One of the biggest questions in the space community right now is what’s behind the White House’s decision on Sunday to hold a space conference featuring President Obama in Florida on April 15: why hold the conference, and what do they expect to get out of it, among other issues. NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver briefly addressed this after her prepared remarks at the Goddard Memorial Symposium Wednesday in Greenbelt, Maryland.
“When the Augustine Committee reported out last fall and it became more and more clear that change was absolutely necessary for NASA and our community to have a vital future, it was always clear that the president was going to take a personal role in that future,” she said, “and this is just the opportunity he’s choosing to do that.”
She also defended the process by which the new plan for the agency was rolled out as part of the FY2011 budget proposal. “That’s how our leadership in this administration makes the big decisions,” she said. “People who expressed concern that this is not the president’s plan struck me as rather odd given that this was in the president’s budget.” As for the lack of statements from the president about the new plan to date, she noted, “Think of the nation’s budget and how many things the president can talk about in the short period of time—less than a month and a half—since the budget came out.”
“This is something that we absolutely recognize is adopted at the highest levels of the administration going forward,” she continued, “and they knew this was a major shift. You don’t do major shifts without feeling strongly about it, and the president feels strongly enough about it to personally participate in a public way. He’s been personally participating in the last few months’ deliberations on the budget.”
As for the conference itself, there will be more details about the event coming out from the White House, she said, although not saying when those details will be released.
Translation: “This turkey was ordered up by the President, not me. I am not to blame here.”
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ March 10th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Translation: “This turkey was ordered up by the President, not me. I am not to blame here.â€..
another Congressman Massa moment…
Robert G. Oler
What’s the bet the big O is going to use the meeting to announce the first few milestones of the new priogram.
Commercial crew by X
Fuel depot by Y
An inflatable hab module out beyond the Van Allen belt by Z (to test radiation shielding solutions.)
Lunar Orbit by … um, what comes after Z?
The theory of all this is that if people can see there is actually gong to be some progress made here then a lot of the opposition might evaporate.
Commercial crew by X
Fuel depot by Y
An inflatable hab module out beyond the Van Allen belt by Z (to test radiation shielding solutions.)
Lunar Orbit
This just isn’t a reasonable space program. What are the fuel depots going to refuel? Why do we want to just go into Lunar orbit? We want to land if we are going to the Moon. Otherwise what’s the point?
John – its entirely reasonable.
To answer your question, the fueld epot would be used to refuel a propulsion module that is attached to the inflatable habitat.
Why do we want to just go into Lunar orbit? We want to land if we are going to the Moon. Otherwise what’s the point?
The point is, it doesn’t end just when we get to lunar orbit. We don’t get to lunar orbit, and declare “Game Over. We are done. We’ve achieved everything”
We’ve done it that way with Apollo, and we all know how that ended.
With the deep spaceship developed, and proven, then we can look at things like visiting NEOs, and Martian orbit, as well.
And yes, at somepoint, we put boots on the ground, on the moon, and on Mars. However, the point is to plan it in such a way that it can take advantage of the VTVL suborbital crafts that will be at least somewhat similar to the needs of a lunar lander.
The point is, this is, effectively, fixed dates to deliver working capabilities. Because we should be focused on capabilities, not destinations, when it comes to making us spacefaring.
“Translation: ‘This turkey was ordered up by the President, not me. I am not to blame here.'”
In other threads, you’ve blamed Garver for the new budget plan. Now you’re blaming the President. When are you going to make up your mind on the blame game?
Of course, you do understand that all the major elements of the budget plan were in the Augustine report and that independent, blue-ribbon panel is where the change in direction of NASA’s human space flight plan originated, right?
Oy vey…
Basically another epic fail coming from Obama, his political capital is draining away very quickly. Plunging approval, election year where opposing Obama is a plus for congress seeking re-election.
His NASA plan is DOA. Seems everyone knows it but him.
Lecturing hasn’t convinced anyone for Obama-care, seems to have made suppport less. So let him lecture on this too! LOL
I wish someone would confront him with his campaign promises.
Of course that would never be allowed.
CessnaDriver – actually, if you bothered to look at his policy paper, or his speech, you’ll notice something – CONSTELLATION WAS NEVER MENTIONED. He talked about closing the gap, talked about science, talked about HSF, but he didn’t mention Constellation. And the reason for that is because, even then, people could see the writing on the wall about Constellation, and that it was a go nowhere program.
As far as “opposing Obama is a plus” – I am sorry, but the recent trends don’t seem to indicate that. In fact, most recent evidences suggests that Democratic supporters are starting to get geared up, and even Charlie Cook is beginning to acknowledge that its not necessarily simply a game of “kick the Dems out”
As for HCR reform, do we really have to go over this again? Most people support HCR, or view it as not going far enough (IE they want a single payer). HCR is not being rammed down their throats, and when the Republicans in congress start acting like people who want to govern, instead of posture, then those of us of a liberal persuasion are more then prepared to work together.
The American public now understands that the Republicans are truly the party of No.
CessnaDriver & Mark,
It’s fascinating and a little disturbing to watch you go “la, la, la, la” with your hands over your ears as the future passes you by.
With the deep spaceship developed
Where is that in the plan? Some of you are projecting what you want on the plan rather than what is in the plan.
As for HCR reform, do we really have to go over this again? Most people support HCR, or view it as not going far enough (IE they want a single payer).
You seem to be living in a political fantasy land!
@Ferris Valyn
He talked about “speeding up the Shuttle’s successor” by “appropriating funding”.
Now what was the Shuttle’s Successor at the time of his speech? That would be Orion.
What did he cancel? Orion.
John, actually, Ferris is just reading the polls on HCR. The polls that focus on the individual features of HCR, as opposed to the current HCR bills, show the results Ferris cited. Even in some red states, a solid majority want a public option (which none of the current bills have) and they want it more than they want bipartisan support.
Now, who’s in fantasy land?
Cessna: “His NASA plan is DOA.”
The draft Senate FY 2011 authorization bill provide every dollar in every NASA account that the White House asked for.
The draft Senate FY 2011 authorization bill also supports every human space flight element of the President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA. The bill endorses commercial crew and cargo as the preferred means of ETO transport, extends ISS to 2020, and seeks HLV acceleration over Ares I/Orion.
Your DOA patient is alive and walking around in the Senate’s draft authorization bill for NASA. The House is introducing a companion bill.
Waste: “What did he cancel? Orion.”
Of course. The Augustine Committee pointed out that Orion is oversized and expensive for ISS duty and too small for exploration missions beyond Apollo lunar repeats.
FWIW…
@Major Tom
None of the Augustine options canceled Orion either….
Look at the “elements” chart in the final report. Orion is in all of them.
Ms. Garver protests too much. And its unnecessary.
If anything Obama is being consistent in his Nasa policies.
In his famous early campaign statement he vowed to postpone Constellation by 5 years. Then he published this doc http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/policy/Space_Fact_Sheet_FINAL.pdf
Where he endores the 2020 Moon return and vowed to expedite the successor to the Shuttle.
By now, one year into his presidency we’ve learned many things about Obama, including the meaningless nature of his campaign promises. In fact he is very likely to do the opposite of what he promised. Given his two contradictory campaign statements, you’d think either he’d accelerate Constellation instead of delay it by 5 years. Or he’d halt the moon program or slow down the shuttle successor.
Turns out he did the later two. So Ms. Garver doesn’t need to explain anything. Obama reversing one of his contradictory campaign promises is just the way he does things.
We see that now.
“None of the Augustine options canceled Orion either….
Look at the “elements†chart in the final report. Orion is in all of them.”
You’re being selective. In Figure 6.2.2-2, Orion (or a similar vehicle) doesn’t show up in all the options until 2021-2030. In the 2010-2020 column, Orion only shows up in the POR options (1 and 3).
It would be a waste of billions of dollars to keep a development team on ice for years. Orion development, resized for the multi-target exploration strategy, should logically be restarted closer to when its needed.
Orion is not a replacement for Shuttle. It’s oversized and expensive for ISS transport. That, among other reasons, is why the Augustine report replaces Shuttle with commercial crew, not Orion.
FWIW…
Oler.What?
Loki. The future that doesn’t work.
John – I will grant, its not specifically mentioned in the budget. However, the work for actual construction of such vehicles falls outside of the 5 year budget cycle. What needs to take place for this 5 year budget cycle is R&D work, so that thinks like Propellant depots, in space propoulsion (specifically mentioned in the budget proposal), and space habitat work can continue, so that, when we get a working commercial human spaceflight industry, we can actually start working on Beyond LEO flights.
We are, right now, at the equivelent of 1960 technology & infrastructure for true deep spacecraft. We have to start learning how to do the difficult stuff, so that our Beyond LEO space actually creates a spacefaring society.
With regard to HCR – Loki hit it right on the money
______
Waste – technically, we don’t and haven’t known what the shuttle’s successor is going to be, until we’ve actually retired the shuttle, and have a replacement vehicle flying (and yea, I know the idea of a shuttle replacement is a stupid meaningless idea, but this is where the meme is right now).
What Constellaiton & Orion were were the current shuttle replacement programs. We’ve had previous – X-33, NASP, Shuttle II, OSP – all were the shuttle replacement until they were canceled.
Whatever actually replaces the shuttle has to exist – not as a development program, that could produce a working vehicle, but the vehicle has to be flying.
Therefore, he didn’t break a campaign promise – you just assumed that the current shuttle replacement program would continiue, even though he never mentioned the program by name, but rather the role, and its the role that will get filled with something.
Oh, regarding the cancellation of Orion – that was under active discussion during the committee meeting.
@Loki:
“Even in some red states, a solid majority want a public option (which none of the current bills have) and they want it more than they want bipartisan support.”
It is because it is the only real way to go forward today. THE ONLY WAY. Anything else is just bandage, just like extending Shuttle or going on with Constellation. I hope this WH goes with the public and not with the pundits.
Fox News!!! If there is any credit to give them…
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/10/dozens-dems-going-nuclear-pass-public-option/
“President Obama reportedly told House Democrats at a pep talk last week that he was “personally committed” to pursuing the public option, but that it would never pass the Senate.”
“None of the Augustine options canceled Orion either….
Look at the “elements†chart in the final report. Orion is in all of them.”
—
Who is building the Orion?
Augustine is the ex CEO of what company?
Gosh, what a surprise.
@Major Tom,
I don’t think I am being selective since each option includes those two columns. Each row (each option) has Orion. My statement still holds that no option completely cancels Orion. It becomes a crew transport for BEO missions and no ISS visits (which mitigates its “too capable” problem).
The budget does not postpone Orion, it cancels it. LM may try to build an optimized version themselves for taxi services, but we’ll see.
“It would be a waste of billions of dollars to keep a development team on ice for years. Orion development, resized for the multi-target exploration strategy, should logically be restarted closer to when its needed.”
Agreed. I just think that they should properly fund and just finish the damn thing, and have a vehicle that can be used during BEO missions instead of throwing it away. It doesn’t need to be the sole crew hab for the missions. Orion is much closer to completing than Ares, and is even further along than manned Dragon. (Dragon still has no displays, controls, no LAS, no chute drops, etc).
@Ferris Valyn,
He specifically said “speed up the development of the Shuttle successor”. One would have to assume he means the current system to succeed the Shuttle.
So if that is not what he meant, what in the world was he talking about then? What exactly was he speeding up? What was he referring to if it wasn’t Orion? Yet another TBD since we don’t know the replacement until its flying?
Yep, X-33 was the replacement until it was canceled. But, if someone had said during the development cycle of this vehicle that we are going to “speed up the development of the (as of now) Shuttle successor” would you not think they were talking about X-33 at the time? Or would you say “no way to tell what he is talking about yet”.
@ Vladislaw
Your attack on Norm is baseless. Why would he care if he no longer works there?
“Agreed. I just think that they should properly fund and just finish the damn thing, and have a vehicle that can be used during BEO missions instead of throwing it away. It doesn’t need to be the sole crew hab for the missions. Orion is much closer to completing than Ares, and is even further along than manned Dragon. (Dragon still has no displays, controls, no LAS, no chute drops, etc). ”
It does not matter how close they are! Orion design is too much related to the LV, in this case Ares I. If we choose another launcher how do you know Orion, “designed” for Ares I, will fit? Not only structurally but trajectories, abort modes, etc… As to Dragon, I am sure you just visited SpaceX and saw its current status right?
“He specifically said “speed up the development of the Shuttle successorâ€. One would have to assume he means the current system to succeed the Shuttle.
So if that is not what he meant, what in the world was he talking about then? ”
In what way is Orion the Shuttle successor? Because it is supposed to ferry astronauts to ISS? Remember it does not even have a cargo version. Orion was not (really) supposed to service ISS in the early CEV/VSE. How can you call it a successor to Shuttle? The only successors today are those developed by OSC and SpaceX. So maybe he meant “speed-up” the completion of those vehicles? He could have said “Orion” but he did not.
“Your attack on Norm is baseless. Why would he care if he no longer works there?”
It wasn’t an attack, but I do not discount self interest. CEO’s as a general rule get, as a part of their compensation package, stock and stock options. President Obama wanted a result, and when certain results are wanted, sweetners are usually part of it. President Obama could get any result he wanted. If he wanted the shuttle restarted, that would have been the top recommendation, or at least one of them. If he wanted constellation to continue, that could have been the outcome.
Look at the ESAS and how that was gamed to lead to the conclusion that constellation was the safest and cheapest result. Look at the recent articles about how safety was fudged to give Ares 1 the safest result.
So I do not have to attack, but pointing out what everyone writes about and how the system works is just facing reality. Look at Shelby is anyone going to try and deny self interest in his actions? It is just the way the game is played.
“The budget does not postpone Orion, it cancels it.”
And it should. Even if Orion wasn’t so expensive and oversized for a multi-target exploration strategy, keeping the team together for years at a cost of billions of dollars until BEO vehicle development is needed sometime late this decade or next decade is a bad use of taxpayer dollars and limited NASA budget dollars.
“Agreed. I just think that they should properly fund and just finish the damn thing, and have a vehicle that can be used during BEO missions instead of throwing it away.”
Developing Orion now doesn’t solve the problem of timing relative to when a BEO vehicle is needed. After development, we’d still have to keep a team together, twiddling their thumbs, until exploration operations started. Again, a waste of taxpayer dollars and limited NASA budget.
And we still havn’t addressed the problem of Orion’s high recurring cost as pointed out by the Augustine report.
I don’t disagree that Orion has fewer issues than the launch vehicle it suffered so much under. Of the two major Constellation elements, carrying Orion forward on another launcher would be less damaging than carrying Ares I forward. But just because an option is better, that doesn’t mean that it’s good. It doesn’t mean that the current Orion program will produce an affordable ISS transport vehicle (maybe LockMart and Bigelow can turn it into such) or that the current Orion program is properly timed and sized for the multi-target exploration strategy now being pursued.
FWIW…
April 15th is a very interesting day to be holding a conference about budget issues. It’s the time of year when citizens most wonder who is spending all that money and on what. A great time for Obama to try to refurbish his free-spending reputation by bragging about his cancellation of a frivolous and extravagant astronaut stunt planned by Bush. And it may be the one day of the year that it occurs to astronaut fans themselves that they need to be more reasonable when it comes to nursing Uncle Sugar to fund the heavenly pilgrimages of their useless heroes.
Waste
And thats your problem – you are making an assumption, by your own account. Unless someone, particularly a someone who is running for elected office, says the words “I support Constellaiton as is, or with a funding increase”, you should never assume anything. Its like asking if someone has the time – the correct answer isn’t the current time, but a yes or no.
I suppose I could’ve done a better job with the organization of that last message
I see today in SpaceNews a story where our International partners are laying the ground work for ISS extension to 2028 or more. They also, quite smartly, are examining how to lower its costs.
One of the reasons for cancelling Constellation by Obama was it would have nowhere to fly by 2020 when even the most pessimistic skeptics said Ares I would fly. If so, then there is 8 years of future flights for Orion if ISS is extended. If Ares I comes in around 217, as some on the Augustine Commission postulated, then there are 11 years of future flights. That nowhere to fly argument just got weaker with today’s SpaceNews.
Given success by Obama in killing HSF by Nasa, lowering ISS costs is wildly prudent as Congress is likely to start belly aching about the crazy expensive ISS once all those Nasa + Contractor jobs in HSF disappear. Wouldn’t surprise me that ISS is defunded before 2020 once Obama is finished gutting HSF at Nasa. For the simply reason all the current Congressional supporters won’t have a stake in its continued funding.
“If so, then there is 8 years of future flights for Orion if ISS is extended. If Ares I comes in around 217, as some on the Augustine Commission postulated, then there are 11 years of future flights… lowering ISS costs is wildly prudent”
Relying on Ares I/Orion is incompatible with lowering ISS costs. Per the Augustine report, each Ares I/Orion mission will have a recurring cost of $1 billion. Four lousy crew rotations a year and you’ll have blown through most of the Space Shuttle budget and leave little for exploration investment. And you’ll still need to pay a commercial provider because Orion lacks a cargo variant.
“Wouldn’t surprise me that ISS is defunded before 2020″
The President’s FY11 budget request for NASA, the draft Senate authorization bill for NASA, and the draft House authorization bill for NASA all propose investments to extend ISS to 2020.
Goofy…
“once Obama is finished gutting HSF at Nasa.”
How is extending ISS to 2020 “gutting HSF at Nasa [sic]”?
How is putting in place two providers of ISS transport services by 2016 “gutting HSF at Nasa [sic]”?
How is accelerating HLV development over the prior plan “gutting HSF at Nasa [sic]”?
Don’t make stuff up…
Major Tom, you amaze me with your inability to see thru crystal clear issues.
If terminating Shuttle at the same time as terminating its successor is not killing HSF, what on earth is? No known follow on program. No end in sight to Russian rides to LEO. No known program to replace VSE. Commercial providers have never sent one person in orbit. Relying on them now as the sole means to Leo is asking for failure.
Your reaction isn’t goofy, its strange
You say HLV development is accelerated? You mean Bolden saying the “game changing” technology might be ready by 2030? That’s your idea of acceleration? Then Bolden says maybe after 2020? Thats acceleration all these maybe’s? Strange.
That we need to invest in R&D to invent in American the kerolox engines that the Russians invented 30 years ago as accelerating an HLV? Stranger.
Incidentally Tom, I never likened Orion to lowering costs, you created that straw man. I pointed out that the partners want ISS til 2028 and that does vitiate part of Obama’s argument of Orion not ready by splashdown of ISS in 2020.
Obama does ask for ISS extension till 2020. But Tom, let me share a little known fact to you. He’ll be out of office Jan 2017 worst case. Perhaps Jan 2013 best case. If Shuttle and its follow on(Constellation) is gone by then, 10’s of thousand of jobs gone too, isn’t there a reasonable chance that less motivation will exist in Congress to fund such an expensive program as ISS? Also, just another fact, his budget is for FY 2011, not 2015 or 2020. Future Congresses are in no way bound to his recent budget. Just as he wants to kill Constellation today, future Congresses might defund ISS after 2015.
richardb
Ok, why can’t I get the blockquote tag to work today?
richardb:
You are exactly right. This is why Congress has to keep some sort of U.S. HSF on track. The means either Orion and some launch vehicle(an EELV or Ares I) or Shuttle extension at a minimum. I think that it is likely that Obama is anti-HSF but he doens’t want generate a backlash by cancelling it outright. So he puts a naive but well intending Lori Garver who really believes in her commerical plan. But, anyone who believes that Obama would be for privatizing anything he though was important just doesn’t know the man. Can you name any othe area where Obama is privatizing a former government function?
I think Obama is counting on the whole thing failing and he can blame it on the free market!
John – I want to know, and I want specific details – why do you find it so improbable that maybe Obama actually believes in this plan, or why he must be out to destroy HSF?
richardb: “If terminating Shuttle at the same time as terminating its successor is not killing HSF, what on earth is?”
How about not terminating its successor, if that successor is so expensive that it wipes out the rest of NASA HSF (including the ISS) and has already seriously damaged the rest of NASA (HSF and other), gets LEO capability several years after ISS is gone and really can’t do anything much but go to LEO, 10 years later gets an HLV but with no money to put anything on the HLV, and ~2035 starts very expensive trips to get astronauts to the lunar surface. That is killing HSF because there is no way it will last until 2035, the approximate date of its first productive step!
richardb: “No known follow on program.”
That’s true, except for the first commercial crew competitor, and the second commercial crew competitor, and the third commercial crew competitor, and the fourth commercial crew competitor, and a stronger commercial cargo program, and a HSF-specific robotic precursor program, and an HLV/propulsion program for exploration, and a whole stack of exploration technology demonstration missions, and an ISS that will actually be used, have more capabilities, and last to 2020+, and a much stronger human research program, and a space technology program that uses various commercial suborbital RLVs including crewed ones, and all sorts of new non-HSF work that can benefit the HSF program …
Other than that, it’s true, there is no follow on program.
richardb: “No end in sight to Russian rides to LEO.”
Yes, that’s “unseemly” (having Soyuz participation is good and makes ISS access more robust, but not having U.S. services is bad), but that gap was created by Ares. Ares I/Orion are expected some time around 2017-2019 (more likely on the later side), per Augustine. Commercial crew is expected by 2016 at the latest, per Augustine. The new plan shrinks the gap, so any time you object to the gap, you’re advocating the current plan over the POR (if you believe the Augustine and Aerospace experts).
richardb: “No known program to replace VSE.”
I recommend reading the VSE documents. The 2011 budget is essentially bringing back the heart of the VSE. The goals of the VSE were to deliver economic, security, and science benefits. The 2011 budget does that in numerous ways where the POR does not. The VSE was supposed to be implemented with strong commercial and international participation, including commercial crew launch. The 2011 budget does that, and the POR doesn’t. The VSE was supposed to be implemented in a sustainable way that can handle budgetary swings. The 2011 budget does that, and the POR doesn’t. The VSE included a strong robotic science program, a strong robotic HSF precursor program, and a strong technology development program. The 2011 budget includes all of those things, and the POR does not. The VSE included certain destinations. The 2011 budget lays the foundation to reach those destinations, and the POR doesn’t get us anywhere because there is no way it would be sustained with no intermediate payoffs until 2035 or so.
richardb: “Commercial providers have never sent one person in orbit. Relying on them now as the sole means to Leo is asking for failure.”
If you’re against commercial providers, then why are you worried about losing the VSE, which was centered around commercial providers, specifically including acquiring rather than building the launch services for crew access to LEO?
Commercial providers have built numerous HSF systems for NASA. This remains true under the POR, and also the 2011 budget. Assuming the COTS model is used, the only difference is that NASA will be encouraging the commercial providers to develop the services with commercial “skin in the game” (increasing the available dollars to apply to solving the problems and giving the commercial vendors a stake in making sure the plan is good), and those providers only get paid when they achieve milestones, and the commercial vendors will be able to go after other markets with their offerings (launching satellites, space tourism, space “lab” services, transport to other HSF destinations, etc … whatever they can find), thus decreasing NASA’s share of fixed cost maintenance and growing the U.S. space industry.
Don’t believe the spin that U.S. commercial space is 4 people in a garage and SpaceX. The entrepreneurs have something to bring to the table, and they will compete, but we already see with the Merchant 7 that companies like Boeing, ULA, and Orbital will also compete. Don’t count out L-M, ATK, etc, either.
richardb: “You say HLV development is accelerated?”
Under Constellation non-trivial amounts of Ares-V work would not start for many, many years. It would not be finished until ~2028 per Augustine. Under the 2011 budget plan, serious HLV development starts immediately.
richardb: “That we need to invest in R&D to invent in American the kerolox engines that the Russians invented 30 years ago as accelerating an HLV? Stranger.”
You were objecting to relying on the Russian Soyuz earlier. Why would you object to developing an American equivalent to the RD-180 for the HLV, when perhaps we could also use it on the Atlas V, too? Also the objectives of that rocket development are not just to make an American version of that class of engine, but to make a more efficient and cost-effective one. In other words, this is an attempt at making HLVs affordable. Right now, HLVs we have seen or imagined, like Saturn V and Ares V, are not affordable.
richardb: “I pointed out that the partners want ISS til 2028 and that does vitiate part of Obama’s argument of Orion not ready by splashdown of ISS in 2020.”
That argument against Ares I/Orion is not that they aren’t ready until just before the splashdown of ISS in 2020. If that were the argument, commercial crew would be better than Ares I/Orion, but not dramatically better, in terms of servicing the ISS. The real problem with Ares I/Orion isn’t that they arrive a few years after commercial crew, it’s that they use up so much of the budget that they force ISS to be sent to the ocean in 2016, before Ares I/Orion are operational. That’s what the Constellation plan really is; Ares I/Orion absolutely need that money. Commercial crew doesn’t require nearly that much funding, so commercial crew allows the ISS to survive. That’s the difference. (Well, commercial crew allows all sorts of other things to survive, too).
richardb: “Obama does ask for ISS extension till 2020. But Tom, let me share a little known fact to you. He’ll be out of office Jan 2017 worst case. Perhaps Jan 2013 best case. If Shuttle and its follow on(Constellation) is gone by then, 10’s of thousand of jobs gone too, isn’t there a reasonable chance that less motivation will exist in Congress to fund such an expensive program as ISS?”
Either way there is going to be extreme pressure on NASA’s budget given general demographics and non-NASA policy decisions. It’s doubtful that Constellation, with no tangible results for decades, would survive. With the current plan, NASA will be funding just as many jobs – even more actually because the NASA budget is increased. NASA is directing lots of those jobs to areas that “Presidential battleground” states are strong in (eg: KSC upgrades, SpaceX and EELV launches in Florida, commercial cargo in/near Virginia, commercial orientation that may benefit New Mexico and Nevada, satellite work that may benefit Colorado, etc). The additional NASA jobs and greater “battleground state” focus may help NASA’s position. Also, there will likely be more jobs related to NASA – partnerships with “skin in the game” for technology demonstrations and research, commercial crew “skin in the game”, businesses enabled by general space technology work, etc. The new budget allows all sorts of participation by commercial and academic organizations, not just cost-plus contractors, so there will likely be an additional layer of jobs that will translate into budget advocates.
richardb: “Also, just another fact, his budget is for FY 2011, not 2015 or 2020. Future Congresses are in no way bound to his recent budget. Just as he wants to kill Constellation today, future Congresses might defund ISS after 2015.”
That’s true, but it would also be true if Obama stuck with the POR.
Relying on Ares I/Orion is incompatible with lowering ISS costs. Per the Augustine report, each Ares I/Orion mission will have a recurring cost of $1 billion. Four lousy crew rotations a year and you’ll have blown through most of the Space Shuttle budget and leave little for exploration investment. And you’ll still need to pay a commercial provider because Orion lacks a cargo variant.
This makes my point very well. The only reason to retire the Space Shuttle was to provide budget for Constellation. Bush had this vision for space exploration and didn’t want to spend much on it. So his people came of with Constellation. This is also the irrational safety issue but who says space should be totally safe? Is climbing mountains totally save? Is aviation totally safe? No!
A good case has been made against using Orion and Ares I to supply the ISS. The solution is to stay with the most advanced space transportation ever made, i.e. the Space Shuttle. Not just to extend it for a few years but keep it for the long term. As John Shannon said Shuttle flights are very cheap after you buy $3 billion worth. This the same as three Orion flights to the ISS per year and as Tom said no resupply capablity.
For this cost we could have four or more Shuttle flights per year. For the long-term we need to make new orbiters in more to keep this capability. We can make evolutionary improvements like electronics, thermal protection system, etc., in the new vehicles. But let’s keep the basic vehicle as is.
What can take 25 tons into space, along with a seven man crew,
Repair a space telescope and fix a satellite or two
The Space Shuttle can, oh the Space Shuttle can
The Space Shuttle can ’cause it’s reusable and lands on a runway real good.
Ferris Valyn:
John – I want to know, and I want specific details – why do you find it so improbable that maybe Obama actually believes in this plan, or why he must be out to destroy HSF?
Let’s just consider President Obama’s background. He has his politically formative years as a community activist. He clearly comes from the far-left of the Democratic Party. It’s fairly obvious that these groups have tended to be hostile to human space flight expenditures because the see this as money that should be better spent on social welfare programs. So unless he has very different attitudes than his compatriots I would expect him to have similar attitudes.
Also, as I stated in all other areas he has tended to want to increase government controls not to decrease them. I assume that he believe that the government makes things stay on course and work better. So why would he go private on space? I must conclude that he has left this to subordinates at best or he really thinks it is undesirable at worst. This doesn’t bode well.
Fair enough, lets do so
Stop right there. I will fully agree with the first, that he is indeed a community activist. But the 2nd is hardly the case. Obama, as a Senator, (and president) has hardly come close to being part of the “far-left” of the Democratic Party. You wanna argue that Bernie Sanders is the far left, I’d prolly be inclined to agree. You wanna argue Al Franken, I might agree.
But Obama? Please – Obama is a slightly left of center member of the Democratic party, and has always been. There is plenty of evidence of this. Please actually look at what he has done in elected office – you won’t see a far left elected official (see the lack of things like EFCA, the decision not to pursue single-payer, the move away from things like civilian court trials, the lack of any chance of prosecutorial investigations into wrong doings during the Bush administration – I can go on).
While Obama is much better than Bush, please don’t claim he is the far left. If you think so, then it is quite clear you’ve never even tried to interact with the far left. Go talk to Bernie Sanders or the like. Then we’ll discuss the “far-left”
It’s fairly obvious that these groups have tended to be hostile to human space flight expenditures because the see this as money that should be better spent on social welfare programs.
Buzz!!! WRONG. I will grant there is the perception that they view things that way. But again, if you bother to actually interact with the far-left, instead of demonizing them, you’d find a much more interesting situation.
A little lesson for you – as a member of the “far-left” (personally, I would consider myself just fairly liberal, and not far-left, but I suspect you’d think otherwise), I’ve actually, you know, interacted with them. My experience with my fellow liberals in arms has been rather interesting. Its my experience that liberals tend to fall along the following lines
1. Die-hard space cadets – basically, people who understand and support large scale human spaceflight, and understand and actively are engaged in the discussions about space. I fall into this category.
2. Amateur supporters – people who support space, because they see something important there, but don’t know much about it. A good example of this is Chris Bowers, who runs openleft. Chris is a huge space supporter, but don’t bother asking him a question about the difference between an Atlas V & Ares I. He won’t be able to tell you.
3. People who don’t care – basically, these are people who don’t have a real opinion about human spaceflight. They might be slightly hostile, or slightly in favor, but by and large, they don’t think about it, don’t consider it, and don’t care.
4. Space-haters – yes, these are the people who fit your description.
Anyway, as I said, its my experience that most people, not totally surprising, fall into the 3rd category. We can all lament the fact that space doesn’t draw a lot of attention these days, but those are the realities.
However, while the 4th group is quite loud, it is pretty well dwarfed by the 1st & 2nd group. I haven’t been able to figure out how big the 1st group & the 2nd group is – my suspicion is that the 1st group is small, but that there is a lot of potential to be able to recruit from the 2nd group, to get to the first group (something I am actively trying to do these days). Any, my point is, instead of demonizing liberals for “being anti-space”, you might want to go out and look at some of the discussions about liberals and space. (a great place to start is a piece I wrote about liberals & space).
Not in all other areas – he certainly hasn’t moved with any quickness towards a single payer, or even a public option. He hasn’t moved away from using military contractors. And, contrary to popular belief, he hasn’t pushed to maintain control of the banks or auto companies, despite having taken some assets of them.
I assume that he believe that the government makes things stay on course and work better. So why would he go private on space?
Why does it have to be assumed all one way, or all the other way? Why can’t he believe that there are times when the government is better, and there are times when private industry is better?
I don’t think I should be entirely surprised with why you are arguing this, but the evidence, on multiple fronts, is not in your favor.
Ferris Valyn wrote @ March 12th, 2010 at 12:58 am
good points…the right wings criticism of Obama and his policies in general and space policies in specific is mostly unwarranted.
If Bush the last will be remembered for anything it will be the incompetence that let almost every issue in his administration get “out of hand”…from the economy to our foriegn policy to yes space flight…everything was bungled…and bungled with almost unlimited money thrown at it.
Now the same geniuses who cheered him on…are beating up on Obama…its kind of revolting
Robert G. Oler
I like most of the Bolden/Obama plan (robotic exploration, new tech development, kill the Constellation) , but pushing COTS is a daft idea. COTS will kill any HSF private market if there is any. It is a subsidy. NASA sponsored HSF should wait until there is an actual PRIVATE market, not ISS which is already serviced by many other nations governments.
Obama, as a Senator, (and president) has hardly come close to being part of the “far-left†of the Democratic Party. You wanna argue that Bernie Sanders is the far left, I’d prolly be inclined to agree. You wanna argue Al Franken, I might agree.
I see your point that he isn’t part of the “fringe-left” like Franken. Sanders is a socialist who caucuses with the Democrats. Obama is a career politician who aimed for the top job and that requires a certain moderation. That’s doesn’t mean doesn’t share many of the same values. The only reason he isn’t pushing single-payer is because he knows he can’t get it passed not because he actually is against it.
The real surprise is his escalation of Afghanistan. My guess is that he hopes he can repeat Bush’s surge in Iraq so that he can get out before the 2012 election. Losing the war (whatever that means) and then have the U.S. get hit with major attack just might be seen as resulting in his certain defeat. It does show that he is a pragmatist.
I’m not saying that conservative as a group are big time supporters of space either. I don’t think the “TEA Party” is good for HSF programs. Probably “moderates” are the best group for public support of space since they aren’t tied to an ideology and it looks forward thinking. The left is more focused on “social justice” and the right “free markets”. Both get in the way of government spending on a non-essential like HSF.
John wrote @ March 12th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
it is a lack of political sophistication to label Obama as “far left” or even “socialist” (if we must do that then we should be honest and call Bush the last “fascist”)…
I did not vote for Obama but was not to upset at his winning The Presidency. McCain was my “guy” but his campaign was pathetic and his running mate started scaring me the last month or so of the campaign.
I have been amazed at Obama’s first year in office…and while I have some bias I am trying to remain objective enough to analyze what he is doing.
Either Obama is showing the first signs of his Presidency not recovering from a hard year in office or he is showing the first signs of redefining the way things are done in Washington and by virtue how America works. It just depends on how things work out!
What Obama inherited was just about the complete breakdown of how things worked in Washington. Nothing worked…nothing. just look at the space program (to stay on topic). The only people still cheering after the years of the Griffin administration at NASA were Jay Barbee, Mark Whittington, the rest of the “save our jobs” and “save our federal contract”…almost no one else.
Norm Augustine is as much a government contract guy as anyone else…and even he couldnt figure out a way to save Constellation…and you know that through the back room telegraph of folks at his level…everyone at ATK, etc were urging him to come up with a way to save the program…and you know he wanted to…and yet couldnt.
This despite having BILLIONS of dollars to make the show work Ares 1 has consumed more money then Delta IV, ATlas and Falcon 1/9 COMBINED.
So what were the options?
Just give them more money? THere is no hint that this would get the program on track. Go look at the history of space station Freedom…almost 1 BILLION dollars were spent on a propulsion module for the space station and there is nothing to show for it. The modules produced in the US got so expensive that we resorted to building them in Italy…
New Management? That is the old canard at NASA. It never works. The same old faces recycle and new ones just eventually are consumed by the organization. Say what you like about Craig (Steidle) but he was a breath of fresh air in the organization and was rejected like he was cancer.
It is hard to argue that there are internal fixes for the problems which plague NASA…particularly when a project starts off so badly. Jay Barbee may think Mike Griffin is the smartest guy on earth…but then Jay thinks a lot of things.
In the end in almost everything Obama has had to tackle, he is the cleanup guy on the Titanic. He has had little choice in the things he has attempted to do…and I really dont like people like Whittington who got almost everything wrong in the Bush years…getting a free pass in calling him a “leftie”.
Particularly when they refuse to admit a single mistake Bush made in Iraq.
Robert G. Oler
John wrote @ March 12th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
The real surprise is his escalation of Afghanistan. My guess is that he hopes he can repeat Bush’s surge in Iraq so that he can get out before the 2012 election. Losing the war (whatever that means) and then have the U.S. get hit with major attack just might be seen as resulting in his certain defeat….
I dont know why it is a surprise.. Candidate Obama said he was going to do just that…escalate the war.
Robert G. Oler
“If terminating Shuttle at the same time as terminating its successor is not killing HSF, what on earth is?”
How is extending ISS to 2020 “killing HSF” at NASA?
Don’t make stuff up.
“No known follow on program.”
On top of the existing $500 million COTS program, the new budget plan creates a $6 billion Commercial Crew program to put in place two providers of crew transport to the ISS by 2016. That’s $1 billion more than what the Augustine report stated was needed to develop two providers by 2016. That’s the follow-on program to Shuttle.
Don’t make stuff up.
“No end in sight to Russian rides to LEO.”
The new budget plan ends reliance on Soyuz by 2016 at the latest. That’s a 1 to 3 year improvement over the POR, which wouldn’t have ended reliance on Soyuz until 2017 at the earliest and most likely not until 2019.
Don’t make stuff up.
“No known program to replace VSE… You say HLV development is accelerated?”
Yes. Under the new budget plan, there’s a multi-billion dollar budget for the development of actual HLV hardware that gets started in FY 2011. Under the POR, Ares V was stuck in study mode at a lousy $25 million per year through at least FY 2015 and probably longer. That’s at least a four-year acceleration of HLV development.
“You mean Bolden saying the “game changing†technology might be ready by 2030? That’s your idea of acceleration? Then Bolden says maybe after 2020? Thats acceleration all these maybe’s?”
Bolden stated that he wants a heavy lift vehicle between 2020 and 2030. See:
spacenews.com/civil/100206-bolden-says-nasa-will-leverage-constellation-technologies.html
Bolden wasn’t talking about “technology”. And even if he was, most of the Exploration R&D projects have delivery milestones in the 2010-2020 decade.
Don’t make things up.
“Strange.”
It’s strange that you never get one quote or reference right.
Stop making things up.
“Commercial providers have never sent one person in orbit. Relying on them now as the sole means to Leo is asking for failure.”
Are you kidding?
From McDonnell Aircraft’s Mercury capsule design and build to McDonnell Aircraft’s Gemini capsule build to North Amercian Aviation’s Apollo capsule build to Rockwell’s Space Shuttle orbiter build, Boeing’s predecessor companies built every operational NASA human space transport.
On top of that, Northrup Grumman built the Apollo LEM, and Lockheed Martin was building Constellation’s Orion capsule.
On top of that, United Space Alliance, a joint venture of Boeing and LockMart, is responsible for nearly all day-to-day Space Shuttle operations.
On top of that, United Launch Alliance, another joint venture of Boeing and LockMart, has completed 30 successful launches of the Atlas V and Delta IV launch vehicles — vehicles responsible for launching multi-billion dollar military and intelligence assets that are critical to national security as well as nuclear payloads that could shorten the lifetime of thousands if they suffer failure.
After decades of human space system development and operation, how have commercial providers “never sent one person in orbit”?
After decades of human space system development and operation and dozens of successful launches with their modern vehicle fleet, how is relying on commercial providers “asking for failure”?
Stop making things up.
“Incidentally Tom, I never likened Orion to lowering costs, you created that straw man.”
I didn’t create any strawman. I pointed out that the two recommendations in your earlier post — restarting Constellation development and lower ISS costs — are incompatible. Constellation increases ISS costs. It does not lower them.
Don’t blame if your posts don’t make any sense.
“Also, just another fact, his budget is for FY 2011, not 2015…”
No, the President’s budget request for NASA is always a five-year budget. Although the appropriators will only appropriate for the fiscal year in question (FY 2011 in this case), the President’s budget extends out five years (FY 2015 in this case).
Stop making stuff up.
“Future Congresses are in no way bound to his recent budget.”
Except that the authorizers are authorizing the activities necessary to extend ISS to 2020 in FY 2011 and their authorization extends to FY 2012.
Stop making stuff up.
“Your reaction isn’t goofy, its strange”
You want to know what’s goofy or strange?
Claiming that a President is “killing HSF” when he’s extending the nation’s space station program by five years.
Claiming that a President has not provided for a follow-on program to the Space Shuttle when that President’s budget proposes $6 billion program, $1 billion more than recommended by a blue-ribbon panel of experts, to develop two providers of crew transport services to the ISS, on top of the existing $500 million program to develop two providers of cargo transport services to the ISS.
Claiming that there is “no end in sight” to Soyuz reliance when the new budget plan would put in place two providers of crew transport services to the ISS at least 1 to 3 years before the POR single provider of crew transport services.
Claiming that there is no HLV acceleration when the new budget plan would start spending billions of dollars on HLV development at least 4 years before the POR.
Claiming that commercial providers have “never sent one person to orbit” when they have built and operated every NASA human space flight vehicle.
Claiming that ISS costs need to come down but advocating the continued development of systems that would increase ISS costs.
Claiming that the President’s budget for NASA is only for one fiscal year, when it’s always a five-year budget.
I don’t know if it’s sheer ignorance, a problem with reading comprehension, or an inability to see reality through politically colored glasses. But whatever your problem is, try to get at least one fact, reference, or quote right in your next post. If you can’t, then take it someplace else. It’s a waste of your time and a waste of other posters’ time to correct the innumerable false statements and errors in your posts.
Lawdy…
Red, you post a lengthy response. I disagree with most of your points. No, all of them.
1. Successor to Cony and Shuttle. There is none in Obama’s budget. There some money to SpaceX and others for studies. Nothing more. Orion is cancelled. There is no program start to replace real hardware that is flying or in the design and construction phases. Nothing more than studies. The out year 6 billion over 5 years is far short of what will be needed to build a functioning taxi to the ISS.
2.VSE has been replaced with nothing. Bolden said so when he rolled Obama’s plan out. He said they don’t know what they will do and will need consultations with various interested parties to scope one out. The absurdity of their position is VSE was aimed at the moon and it costs too much to go there. Instead Bolden quite recently floated the notion of Mars. Like that will be cheaper? Oh yeah up next is “game changing” tech.
3. Advanced HLV is again just a long term start in this budget. Minimal monies are awarded, around $600 million to study kerolox. The senselessness of this is there is no mission, no requirements so why settle on a specific technology? Why not continue our core competency with hydrogen and oxygen for instance? Because that leads to Ares V, SDLV?
4.Killing Ares I was based, in part, on its having a mission to nowhere once reaching IOC. That is a fact. Did I say it was the entire reason for cancellation? No. Extending ISS to 2028 kills that part of the argument.
5. You claim just as many jobs will be created under Obama FY2011 as with Shuttle or Constellation. Prove it from the docs. Layout any public info that SpaceX, Orbital, ULA will be hiring 10’s of thousands of engineers and manufacturing jobs for their programs. The earth sciences? Impossible as our satellite manufacturers have ample capacity as is.
If there were to be massive hiring by SpaceX, et al, then their stuff would be just as expensive as Constellation or Shuttle, ipso facto.
6. I’m glad we can agree that that future Congresses might kill ISS after 2015. Here is where I differ with you. I think if the POR remained, Ares I would be flying around 2017, the Augustine report said so and I believe them. I have alot of confidence that if Ares I was flying around 2017, ISS would be extended to its maximum safe usage. That would be late in the third decade of our century. Without Shuttle or Ares I, I see little incentive for Congress to keep funding it once the treaty obligation is met. There will be little jobs associated with its operations so who in Congress will be defending it? In Obama’s own termination statement he said Ares offered a handful of people an opportunity to go to the moon. Well what about ISS? How many get to go there over the next decade? It’s still a handful. With no jobs to protect back on Earth, Congress will, IMHO, quickly lose interest in the billions needed to keep it going past 2015 and the ISS will soon be coming back to earth without American dollars.
Last point. Cancelling Ares is fine with me if Obama came up with something better. He came up with nothing for BEO. Ares was a BEO system and wasn’t intended for the ISS. It could do it of course, but that wasn’t its purpose. Griffin was on record with the COTS program that pre-dated Obama to have commercial providers supply the ISS. Then if they performed that mission, give them a chance to ferry humans too.
Obama has killed the BEO ambitions of Nasa and simply trusts the commercial guys can build a cargo system for the ISS and then a crewed vehicle with no backstop should they fail. Smart.
If you think Franken is fringe left, then I am very curious as to who you think on the Republican side is fringe right.
As for why he isn’t pushing single payer – I am not convinced that it couldn’t have gotten through, had he actually tried to push it through. He never did.
With regards to Afgahnastan, I refer you to Robert Oler’s comment
See, here is my problem – how do you know that space development can’t be a part of either social justice or the rights of free markets? In point of fact, I would submit that it can do both, at the same time, if you have a spacefaring society.
Limiting yourself to a “moderate” crowd (something that I suspect you and I would disagree on), means you aren’t reaching people who might be your allies, because you’ve assumed that human spaceflight is somehow at odds with social justice, when I don’t believe it the case at all.
The left vs right argument about who favors HSF is probably as old as the Cold War. Time to move on!
If you think Franken is fringe left, then I am very curious as to who you think on the Republican side is fringe right.
I don’t know ….maybe Ron Paul. I didn’t call Obama a socialist. The reference was to Sen. Sanders who I believe is self-declared and proud of it. Obama clearly is the most “liberal” President ever.
See, here is my problem – how do you know that space development can’t be a part of either social justice or the rights of free markets? In point of fact, I would submit that it can do both, at the same time, if you have a spacefaring society.
You were asking me why I had certain attitude toward Obama. I was just explaining that I don’t find people with very strong ideological views tend to be the most open to space flight. That doesn’t some are but most are much more focused on “Earthly” ideas on social structure. With the left seeing at a low priority and the right seeing as wasteful government spending. I’m fairly much on the right and very much for space. But how many right-wing talkshow hosts are complaining about this plan?
I think that moderates are more open to this just because the are open to voting for Reagan and Bush then voting for Perot then Clinton then Bush II and then Obama. So they might be open to a space sales pitch too. Really this is a bipartisan issue or both side of the debate.
As common sense indicates enough of this. Now some of this:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/03/orion-removed-nasa-control-mod-positioning-commercial/
If I’m reading this correctly (am I?) NASA has just turned Orion over to Lockheed Martin to develop as they wish. So it looks like my minimal position is already underway, i.e. Orion (mostly likely scaled back) paired with an EELV. If this is right the intensity of my objection can be reduced a little.
“If I’m reading this correctly (am I?) NASA has just turned Orion over to Lockheed Martin to develop as they wish. So it looks like my minimal position is already underway, i.e. Orion (mostly likely scaled back) paired with an EELV.”
An Orion derivative on an EELV should be a strong contender for commercial crew development, but it will have to win a substantial award first and that competition won’t happen until 2011.
FWIW…
“Successor to Cony and Shuttle. There is none in Obama’s budget.”
Yes, there is. The $6 billion Commercial Spaceflight program replaces Space Shuttle and Ares I/Orion for ISS transport.
Stop making stuff up.
“There some money to SpaceX and others for studies.” Nothing more.
The study funding is from the 2010 Recovery Act. It’s not in the President’s FY 2011 budget request, which hasn’t even been passed into law and couldn’t fund anything yet anyway (duh…).
Moreover, SpaceX hasn’t received any study funding for commercial crew, from the 2010 Recovery Act or otherwise, only their COTS and CRS awards for cargo (double duh…).
Stop making stuff up.
“The out year 6 billion over 5 years is far short of what will be needed to build a functioning taxi to the ISS.”
The Augustine Committee, with the support of independent cost estimators at the Aerospace Corp., estimated that $5 billion was conservatively needed to develop two commercial crew providers by 2016. The President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA provides extra budget and schedule margin by adding $1 billion to this figure.
Stop making stuff up.
“VSE has been replaced with nothing.”
Constellation has been replaced with programs that will actually fulfill the VSE, including the VSE direction to acquire crew transport for the ISS, undertake robotic precursor missions to the Moon and Mars, invest in ISRU, develop high-power in-space propulsion, etc., etc. Constellation ate all the funding for those elements of the VSE.
Stop making stuff up.
“Bolden said so when he rolled Obama’s plan out. He said they don’t know what they will do”
The NASA Administrator said no such thing. Stop making stuff up.
“Advanced HLV is again just a long term start in this budget. Minimal monies are awarded, around $600 million to study kerolox.”
The Heavy Lift and Propulsion budget line is $3.1 billion over five years. Stop making stuff up.
“The senselessness of this is there is no mission, no requirements”
NASA has developed DRMs for GEO, NEO, and Phobos missions, in addition to existing lunar and Mars DRMs.
Stop making stuff up.
“Extending ISS to 2028 kills that part of the argument.”
No, it doesn’t. Commercial crew still delivers years earlier than Ares I/Orion for a fraction of the cost. ISS could be extended to infinity and commercial crew is still a faster and much less expensive option.
Stop making stuff up.
“You claim just as many jobs will be created under Obama FY2011 as with… Constellation.”
Red is probably right. At KSC, for example, Constellation was supposed to create 7,000 jobs, but it wouldn’t have hit that peak until sometime in the 2020s when Ares V development was ramping up. By contrast, the 21st Century KSC revitalization budget will create about 5,000 construction jobs at KSC by about 2012, the Commercial Spaceflight program will create about 1,700 jobs in Florida by about 2016, and the in-space cryo and ISRU demos (both KSC core competencies) will create more. That’s 6,700+ jobs in the first half of this decade at KSC versus 7,000 sometime next decade.
There’s a similar story in Alabama as the Heavy Lift & Propulsion budget line will double or triple the number of engine development projects at MSFC versus Ares I and the Commercial Spaceflight program will generate demand at ULA in Decatur.
“Layout any public info that SpaceX, Orbital, ULA will be hiring 10’s of thousands of engineers and manufacturing jobs for their programs.”
Per the Commercial Space Flight Federation, commercial crew would create 5,000 jobs nationwide:
commercialspaceflight.org/pressreleases/CSF%20Press%20Release%20-%20Commercial%20Crew%20Would%20Create%20Over%205000%20Direct%20Jobs,%20Industry%20Survey%20Reveals%20-%209-15-09.pdf
“Ares I would be flying around 2017, the Augustine report said so”
No, the Augustine report only states that the earliest Ares I/Orion would be operational is 2017. The report’s likely date for Ares I/Orion is 2019.
Stop making stuff up.
“and I believe them.”
But not when it comes to commercial crew?
Don’t selectively quote references.
“Without Shuttle or Ares I, I see little incentive for Congress to keep funding it once the treaty obligation is met.”
Only Mission Ops in Texas, Payload Ops & Integration in Alabama, the National Laboratory legislation, and two new authorization bills extending ISS lifetime to 2020.
Stop making stuff up.
“Ares was a BEO system”
Ares was not a BEO system. The Ares launchers delivered crew, cargo, and propellant to LEO, not BEO. The never-funded EDS and lunar Orion, and terminated Altair were the BEO systems.
Stop making stuff up.
“Obama has killed the BEO ambitions of Nasa”
The President’s budget request for NASA’s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate is over $4 billion in FY 2011 (a half billion dollar increase over FY 2010) and over $20 billion over five years.
Stop making stuff up.
Ugh…
Meanwhile back in this galaxy, something actually useful:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/03/live-delta-iv-launch-goes-p-satellite/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOES-P
So now Rahm Emanuel is involved?
This will be an extremely tightly controlled joke! LOL
Instead of white doctors smocks surrounding Obama like for health rationing, will we have space suits instead? LOL
No amount of hubris, lecturing and more LIES is going to save the Obama plan. It’s DOA, they just are too arrogant to accept it.