaching “stay the course.” Who is really in charge anyway?

  • Major Tom

    “While Charlie Bolden is going rogue…”

    How is the NASA Administrator allowing one center director to develop an alternative Constellation termination plan and telling him to report the results to his ESMD AA “going rogue”?

    Don’t make stuff up.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “What is so difficult to comprehend is the conflicts of information that flows out from NASA concerning the new budget. Most critically, there is little or no clear expression of a specific goal or goals.”

    Per NASA’s FY 2011 budget request, the new Exploration Systems Mission Directorate programs will lay “the ground work that will enable humans to safely reach multiple potential destinations, including the Moon, asteroids, Lagrange points, and Mars and its environs.” There are also lots of specific dates and content for the first technology demonstrations and robotic precursor missions in that budget document. And Bolden himself has stated he wants an HLV by the 2020s. There is a lot of clear expression about specific goals.

    “To have suspended the shuttle before we had a clear and positively proven alternative”

    That decision was made way back in 2004 when the Bush II Administration developed the VSE. The VSE always assumed a four-year gap. The only things that have changed is that Constellation grew that gap to seven to nine years, and now the Augustine Committee and NASA have proposed using commercial solutions to shrink it back to no more than six years.

    “(other than Soyuz which is going to cost more)”

    And will still be billions of dollars cheaper than extending STS.

    “What are we doing?”

    Trying to make the best of a bad situation after losing ground for five years on Constellation.

    FWIW…

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Major Tom, yes it is. Charlie Bolden serves as NASA administrator at the behest of the President. Now he is getting ready to cut a deal with Congress in defiance of that same President. There is little else he can do, of course, because Congress is not going to swallow the Obama dreck sandwich of a space policy. With the White House mired in the health care reform fiasco, Bolden might get away with it. If so and if some semblance of an exploration program survives, Bolden gets a profile in courage IMHO.

  • MrEarl

    MT:
    Whittington is just going into hyperbole and stating his opinion, not making stuff up.

    CS:
    It’s common knowledge that it was Senator Nelson that lobbied hard for Bolden’s appointment. It would seem to me that Charlie has an interest in keeping his sponsor happy considering this recent development.
    http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/03/florida-legislators-blast-new-nasa-plan.html

    It’s also common knowledge that Garver was a WH appointment. She was the lead space policy adviser during the campaign, she lead the NASA transition team, she was a member of the Avascent Group from which the administration also picked it’s Deputy Secretary of Defense.

    Frankly this budget is more inline with the views of Garver than Bolden and I would expect that their view will diverge more as time goes on.

  • Major Tom

    “Does the Hutchison bill include specific funding provisions? I didn’t read the draft.”

    Yes, Section 9 in the bill authorizes appropriations. The short of it is that the FY 2011 numbers exactly match the President’s budget request for NASA in every account, but there is an additional section that authorizes another $1.2 billion for Space Shuttle Operations (i.e., extension) in FY 2011.

    “The duel seems to be between the Senate and Garver now,”

    On Shuttle extension, there is obviously disagreement (but it’s not limited to Garver). On everything else, the Senate bill pretty much endorses NASA’s FY 2011 budget request.

    FWIW…

  • googaw

    Jeff Greason:
    The Augustine Committee found $3B/year was needed to keep Constellation going *ASSUMING* that ISS cancellation was continued to happen 2015 and *ASSUMING* that NASA would continue to invest in no new technology…If you don’t plan to cancel ISS, then ramping up to more like $5B/year over current budget is closer to the right figure to keep Constellation in the current form alive.

    Thank you Jeff for introducing some numeracy into this debate.

    Is the Exploration Directorate a huge mess even by government standards, or what?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ March 4th, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    Major Tom, yes it is. Charlie Bolden serves as NASA administrator at the behest of the President. Now he is getting ready to cut a deal with Congress in defiance of that same President..

    stop spreading misinformation.

    Charlie Bolden is only “going rogue” as long as we accept your nutty view of what he is doing…and your interpretation of what the Wall Street Journal story says.

    And why should we? You are the same one who got his hat handed to him after hyperventilating about Rutan’s statement and then had to eat crow when it turned out that your interpretation was wrong.

    Your interpretation of almost every space policy and politics since Bush the idiot announced his “vision” has been flawed…goofy in fact.

    I guess it is simply because you cannot bring yourself to admit that Bush was a failure and you bought into it. Gee

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    FakeMikeGriffin wrote @ March 4th, 2010 at 3:34 pm ..

    the political non sophistication of the “save Ares” folks is amazing.

    sigh

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “Major Tom, yes it is. Charlie Bolden serves as NASA administrator at the behest of the President. Now he is getting ready to cut a deal with Congress in defiance of that same President.”

    Nowhere in the WSJ article does it say that Bolden is “getting ready to cut a deal with Congress” on Constellation or anything else. All Bolden has done is receive a memo from a center director asking permission to study alternative Constellation termination, said “okay” to said memo, and told said center director to report the results to the ESMD AA. It’s not even clear that Bolden is going to receive the results of Coats’ study.

    Moreover, Bolden has no need to cut a deal with Congress on Constellation. The Senate authorization bill relegates Constellation to a study about its cost and operational efficiency, authorizes every penny in funding for NASA in the President’s FY 2011 budget request, and adds an authorization for Shuttle extension.

    And Bolden can’t cut deals with Congress anyway. The President signs bills into law, not the NASA Administrator. Congress negotiates with the White House on the budget, especially OMB, not NASA.

    “There is little else he can do, of course, because Congress is not going to swallow the Obama dreck sandwich of a space policy.”

    The Senate authorization bill indicates otherwise. It endorses commercial crew and cargo, ISS extension to 2020, and HLV acceleration over Constellation. It provides no support for Constellation unless NASA finds that Ares I/Orion are cost- and operationally effective. It provides every penny of funding in every NASA account that the White House asked for. The authorization bill’s only significant difference with the President’s budget request is that it also adds funding for Shuttle extension.

    “With the White House mired in the health care reform fiasco, Bolden might get away with it.”

    Again, Bolden can’t cut deals with Congress. The President signs bills into law, not the NASA Administrator. Congress negotiates with the White House on the budget, especially OMB, not NASA.

    “If so and if some semblance of an exploration program survives, Bolden gets a profile in courage IMHO.”

    You do realize that Bolden has already proposed an exploration budget to Congress totalling $4.3 billion in FY 2011 and more than $22 billion over five years, right?

    FWIW…

  • Robert G. Oler

    There is no difference between Garver and Bolden on the shuttle (or Constellation). Whittington is just making stuff up…

    Garver is the staff person…she carries the cudgel…that is why she is out there saying “the shuttle is going to end because it cannot be restarted”…Bolden can say “we are studying it that is just her viewpoint.”

    and then the study will come back exactly how Garver has said…because that is what Bolden wants to hear (LOL) and then no one is surprised.

    Exciting

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    Anon: “‘I was told by the entire shuttle NASA folks that, in fact, that time had come and gone. It was not an issue of money at that point, it was an issue of second-tier suppliers, there would be at least a two-year gap between our last flight and the next one, et cetera.’ That situation, she said, was a result a previous policies: ‘We inherited what we inherited.’

    What a crock.”

    Mr. Earl: “The point is Garver is lying. About what the shuttle people told her…”

    FakeMikeGriffin: “D.A. Garver is following a path that she has worn down of spreading misinformation while giving it a veneer of authority.”

    I did a little Googling, and the reality is that at least something in the neighborhood of 2,000 Shuttle workers have already been laid off. (No doubt I’ve missed others.)

    There’s 900 from USA through last September:

    news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10231573-239.html

    Another 400 from USA last October:

    cnn.com/2009/US/07/14/space.shuttle.layoffs/index.html

    And 550 from ATK last October:

    standard.net/topics/news/2009/10/06/space-shuttle-loss-means-layoff-550

    And some fraction of 330 (call it 110) from Boeing in January:

    blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2009/10/another-330-workers-at-kennedy-space-center-slated-to-loose-jobs.html

    Assuming fully loaded salary and benefits of $100-200K per worker, it’s going to cost NASA $200-400 million that currently isn’t budgeted for just to bring these workers back in the first year of any Shuttle extension. And that assumes that these 2,000 workers can be brought back in a timely manner without additional costs beyond restoring their salaries and benefits.

    This is just the big, first-tier contractors (and no doubt I missed some other layoffs from the big boys). It doesn’t address the second-tier contractors that Garver mentioned in her speech.

    With enough money and time, any program can be brought back from the grave. But based on this quick look, it appears that Garver is right that the funeral procession on Shuttle is probably too far along to bring it back in a timely and affordable manner.

    My 2 cents… FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “Frankly this budget is more inline with the views of Garver than Bolden and I would expect that their view will diverge more as time goes on.”

    Per Space News, Bolden/Coats either miscommunicated or Coats is just off the reservation regarding “Plan B”:

    “Bolden, however, said March 4 that he did not request NASA human spaceflight officials to come up with an alternative to Obama’s plan… Bolden said in a written statement. ‘I’m open to hearing ideas from any member of the NASA team, but I did not ask anybody for an alternative to the President’s plan and budget. We have to be forward thinking and aggressive in our pursuit of new technologies to take us beyond low-Earth orbit, and the President’s plan does this. After years of underinvestment in new technology and unrealistic budgeting, we finally have an ambitious plan for NASA that sets the agency on a reinvigorated path of space exploration.'”

    spacenews.com/civil/100304-bolden-ask-johnson-space-center-for-plan.html

    FWIW…

  • common sense

    “Charlie Bolden serves as NASA administrator at the behest of the President. Now he is getting ready to cut a deal with Congress in defiance of that same President.”

    So what is being said is that a Marine, a General at that, is going against the will of his Commander in Chief and trying to move his allegiance so to speak to Congress? Kinda funny. Now let’s assume it is true. Assume further that Garver is the WH pick and she supports the budget against Bolden. What is going to happen? What do you think?

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Major Tom and Oler (who is starting to sound like his namesake, Baghdad Bob) forget one unalterable fact that Bolden seems to have recognized and Garver seems not to. The Obama plan will not pass the Congress. It is as dead as Julius Caesar.

    That is something most sensible people concluded just about the second day that the Obama train wreck was rolled out. Now is the time to figure out what needs to happen going forward,

    BTW, I suspect that as a practicable matter the shuttle is not going to be extended, though my sources say that with enough money, anything is possible. In that Garver really is spinning. But keeping the exploration program gasping along until Obama sees reason or the next President puts his (or her) imprint on things is not only doable, but now very likely.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    “So what is being said is that a Marine, a General at that, is going against the will of his Commander in Chief and trying to move his allegiance so to speak to Congress? Kinda funny. Now let’s assume it is true. Assume further that Garver is the WH pick and she supports the budget against Bolden. What is going to happen? What do you think?”

    I have no idea. Right now the White House has far more important things (it thinks) to worry about that a rogue administrator in an agency it doesn’t really care about anyway.

  • common sense

    spacenews.com/civil/100304-bolden-ask-johnson-space-center-for-plan.html

    It look a lot less bad than what I thought when the WSJ article was shown. Maybe Mike Coats was more subtle than initially thought. But still according to what Charles Bolden is saying it seems to me a very futile effort. I have to say that the WSJ did not play in favor of the effort by Coats as it seemed to go against Bolden directly or almost directly head-on.

    But I agree with Major Tom. As I stated earlier if Coats is doing this publicly against Bolden’s will and Bolden is now trying to do damage control then Coats can most likely pack. And all those associated with him should be ready too.

  • Loki

    I had a feeling people were reading way too much into this “Plan B” memo. Based on the spacenews article, which thankfully included the entire email, it sounds like Bolden was simply asking Coats et al to come with a possible compromise just in case the proposal doesn’t make it through congress as is. Seems like a pretty reasonable thing to do.

  • Robert G. Oler, heheh, you are pushing buttons, I find it highly amusing but, yeah, probably get better responses if you didn’t.

    I do believe you’re being quite a bit optimistic, though. I think that if Coats doesn’t do the job properly, Plan B could look viable on the face of things. DIRECT 2.0 optimistic estimates, for instance. Would still need to cut back a lot of jobs to make it fit within the budget. Whether this would be acceptable would be anyones guess, but there’s a possibility that those politicians behind the jobs program that is Cx would be able to use it at their advantage, as a sort of “win” from a PR perspective (even though, as I said, for DIRECT 2.0 to work you’d have to cut jobs).

    It’s good to be right, though, and I hope you are.

  • Fake James Webb

    Jeff Foust has now created a wonderful Lori Garver bashing site. Virtually every post in this thread accuses her of being stupid and/or lying.

    Well done Jeff – I am sure Futron, Inc. is justifiably proud of this accomplishment of yours!

  • common sense

    “Based on the spacenews article, which thankfully included the entire email, it sounds like Bolden was simply asking Coats et al to come with a possible compromise just in case the proposal doesn’t make it through congress as is. ”

    Nope, it is not what is stated. He said: “I’m open to hearing ideas from any member of the NASA team, but I did not ask anybody for an alternative to the President’s plan and budget” Bolden did not ask anything, sorry. Coats volunteered some idea and Bolden agreed to let him do what he asked.

  • common sense

    “Jeff Foust has now created a wonderful Lori Garver bashing site. Virtually every post in this thread accuses her of being stupid and/or lying. ”

    Total nonsense. Jeff did not do so, some posters and not all of them did so and they own the responsibility, not Jeff.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ March 4th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
    ..t one unalterable fact that Bolden seems to have recognized and Garver seems not to. The Obama plan will not pass the Congress…

    well your definition of “fact” is far different then mine.

    There is no data to support your statement of “fact”, indeed from all the tea leaves, including what KBH is doing…the plan seems well on track to passing Both houses.

    I see that your concept of what Bolden did has already been axed by Space News…about par for the course.

    you are starting to sound like Karl Rove…remember how he knew “for a fact” how the 06 election was going to turn out…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “Major Tom… forget one unalterable fact that Bolden seems to have recognized and Garver seems not to. The Obama plan will not pass the Congress. It is as dead as Julius Caesar.”

    If the President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA is dead, then why does the draft Senate FY 2011 authorization bill provide every dollar in every NASA account that the White House asked for?

    If the President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA is dead, then why does the draft Senate FY 2011 authorization bill endorse commercial crew and cargo as the preferred means of ETO transport?

    If the President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA is dead, then why does the draft Senate FY 2011 authorization bill extend ISS to 2020?

    If the President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA is dead, then why does the draft Senate FY 2011 authorization bill seek HLV acceleration over Ares I/Orion?

    If the President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA is dead, then why does the draft Senate FY 2011 authorization bill direct no funding to Constellation and reduces the program to a study about Ares I/Orion cost and operational effectiveness?

    I mean, c’mon, are you still this ignorant of these facts, or are you just not thinking before you post?

    “BTW, I suspect that as a practicable matter the shuttle is not going to be extended, though my sources say that with enough money, anything is possible.”

    Well, duh…

    No one needs “sources” to tell them “that with enough money, anything is possible”.

    Sigh…

  • Major Tom

    “Jeff Foust has now created a wonderful Lori Garver bashing site. Virtually every post in this thread accuses her of being stupid and/or lying.”

    None of mine did. And Mr. Foust certainly isn’t responsible for other people’s comments.

    “Well done Jeff – I am sure Futron, Inc. is justifiably proud of this accomplishment of yours!”

    Go away Elifritz…

  • Robert G. Oler

    “Jeff Foust has now created a wonderful Lori Garver bashing site. Virtually every post in this thread accuses her of being stupid and/or lying.”

    I will echo Major Tom’s statement…non of my post attack Garver.

    In fact sometimes it stings a little that I am actually defending her…yikes

    Robert G. Oler

  • Vladislaw

    Robert wrote:

    “Your interpretation of almost every space policy and politics since Bush the idiot announced his “vision” has been flawed…goofy in fact.”

    I have to disagree with you there, the more times I have reread the VSE the more I am convinced it was never about the moon, but Mars. It was just his was to get what his father had wanted, a program for Mars.

    It was supposed to bring in commercial crew and cargo, invest in new technology, a small cev commercially launched. NTR demonstration project, fuel depots, no new launch vehicles for NASA, ISS deorbited right about the time Bigelow was going to launch, and on and on.

    The military did not want to lose their solid rocket motors, and Griffin came in, did the 60 day study, and suddenly it was 2 new launchers based on new SRBs and the new technology that would move us towards mars, like the promethus project, was out the window along with any hope for even a couple boots and flags missions to the moon.

    Think about where we would be if the last 5 years had been spent on all the mars tech development stuff in the VSE and the moon aspects had been a “drag your heels” project. Just build the small CEV and upgrade the atlas or delta and everything else was geared towards mars.

  • Jeff Foust

    I don’t waste my time dealing with ignorant, anonymous trolls like “Fake James Webb”. I do suggest, though, that folks commenting here take a deep breath and ratchet down the vitriol a bit. Thanks.

  • Vladislaw, I don’t think anyone here would disagree with the fact that ESAS was not VSE, and really went against what VSE was supposed to do. And I say this with no love for Bush. You read the VSE NASA Authorization Act of 2005 and you can see that ESAS, as a plan, contradicted it in the most damning of ways, right there where it directed the NASA administrator to prioritize commercial space in all ways applicable. 4 years later COTS-D wasn’t even funded, and vast amounts of money was put in to contractors to do what they’ve always done within the STS program.

    Also, I only saw two comments that could even be interpreted as bashing Lori, I think Jeff is fair with his open moderation policy, and I prefer it this way, as I dislike having to sit around 30-40 minutes to see my comment posted, and see responses.

  • ehok

    POR was was an extra $3 billion alone according to Augustine. If you add ISS extension to CxP then you need more money. If you want to restore some of the science funding that was reduced since 06 then it’s even more. Which is where the 5-7 billion figure usually comes from as far as I can see.

    There was no Augustine option for pure POR and ISS to 2020. Prohibitive cost being the reason.

  • El Fritz

    Wasn’t me, I don’t sling that kind of mud.

    The incessant screaming of tea baggers does make conversation difficult, though.

  • I wonder how much of this sort of conversation gets back to Garver and Bolden. I wonder how much longer they will bother to answer rumors and leaked memos. I know if my staff was leaking memos I’d be filing the paperwork to add them to the list of layoffs. Of course, this comment is directed to Congress, and seems like completely the wrong way to go about informing them about how unworkable their bill is. But hey, I hope everyone is enjoying the train wreck, it’s at least entertaining.

  • Brad

    I hope what Garver said about the STS is true. Good riddance. It’s too bad that just as the old tar baby is going away a new one, the ISS, looks to it’s place.

  • red

    “As efforts are ramping up on Capitol Hill to try and extend the life of the shuttle beyond this year to deal with the gap in US human space access, there’s a separate but related issue: is it even feasible, from a technical (as opposed to fiscal or legislative) perspective, to extend the shuttle by any meaningful degree?”

    One compromise could be to use the $600M for ensuring that the Shuttle finishes its ISS missions for an additional ISS cargo mission — iff the current series of ISS missions doesn’t eat too much into that $600M.

    This might not be considered “a meaningful degree” of additional Shuttle time, but it would help shrink the “gap” a little bit (if that’s important), it would help supply the ISS which with the new plan may now need those supplies more, and from a jobs point of view it may help some Shuttle workers last a little bit longer so they finish at a time when the economy is (we hope) a little bit better. Of course all of that has to be balanced with the safety risk of the Shuttle and other uses for the $600M (the budget says it could be used to boost the Constellation transition funds).

  • SpaceVet

    Ms. Garver’s contention that Shuttle extension was a non-start when she arrived at NASA needs to be qualified. At the time, Constellation was still on track with start-up funding requirements that made Shuttle extension impractical. Shuttle extension is most definitely still possible. It is simply a matter of reestablishing workforce and vendor supply lines, which will require additional funding…funding which, at the time, was needed by Constellation. It’s not too late to extend Shuttle by any means.

  • Major Tom

    Repeating myself from the other thread…

    “Shuttle extension is most definitely still possible. It is simply a matter of reestablishing workforce and vendor supply lines,”

    At least 2,000 Shuttle workers are aleady gone from USA, ATK, and Boeing. It is not a “simple matter” to bring back that many workers and their families or to find replacements for those workers that won’t come back. There will be even more gone before the Senate authorization bill passes (if it passes) later this year.

    That’s just the first-tier contractors and says nothing of the second-tier contractors that Garver talked about in her speech. Whole production capabilities and companies have likely been lost in the second-tier.

    “which will require additional funding…”

    If Shuttle was extended for five years, paying those 2,000 workers’ salaries and benefits would cost NASA $1-2 billion that’s not in the budget. What should be cut from NASA’s budget to pay for it? Or should the U.S. government just go deeper into debt during a time of historic deficits?

    And that says nothing of the incentives required to bring those workers back in the first year or search for replacements for those that won’t come back. And again, this is just the first-tier contractors. The second-tier is likely larger and requires an even greater amount of funding to reestablish whole production capabilities and companies.

    It would be one thing if we were still at the stage where the delta cost of extending Shuttle was measured in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. But we’re talking about opportunity costs in the many billions of dollars, here. If we’re going to spend that kind of money, then it should go to new, more efficient, and/or more capable systems that can send spacecraft to more locations than the ISS, that we’re going to use for more than ten additional flights to the ISS, and that we’re going to keep using for more than the next five years.

    With all due respect to the Shuttle workers that have been laid off and will be laid off in the future, the horse left this barn long ago. It’s time to move on.

    My 2 cents… FWIW…

  • Loki

    Also quoting myself from a previous thread:

    “And then there’s the real 800 lb gorilla in the room. The shuttle is not designed to stay docked to the space station for a full crew expedition (6 months). It can’t carry enough consumables to last that long nor were its components designed with requirements to survive that long in space (they may or may not be able to, but they were never tested and certified for 6 month missions). The ISS crew will still need a “lifeboat” in case of a major emergency, and there’s only one current manned vehicle that I know of that can stay in space docked to the ISS for up to 6 months at a time. That would be the Soyuz. For a crew of 6 we would need 2 Soyuz docked to the station at all times, so we would still have to pay the Russians to launch at least 4 per year.

    So in summary we’d be launching shuttles twice a year to ferry crew & cargo to/ from the ISS at a cost of ~$1 Billion a pop (at least) and STILL have to pay the Russians to launch Soyuz’? Oh, and we’ll probably have to once again raid other NASA programs to come up with the money for shuttle flights just so that we can say “Hurray, we don’t have to rely on the Russians for crew transport, and look how many jobs we saved!” Does that make sense to anyone other than congress critters?”

    Personally I’d prefer the government to save the $2+ Billion/ year (and that’s not including the untold billions to re-start production lines) that would likely be required to extend shuttle. I know $2 billion isn’t that much when talking about a government whose budget is measured in the trillions, but our national debt is also measured in the trillions. We’ve got to start cutting back somewhere. A couple billion here, another couple somewhere else and eventually we’re talking about real money.

  • googaw

    If Exploration Directorate was sharing the launchers normally used by the space industry we wouldn’t be having this conversation about whether the workers and tooling are irrevocably gone. Cut E.D. orders for an Atlas or Delta, and you still have workers and tooling working on many normal launches. It’s the demand for special rides for astronauts, too oversized and gold-plated to be affordable to commerce and defense needs, that brings this kind of problem about.

  • […] mehrere Jahre länger fliegen zu lassen, wird sicher auch nichts … (Space News, Space.com, Space Politics 4., Universe Today, Space News […]

Leave a Reply to googaw Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>