Congress, NASA

Is there a Plan B in the works at NASA?

That’s the claim of a Wall Street Journal today, which states that administrator Charles Bolden is seeking alternatives to the current plan rolled out just over a month ago because of the strong and largely negative reaction it’s received on Capitol Hill. What might this “Plan B” contain? A memo cited the article mentions development of a crewed spacecraft and a heavy-lift launch vehicle, as well as a launch vehicle test program: all items that have come up in Congressional hearings, particularly Sen. Bill Nelson’s Senate committee hearing last week, where he spoke about the need for continued development of a “Rocket X”.

Left unclear is how much support such an alternative plan might have within the White House: any alternative plan would have to fit within the budget levels of the budget proposal, but would the administration support a redirection of funds away from, say, technology development or commercial crew programs towards continued development of at least some elements of Constellation?

45 comments to Is there a Plan B in the works at NASA?

  • Bill White

    Plan “C” would be a better label.

    Plan A is Constellation in the form given to Obama in January 2009 with Ares 1 and Ares V being flat out unaffordable and very likely unworkable.

    Plan B is the February 1st proposal to scrap everything except commercial crew and commercial cargo.

    Plan C seeks to steer a middle course with a far less expensive in-line shuttle derived launcher, something like DIRECT.

    The battle could be over Constellation program termination costs. The February 1st budget provides $2.5 billion to wrap up Constellation however given that some contracts have already been signed $2.5 billion might not be sufficient to close out Constellation.Plan C could aim at winning voluntary contractor acceptance of revised contracts to build inline shuttle derived at far lower costs than is projected for Constellation.

    If this happens the NewSpace objective of containing unrestrained “cost plus” will be achieved.

    = = =

    Bigger picture, neither the February 1st budget proposal nor KBH’s new bill address the REAL issue, which is non-NASA destinations in LEO. ISS logistics is too small of a market to support a genuine robust commercial crew space industry.

    Non-NASA human destinations in LEO are what NewSpace needs, with minimal NASA oversight.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Bill White makes a great point, If, by 2020, the only New Space market is ISS resupply, New Space will have failed. Someway, perhaps with tax ncentivesm should be found to enable private markets,

  • MrEarl

    Jeff wonders about support for the new plan from the White House. I don’t think that will be a problem. As long as the education and Earth sciences are kept in the bill the White House will support the new path.

  • richardb

    What? All of us who said Obama’s plan was DoA in Congress were right?
    All of us who said Obama would retreat and let Congress pretty much do what it wants were right? All of us who said this Obama plan made no sense except for the one case of terminating America’s HSF were right? Although I am surprised the WH gave up so fast.

    Another marker in this administrations long history(1 year in office) of left footed steps. Before too long, the negotiations will shift between WH and Nasa to Congress and Nasa with the WH’s only contribution waving a middle finger saying keep it cheap! In the end Congress will drive Nasa to save as much of Constellation as possible. Thats means Orion and J2X will live on, along with ATK’s RSM product line.

    Unfortunately all of this is still bad news for HSF at Nasa. The idealogues in charge of the WH will of course make life miserable for Nasa once the dust settles. We’ll continue to have a WH that doesn’t care about HSF nor about the vision. We’ll continue the march to the right on schedule for first flight as funding will be tight. And of course those that bitched and moaned about Constellation being too stupid, too dangerous to costly and too late will soon be doing the same with the new proposal.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Jim Hillhouse wrote @ March 4th, 2010 at 4:00 am

    He introduces himself to her, she to him, and then he asks if she would go to bed with him for a million dollars. She thinks about it for a bit and then says yes. He then asks if she’d do it for $1,000, to which she sharply responds, “What kind of woman do you think I am?”. “Ah,” he responds, “we’ve already established that, now we’re just negotiating price.”..

    Stating a fact is not either an insult or any of the other charges you made.

    Mike Coats is a second rate staff officer and this proves it.

    Mike is the guy at the bar. And in reality what was established is that the guy who needed a woman to go to bed with him, couldnt pull it off without paying for it. He couldnt flirt, motivate, or persuade his way to a trip up thunder road if he tried. So in desperation he pulls out the wallet to try and buy a trip up thunder road. That is Mike Coats.

    Coats has sat on his bureacratic thumb as the JSC signature program; replacing the shuttle has shown year after year of torpor and timidity…and has gone billions each year spending more then Atlas/Delta/Falcon 1/9 combined and not produced a vehicle.

    So now he is negotiating with the “woman” if you will over the price of a lessor service.

    What we are negotiating here is the “scale down” of Constellation and how it ends not with a bang but with a whimper. As I noted in my original post before long we will find that NASA can, just like its flight rules start waving almost everything under the sun to save their program…and before long we will find that “golly gee wally” all the things that made Ares/Orion special are tossed out the door.

    Making human rating everything else seem well simple by design.

    The move to go to a Plan B on the way to a “out the door” is so elementary that Coats could go rent a thirty (or more) year old episode of “Yes Minister” and he would see Sir Humphrey detail the 10 steps to killing a program. Plan B is as I said “number 6″.

    I knew Coats was a pudknocker…I just am surprised he bit at this so easily.

    (I am btw not so surprised that folks like Whittington and all bit at it…drowning people see every piece of wood as the Queen Mary next thing you know people will be comparing killing Constellation with cancelling D Day…oh Whittington did that).

    LOL

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ March 4th, 2010 at 9:19 am

    Bill White makes a great point, If, by 2020, the only New Space market is ISS resupply, New Space will have failed…

    well since you have no monikers for failure of the Bush era programs that seems odd (I recall you chanting “stay the course”…wow you must feel stupid)…

    If by 2020 there is with commercial lift and Constellation dead no other customer then ISS resupply then I would agree with you…not only has new space failed but I would add then there is no role for human spaceflight in humanities future.

    If New Space fails then human spaceflight will always be a ward of the state and will be like say nuclear submarines…other then niche missions no real value in it…so much for your colony on Mars.

    BTW you have to be smarter then to buy into Mike Coats “Logic”…I know at one point you use to watch Yes Minister…Sir Humphrey is laughing at you

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    BTW Mark. your comparison of canceling Constellation to canceling Overlord is silly.

    If Ike had found a better way to take the continent. one that saved lives and “cost less”…do you really think he would have not taken it?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    richardb wrote @ March 4th, 2010 at 10:15 am

    What? All of us who said Obama’s plan was DoA in Congress were right?..

    nope you are wrong

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bill White

    IMHO, NewSpace needs to go around NASA, not through NASA.

    By going through NASA, NewSpace will be assimilated into the collective.

    Therefore, a NASA budget that seeks to adopt NewSpace as its sole source of left to LEO is something to be feared, not embraced.

  • Someone at NASA HQ

    Well they fired NASA’s PAO Chief yesterday – Morrie Goodman. A month ago Bolden said he should have listened to this guy when they announced Plan A – now he’s been fired. So much for Plan A, I guess, if you fire the prime propagandist for it.

  • Bill White

    @ Oler

    If New Space fails then human spaceflight will always be a ward of the state and will be like say nuclear submarines…other then niche missions no real value in it…so much for your colony on Mars.

    Indeed.

    Therefore, a NASA budget that proposes to insert Uncle Sugar intravenous drip lines into every promising NewSpace company should be feared, not embraced.

    However this is premature and unduly pessimistic:

    If by 2020 there is with commercial lift and Constellation dead no other customer then ISS resupply then I would agree with you…not only has new space failed but I would add then there is no role for human spaceflight in humanities future.

    If NASA assimilates NewSpace and ITAR prevents non-NASA destinations, becoming spacefaring will merely need to wait another generation or two.

  • Major Tom

    “The February 1st budget provides $2.5 billion to wrap up Constellation… Plan C could aim at winning voluntary contractor acceptance of revised contracts to build inline shuttle derived at far lower costs than is projected for Constellation.”

    But $2.5 billion isn’t enough to develop an HLV, even at far lower costs than Constellation, inline Shuttle-derived or otherwise.

    “If this happens the NewSpace objective of containing unrestrained ‘cost plus’ will be achieved.”

    Huh? If that is a “NewSpace objective”, how would building a HLV off the existing, cost-plus Constellation contracts contain “cost-plus” contracting?

    “Non-NASA human destinations in LEO are what NewSpace needs, with minimal NASA oversight.”

    NASA has no authority over non-NASA launches. That’s FAA’s job.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “Bill White makes a great point, If, by 2020, the only New Space market is ISS resupply, New Space will have failed.”

    Why 2020? What’s magical about that year?

    “Someway, perhaps with tax ncentivesm should be found to enable private markets,”

    Very low probability of happening. The congressional committees that control tax law are not the same ones that oversee, authorize, or appropriate for NASA or the FAA.

    FWIW…

  • Mark R. Whittington

    “BTW Mark. your comparison of canceling Constellation to canceling Overlord is silly.”

    To see what Oler is raving about go here:

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2755517/operation_overlord_cancelled.html?cat=37

    In this scenario, Ike – Mike Griffin. Marshall = Bolden

    Though the last may be obsolete as Bolden has gone rogue on the Obama plan.

  • Major Tom

    “All of us who said Obama’s plan was DoA in Congress were right?”

    No. The Senate authorization bill endorses the basic human space flight elements of NASA’s FY11 budget request: commercial crew and cargo, ISS extension to 2020, and an HLV sooner rather than later. The bill reduces Constellation to a NASA-controlled study about whether any of its elements could be cost- or operationally effective under the new plan.

    “All of us who said Obama would retreat and let Congress pretty much do what it wants were right?… Although I am surprised the WH gave up so fast.”

    Where has the White House retreated on anything related to NASA? One NASA center director is leading a study of Constellation termination alternatives, and he’s been told to report to the ESMD AA, not the White House or even Bolden.

    Did you even read Mr. Foust’s original post for this thread?:

    “Left unclear is how much support such an alternative plan might have within the White House: any alternative plan would have to fit within the budget levels of the budget proposal, but would the administration support a redirection of funds away from, say, technology development or commercial crew programs towards continued development of at least some elements of Constellation?”

    Duh…

    “Orion and J2X will live on, along with ATK’s RSM product line.”

    How do you know? Coats hasn’t even begun a study to determine what, if anything, should be retained, forget having ESMD AA Cooke, Administrator Bolden, the White House, or Congress weigh in.

    Goofy leaping to conclusions…

    “We’ll continue the march to the right on schedule for first flight as funding will be tight.”

    Wow, I’m really sold on bringing Constellation back now! 2020+ for getting back to LEO, here we come!

    Oy vey…

  • Major Tom

    “Well they fired NASA’s PAO Chief yesterday – Morrie Goodman… So much for Plan A, I guess, if you fire the prime propagandist for it.”

    Per NASAWatch, Goodman had problems with newmedia, in a time when NASA is pushing participatory exploration. His reassignment had nothing to do with the budget rollout. Public affairs doesn’t manage congressional relations, anyway. That’s legislative affairs.

    FWIW…

  • In this scenario, Ike – Mike Griffin. Marshall = Bolden

    Yes, that’s what makes the scenario an absurdity. Mike is no Ike. And Constellation is no Normandy invasion.

  • Alex

    Constellation was much more like Hitler’s Operation Sea Lion plan to invade England in July 1940. Half-assed, lacking in landing craft, and under-funded to the point it missed all major deadlines.

  • googaw

    Plan C could aim at winning voluntary contractor acceptance of revised contracts to build inline shuttle derived [HLV] at far lower costs

    Same political process. Same contractors. Use of Shuttle technology. “Much lower costs”? Does not compute.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bill White wrote @ March 4th, 2010 at 11:05 am

    A few points.

    First what is in my view killing The Republic is in part that in federal programs “how” something is done has taken a back seat to the goal of doing it. Bush found it easy to lie or exaggerate his way into Iraq because he believed in the goal of a “free Iraq”…the goal of everyone owning a home or a better home or two homes was great so it really didnt matter that a lot of loans were going to people who had no ability to pay…we have to beat the Chinese to the Moon so well heck just redo Apollo…

    What has set our country apart, until now, is that for the most part it has mattered how things are done…and federal agencies have been used as a lever to “do things” in a certain way. Ike could have had a federal agency hire the people who poured the concrete to build the interstate highway system…or we could have promoted aviation by having a federal airline…but we didnt…and that is why those things are great.

    I dont accept the concept that to make good things happen we “go around” federal agencies…instead I htink that we need to get the federal agencies to operating correctly…and of course a great deal of it is where the political leadership is going (and how they go).

    I really dont have ANY fears of NASA submerging “new space” and making them into “old space” so long as the details of federal policy are done correctly. My theory of mostly new space is that two things are different (since most of them are start ups)…

    1) the folks who own the companies want to make …and are use to making a lot of money through public excitement…old space is full of people (as are old airlines) who are just use to coming to work every morning and making sure that there is enough money to come to work tomorrow. The new space companies are full of people who are use to making a lot of money by having exciting projects and seeing their people make a lot of money in that fashion. They are in the money making business “for the deal”. that is what separates the folks who were running Braniff from Herb K who started Southwest…

    2. most of the new space people who are putting their cash into space are really “space cadets”. The Dream is alive for them. I am down on Mike Coats…but he and the folks who run JSC have been brain dead for decades. It is a job for them with the “golly gee” you are an astronaut routine.

    Years ago while on another airplane project I got to talk with some folks who were there when the Boeing 247 and B-17 took off as projects…they were still full of the excitement which they had when the projects were going on about how they were changing the status quo. You could still see the sparkle in their eye about “we did it”.

    In short I cannot imagine (unless they finally do grow old) the folks in new space settling for just NASA as a customer. And hopefully that will infect the old space people who will do what Boeing has done with the Dreamliner.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ March 4th, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    Though the last may be obsolete as Bolden has gone rogue on the Obama plan…

    that is as an absurd statement as your one that “Rutan hates” the new space policy. Why do you constantly overstate things..? Been to too (grin) many tea party rallies?

    Your comparision with Overlord is yet another attempt by you to play military and space expert. Unlike the execution effort that has gone into Ares…Ike had just about “everything” tried and tested that could change the equation to get the troops ashore and get them ashore with minimal casualties. Ike had no idea how the Japanese had faltered at Wake (sadly) but he did know how the brits had fallen apart in turkey and had the advantage of some amphib operations in Africa and the Pacific theatre and instead of “redoing Gallipoli on steroids” or even redo Torch he took a fresh sheet of paper to the effort.

    A more apt comparison with Constellation is Market Garden. OK that wasnt canceled but like Ares…it was a bridge to far and should have been.

    when you predicted Constellation was going to do great things and have all this commercial involvement…I told you you were full of it. You were wrong I was correct. I will be here. Mike Coats has helped tremendously.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bill White

    The crux of the issue is here:

    In short I cannot imagine (unless they finally do grow old) the folks in new space settling for just NASA as a customer.

    Of course NewSpace will not “settle” for NASA as their only customer but without ITAR reform and once NASA money becomes necessary for the survival of these NewSpace companies they may not have the ability to actually establish non-NASA destinations.

    And hopefully that will infect the old space people who will do what Boeing has done with the Dreamliner.

    Captain Picard and Hugh of the Borg? Perhaps.

    = = =

    In any event, there remains precious little international synergy.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bill White wrote @ March 4th, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    I suspect ITAR reform is coming…but there is going to have to be some massive political change in The Republic which is in my view coming as well.

    as for new/old space. These to me are exciting but perilous times (as all exciting times are) in our national life in general and space politics/policy in particular. Old ways are dying and new things are coming forth to take their place. There will be some companies that dont make the space politics/policy transition and some that are revitalized by it.

    Boeing got a wake up call with the dreamliner…they got sloppy in their design, as one Boeing guy told me “we did a NASA”..and yet they are moving to fix it. I suspect the Dreamliner will be a major pivot point in aerospace…and I suspect that 10 years from now we will all look back at where we are in human spaceflight with some amazement.

    Look, one reason I am so oppossed to Constellation is that it has almost been 6 years since the darn thing started…and where we are is frustrating in terms of the energy put into it and the outcome. It is almost as if we are trying the Terry Schiavo approach…keep the corpse on life support and hope a miracle occurs.

    In Iraq we did just that for years…people died and money was wasted as the thunderheads in the last administration just kept “hoping” things would get better. People like Whittington oppossed the “surge” because it was more important that Bush be followed then we succeed.

    The only reason the waste is tolerated is because it is no skin off their nose. AS one person said about the endless Babble folks like Rush were putting out before the surge “He isnt dying”.

    Robert G. Oler

  • googaw

    Robert Oler:
    If by 2020 there is with commercial lift and Constellation dead no other customer then ISS resupply then I would agree with you…not only has new space failed

    Of course some other minor or highly subsidized customers will sign up. This “commercialization” racket wasn’t invented yesterday. The real question is, even if some other minor customers get signed up for the “commercial crew” and “commercial cargo” vehicles — a handful of tech billionaire space tourists, NASA microgravity research funds funneled through universities and the like — wouldn’t the big claims that have been made and expectations expressed, formerly by NASA and now by NewSpace, about the vast commercialization potential of HSF in LEO still be considered to have laid a big goose egg?

    Over 99% of the astronaut/cosmonaut/orbital space tourist market is the astronauts and cosmonauts, i.e. government funding. That’s still true today despite the many claims made during the Freedom/ISS propaganda era of the 1980s and 1990s that we were going to see big new industries like microgravity manufacturing and orbital space tourism appear to pay back the $100 billion invested in Freedom+ISS. The manufacturing proved a complete dud and orbital tourism revenue after decades of hype is still less than 1% the revenues from government in HSF.

    What real-world outcome how long in the future will it take before NewSpacers admit that their expectations have been astoundingly inflated? If LEO HSF is still over 95% government-funded in 2020 wouldn’t that still fall well short of most NewSpacer’s expectations? Not to mention falling very far short of having a genuine market for HSF in LEO? Or are the expectations now changing and are NewSpace folks becoming the new NASA fans now that “our guys” are getting the NASA money?

    The probability that private tourists or genuinely independent research customers will account for more than 5% of LEO HSF funding in 2020 is extremely small. This “market” is and will be dominated by NASA. You might as well get used to it today and save yourself the slow heartache of watching SpaceX and friends turn into NASA zombies.

    It’s a 99% artificial “market” and you can’t privatize such an economic folly. You can only shut it down when people get tired of subsidizing it.

    Now if we forget about the economic fantasies that are Dragon and Cygnus and look at the launchers, Falcon and Taurus II (and the good old Atlas and Delta), it could be quite another story. In theory at least, SpaceX could decline further addictive funding from Uncle Sugar and focus on its real commercial market, the satellite launch market. Alas that wonderful possibility seems to be fading into history.

    then there is no role for human spaceflight in humanities future.

    Apocalyptic hyperbole. In fact we need machine innovations and real commerce today to make space affordable for humans in the future. Astronauts today don’t do anything to made space affordable, quite the opposite they cause it to be preposterously gold-plated.

  • Constellation was much more like Hitler’s Operation Sea Lion plan to invade England in July 1940.

    Yes, others pointed that out in response to Mark’s ridiculous analogy.

  • Bill White

    @ Robert Oler

    Constellation needs to go. I agree 200%

    However, we also need Congress to buy into whatever new plan is adopted and saying “Bite me!” to critics of the February 1st plan does not lay a proper foundation for a long term sustainable path forward.

    Anyway, my preference would be for a plan even more radical than what was proposed February 1st — I would propose the establishment of an EML-1 Gateway flagged to and operated by a small neutral power (Singapore or Isle of Man) and look to cobble together money from the entire planet to pay for it. After all, the neo-con idea that the Moon should be annexed as the 51st American state also is delusional and ISS logistics is NOT a sufficient market to sustain commercial space.

    Plan B for the Moon:

    http://www.platinum-moon.com/plan-b.html

    If Lori Garver is going to tip over all the sacred cows (and do it in a confrontational manner), I want MORE than a tiny handful of commercial crew flights to ISS. Much more.

  • Robert G. Oler

    googaw wrote @ March 4th, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    you will not find a single post where I say space tourism is a viable market…On the contrary you will find ones where I completly “Dump” on it as something useful.

    What is a viable market if human access to space is affordable (meaning drops into the 30-80 million dollar a seat category) is:

    1. human intervention in large orbital complexes
    2. human assembly of large orbital complexes
    3. human interaction in processes that use microgravity.

    those areas in my mind are wide open

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bill White wrote @ March 4th, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    I have bookmarked Plan B and will go there and look tonight…now that I am “home” have to go out and do somethings in the duck area…we are expecting new arrivals…

    having said that. “Bite me” works out good to people like the thunderheads who are “save our jobs”…but I much prefer “you and the horse you rode in on” LOL.

    I truly have had it with the “save our jobs” people. The Republic is in big trouble…Marines in Anbar died disregarding their own personal safety to bail The Republic out of a crap hole that the last administration put it in…the least we can expect from people who have the best interest of their constituents in mind is some modest “thought” past “save our paychecks”. If one is going to defend the darn thing then do it more then on just fiction “the Chinese are coming”…so “two dimensional”…as Bruce Willis would say in Armageddon “Really is this the best you have” …

    so I dont really mind mocking the thunderheads.

    Congress will buy into the new plan. Outside of the save our jobs folks there is no zero interest in human spaceflight as a national issue…so they will go where the least money is. Thats why I am enjoying watching the end game.

    We need serious leadership and thought (OK so “bite me” probably is counterproductive) not goofy David Vitter type statements.

    BTW we have a rooster named “Bill White” (we had hens and roosters named after all the gov candidates polling in double digits)…I realize the namesake is not you…but still “he” is a looker! grin

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    “Marines in Anbar died disregarding their own personal safety to bail The Republic out of a crap hole that the last administration put it in”

    It makes me think of the “support our troops” sticker bs we always see around when those guys not only do die but if they don’t die are not even treated decently in decent hospitals by those very same who sent them there. Pathetic.

  • googaw

    Robert Oler comes up with yet another Rube Goldberg scheme of hypothetical markets built on top of hypothetical markets.

    1. human intervention in large orbital complexes

    The only large orbital complex in LEO is ISS: a 100% government-funded economic fantasy of gigastructure within the 99% government-funded economic fantasy of LEO HSF. Even in the extremely unlikely scenario that there are real commercial large orbital complexes in LEO by 2020, it’s far from clear that astronauts would not create more problems and require more gold-plated safety spending than they add in value for intervention or (#2) assembly. So our hypothetical commercial large complex would, like real space commerce today, much more likely be robotic than intrepid businessfolk taking on the extravagant costs of throwing astronauts into the mix. So here we have the classic Rube Goldberg hypothetical market built on top of a hypothetical market. A hypothetical market for astronauts built on top of a hypothetical markets for large orbital complexes, all inspired by NASA’s ISS rather than by anything that has anything to do with commercial reality.

    2. human assembly of large orbital complexes.

    Same problem as #1.

    3. human interaction in processes that use microgravity.

    The main human interactions with microgravity processes involve bumping or jostling forces, noise and other vibrations that ruin the processes. Such considerations aside, as I stated above this is an economic fantasy left over from old NASA Freedom/ISS propaganda. I challenge you to name a single customer spending more than $10 million on a microgravity experiment that is not funded primarily by a government agency. You can’t do it. There have been over three decades of microgravity hype and experiments with squat in non-governmental revenue to show for it. There is again no real market here, just another economic fantasy left over from old NASA propaganda.

  • Martijn Meijering

    @googaw:

    So what is the solution then? If you take your arguments to their logical conclusion government funded manned spaceflight should be abandoned altogether. I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but can we agree this is politically unlikely? If so, what other reasonable alternative do we have to total supply side competition? How could fear of zombification be a justification for business as usual?

  • googaw

    Martijn:
    If you take your arguments to their logical conclusion government funded manned spaceflight should be abandoned altogether.

    Assuming real space colonization is your goal as well as mine there is no problem. For those whose main motivation is getting a thrill out of seeing NASA’s astronauts up in the heavens or who dream of flying themselves soon, I’m afraid I can only sadly watch the bubbles being burst as the government funding for this extravagant kind of entertainment goes away.

    As for the long-term goal of space colonization, it would not harm this cause an iota if NASA’s “Exploration” Directorate was defunded and disbanded, its technology research only being saved and transferred to a new NACA-like organization. It would not delay realization of the goal if suborbital tourism became the only HSF over the next half century. There would be much weeping and gnashing of teeth, many little bubbles burst, but no harm of long-term consequence.

    That said, I’m willing to tolerate some government spending on HSF as long as it is a small fraction of the NASA budget, and as long as it is understood that it is only about symbolic prestige and getting kids motivated about science and engineering. It’s not about real space commerce or space colonization. I’m not opposed to HSF within its small sphere of benefit, I just can’t stand the preposterously inflated expectations that NASA and its contractors promote about it.

    My recommendation to NewSpace activists focused on HSF: go to your local library and start reading back issues of Aviation Week and Space Technology. Besides the NASA dreck you’ll find dozens of articles on real space commerce. A few issues ago there was a great cover story on the communications satellite business prospects for the next decade. That stuff is far more important than NASA’s astronaut shows. As is what militaries and related entities like NSA and NRO are doing in space. Even more important for the long-term prospects of humanity: real commerce on earth is constantly developing better technologies and products and institutions that will greatly lower costs and greatly increase economic efficiencies once there comes a time decades in the future, when orbital HSF starts to make economic sense, and even further in the future when space colonization starts to make economic sense. Breakthroughs in chemical engineering, manufacturing engineering, genetic engineering, and much else now here on earth are what will allow us to move into space in the future.

  • Bill White

    @Martijn Meijering

    If you take your arguments to their logical conclusion government funded manned spaceflight should be abandoned altogether.

    I am fearful that this is exactly what John Holdren seeks, even if Charlie Bolden and Lori Garver do not.

  • googaw

    Martijn:
    If you take your arguments to their logical conclusion government funded manned spaceflight should be abandoned altogether.

    Bill:
    I am fearful that this is exactly what John Holdren seeks

    Why be afraid of it? I might have to watch more SF created on Hollywood’s budgets to replace NASA Channel extravaganzas created with my tax money. Big whoop.

  • Bill White

    Fair enough, googaw, however there are lots of NewSpacers convinced this new plan is the first step to humanity becoming a space-faring species.

    For the record, my brother is a physicist who believes human spaceflight is a colossal waste of money. Regardless of who pays for it or how it is done.

    I disagree with him but he can make a cogent case for his position.

  • googaw

    Bill:
    there are lots of NewSpacers convinced this new plan is the first step to humanity becoming a space-faring species.

    I love the new plan, but there is no such thing as “the first step” towards this goal. There many steps, many happening concurrently, many of them already happened, many yet to happen. Very few of them have or will happen in the Exploration Directorate.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Assuming real space colonization is your goal as well as mine there is no problem.

    I have no strong feelings either way about colonisation, it just seems very unlikely, except perhaps very far in the future on a terraformed Mars or Venus. What I would like to see is for the rest of inner solar system to become part of our economic sphere of influence, even if mostly for tourism.

    I wouldn’t even call this a goal, since I’m not arguing for government funding for this. All I’m doing is objecting to a NASA monopoly. If any government money is spent on this it should be done with full supply side competition. Similarly I would want any government funded manned activity in LEO to be part of a plan that 1) intends to go beyond LEO eventually and 2) intends to blaze a trail for commerce to follow. Anything else seems like a colossal waste of money. As I’ve argued elsewhere anything you do towards those goals should of course also be judged according to cost, time scales, probability of success et cetera.

    Either don’t do it at all, or do it in a way that advances those goals. I’d be happy with either option, though as a space enthusiast I’d be more excited about the latter option. Maintaining a NASA launch capability and not advancing those goals would be a colossal waste of money.

  • googaw

    Martijn:
    I have no strong feelings either way about colonisation, it just seems very unlikely,

    Well, to each his unknown. :-) I’d say space colonization is likely but very long-term, so that (for example) Garver’s quest to turn the Exploration Directorate into a space colonizing directorate is doomed to failure insofar as directly achieving that goal in this century is concerned. However, if done with good NACA-style research it could produce some nice technology, which might help achieve space colonization or other important goals for humanity in decades and centuries to come.

    What I would like to see is for the rest of inner solar system to become part of our economic sphere of influence

    I’m a big fan of this too. Part of this future is already here: machines in earth orbits, mostly higher ones, are already a very important part of our economy. Getting our economic machinery out to the moon and asteroids will probably take several more decades, and lunar tourism will probably follow after that. All the NASA lobbying in the world won’t hasten the spread of the real economy to the stars. More engineers working on economically realistic projects will.

    Speaking of commerce beyond GEO, an interesting possibility to consider is that some space physics information is important to earth commerce. For example, solar monitoring and forecasting is important to radio-based telecommunications. So it’s possible that we will see some privatization, even entrepreneurial startups for some solar monitoring, analysis and reporting during this decade — analogous to the private weather forecasting business for agriculture etc. It’s just a hypothetical of course — by no means am I demanding $billions be spent by NASA to bring this about. But we really should be expanding our visions for commerce beyond earth orbit as you suggest — in ways that make economic sense, which means useful machines not astronaut extravaganzas.

    I would want any government funded manned activity in LEO to be part of a plan that 1) intends to go beyond LEO eventually and 2) intends to blaze a trail for commerce to follow.

    Alas, NASA more often leads astray than in the right direction. So #2 is pointless or even counterproductive. Commerce has many better ways to get clues about the future than to follow the fantasies of an economically unaccountable federal agency. The worst part of NASA is not that it costs too much, the worst part is that it does the wrong things, and I mean not slightly wrong but extremely wrong, when it comes to judging what makes economic sense and what does not. As for #1, I am fine with researchers setting their sights high, as long as they are just doing research and not pretending to help commerce by building “infrastructure” for these crazy Rube Goldberg hypothetical market scenarios.

  • common sense

    “Assuming real space colonization is your goal as well as mine there is no problem.”

    Uh yeah there is a little problem, it is not in the NASA Space Act identified as goal for NASA. Save for this, no problem!

  • Martijn Meijering

    As for #1, I am fine with researchers setting their sights high, as long as they are just doing research and not pretending to help commerce by building “infrastructure” for these crazy Rube Goldberg hypothetical market scenarios.

    What I don’t understand is why you stop short of saying NASA should get out of the manned spaceflight business altogether. You say you can tolerate a little bit of government funded manned spaceflight, but apparently you can’t tolerate Obama’s idea of commercial crew vehicles for it.

  • googaw

    Martijn:
    why you stop short of saying NASA should get out of the manned spaceflight business altogether.

    I’m not 100% against it, it’s a matter of how much the U.S. government should spend on it. Like I said, there are some small public benefits to it, such as national prestige (during certain historical eras, not so important now) and motivating children to study science and education (of course there are other ways to motivate them, but astronauts help). And may be a small benefit to ISS as a microgravity lab now that it is up there. If you don’t think these benefits are worth it and just want to shut the whole thing down I won’t have a big quarrel with you.

    If you had to peg me to a number, these benefits may be worth NASA spending $2 billion per year with similar contributions from Europe etc. on HSF, which practically means spending it all on ISS. That $2 billion doesn’t include technology research motivated by future HSF visions.

    Perhaps $4 billion/year, half from NASA, is enough to maintain (not expand) ISS and keep it staffed with 3-5 people working 2-year shifts each based on a very small fleet of cargo delivery vehicles (we don’t need 5 different cargo delivery vehicles from 3 different countries) and two different Commercial Crew capabilities (one U.S. and one foreign). The current shifts of 6 months and shorter are economically unacceptable and need to be greatly lengthened (we will also learn a great deal about space medicine by doing this). If or when Exploration Directorate says it can’t do any HSF on $2 billion per year we should shut it down.

    apparently you can’t tolerate Obama’s idea of commercial crew vehicles for it.

    I’m actually in favor of this, although I’d like to see more SCOTS-like contracts, and more money paid out at cargo or crew delivery time and less at “milestone” time. I’m also against some of the terribly inflated expectations surrounding COTS, and the fraudulent belief that this is really “commerce.” Also per above I don’t think they need to be sending crew up and back to the ISS so often: they need to greatly lengthen the stays. But I know I don’t live in a perfect world, particularly when it comes to the Exploration Directorate. So I support the Obama/Bolden/Garver etc. plan right now as a “first step” as they say towards better ways for Exploration Directorate to conduct its business. If Exploration doesn’t start moving quickly in this direction it should be shut down. Like I said, no significant negative long-term consequence is likely to ensue from shutting down the E.D. It’s a nice-to-have, not an essential. I for example like watching the NASA channel like the next astronaut fan. But I’m not so egotistical to believe that the world is going to fall apart around me if I can’t have my entertainment.

  • G Clark

    I may be off-base, but I don’t particularly care how NASA does HSF as long as they stop raiding Aeronautics and Science to do it.

  • Martijn Meijering

    @googaw:

    OK, then we really not very far apart. You are more worried about zombification than I am, I am more optimistic about the possibility of NASA stimulating commercial development of space through manned spaceflight than you are.

  • Griffin’s refusal to embrace commercial space plus his warped stick and Apollo on Steroids concepts doomed VSE from the start. VSE was the last chance for a bloated and stifled NASA to shed being locked in LEO, the ISS and shuttle and refocus on an inspiring outward exploration and projection of the US manned space program. In the wake of Griffin’s constellation fiasco we now get Garver’s A-panel inspired random knee-jerk undefined Flex Path. Garver unleashed Flex without any goal driven inspiration, defined timelines or accountability. As a result congress is now defining what our next chapter will be Flex path has become Lobby Path. I do not have much faith in congress but then flex as it was conceived seemed doomed to this fate. Hopefully some more logical calm minds will now prevail in congress and we will end up with a commercial based plan incorporating some the original VSE inspiration and definition. I have vigorously supported the ending of the shuttle program for several years. However in light of the long duration gap that looms ahead I now believe that it is imperative for NASA to bend every effort and add a couple more flights. NASA needs the shuttle buy some time for a capable and experienced commercial based company like ULA to implement a worthy LEO manned access architecture. Garver seems to unwilling to make any effort to even attempt to salvage a couple more Shuttle flights. Garver is locked into the Flex concept as Griffin was locked into his constellation concept. Both determined to go forward regardless of the consequences. We are now in dire need of some open minded compromise, some middle ground some logic coupled with sound project engineering practices. I’m hopeful that Bolden has the foresight and leadership to encourage a compromise that includes the best flex and the inspiration of VSE. However it appears Graver is poised not let that happen. Bolden better watch his back as long as Garver has it. It is becoming more apparent that Garver is in bed with Obama calling the shot from the sidelines and Bolden is just mere figure head.

  • Major Tom

    “Garver unleashed Flex without any goal driven inspiration, defined timelines or accountability.”

    Flexible Path doesn’t originate with Garver. The Augustine Committee developed Flexible Path.

    And the President’s FY 2011 budget request adopts most of the key elements of the Augustine Committee’s report. That’s something that’s negotiated between NASA, OMB, OSTP, and other interested White House offices. It’s not something that any one person besides the President (including Garver) can ram through.

    “As a result congress is now defining what our next chapter will be Flex path has become Lobby Path.”

    The ball is with Congress, but the Senate’s FY 2011 authorization bill for NASA adopts and funds all the major human space flight elements of the President’s FY 2011 budget request (extend ISS to 2020, commercial crew and cargo, accelerate HLV, no Constellation funding). The only significant difference is that the bill adds money for Shuttle extension.

    “Garver seems to unwilling to make any effort to even attempt to salvage a couple more Shuttle flights.”

    Why? That would only knock 6-12 months off the gap while costing billions of dollars that could get the next system operational sooner.

    “It is becoming more apparent that Garver is in bed with Obama calling the shot from the sidelines and Bolden is just mere figure head.”

    Because Bolden in Space News is telling his troops to move out on the President’s FY 2011 budget request?

    “… 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”

    Yeah, Garver is obviously pulling the strings on that one.

    Goofy…

Leave a Reply to Bill White 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>