Congress, Lobbying, NASA, White House

Briefly noted: Kosmas, Parker, and the GAO

The big effort in the House this week is to pass a health care reform bill, but that doesn’t mean that space can’t figure into the mix. The Orlando Sentinel reported that Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) brought up the subject in a meeting with President Obama last Thursday. The president if trying to secure Kosmas’s vote on health care (she voted against the original bill last year), but “Kosmas frequently pivoted the conversation to NASA” during the short meeting, according to an unnamed congressional Democrat.

Another politician who is going to be talking about NASA in Washington this week is Houston Mayor Annise Parker. She plans to meet with local members of Congress, NASA administrator Charles Bolden, and White House advisor Valerie Jarrett, among others, during the two-day visit, with a particular emphasis on trying to save Constellation. “I don’t know what the best plan is for going back to space, for continuing human spaceflight,” she told the Houston Chronicle. “I want to ensure that we are and remain one of the centers of human spaceflight.” She fears a loss of 7,000 jobs in the Houston area and economic losses of over $500 million should the cancellation of Constellation go through.

Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL) is also worried about Constellation, and concerned that NASA is already working to end the program and start the new plan despite legislation that prevents the agency from terminating Constellation or initiating new exploration programs this fiscal year. He and 15 other House members have asked the GAO to investigate NASA’s activities since the unveiling of the FY11 budget proposal to see if NASA is in violation of that law. “While the word contract does not appear in the bill language (it is in the report language), this question naturally occurs: to what extent can planned contracts be canceled, suspended, or slowed and the agency still be considered to have not terminated the program?” the GAO letter asks.

104 comments to Briefly noted: Kosmas, Parker, and the GAO

  • Mark R. Whittington

    We can’t, after all, let a little thing like the law stand in the way of Obamaspace.

  • Major Tom

    “We can’t, after all, let a little thing like the law”

    It’s not the law. The law reads:

    “…none of the funds provided herein and from prior years that remain available for obligation during fiscal year 2010 shall be available for the termination or elimination of any program, project or activity of the architecture for the Constellation program nor shall such funds be available to create or initiate a new program, project or activity, unless such program termination, elimination, creation or initiation is provided in subsequent appropriation Acts.”

    The law says nothing that would prevent NASA from the cancellation, suspension, or slowing of “planned contracts” that Aderholt is asking about. As long as NASA doesn’t spend FY 2010 funding on Constellation termination or Constellation’s replacement, the agency has done nothing “illegal”. Aderholt is fishing in very shallow waters.

    “stand in the way of Obamaspace”

    The new budget plan originates with the Augustine Committee, not the President.

    FWIW…

  • Mark R. Whittington

    “The new budget plan originates with the Augustine Committee, not the President.”

    No it doesn’t. The Augustine Committee offered several alternative options, none of which were chosen for Obamaspace.

  • GuessWho

    Major Tom – “The new budget plan originates with the Augustine Committee, not the President.”

    You have got to be kidding. Budget plans are policy decisions, the purview of the White House. Sorry, this is Obama’s decision, lock, stock, and barrel. What data, recommendations, etc. he chose to base that decision on is irrevelent, it is his decision.

    The larger story is that it appears Kosmas is trying to sell her Obamacare vote for NASA $’s and Constellation. I see another back-room, Ben Nelson’ique, deal coming our way. As Gibbs announce a few weeks ago, “whatever it takes …”

    Sad day for the Republic.

  • Major Tom

    “No it doesn’t. The Augustine Committee offered several alternative options, none of which were chosen for Obamaspace.”

    Totally untrue. All the key elements of NASA’s FY 2011 budget request — from Constellation cancellation to the ISS 2020 extension to commercial crew to heavy exploration technology investment to enable Flexible Path destinations to a commercially-derived HLV — are represented in Option 5B in the final report of the Augustine Committee.

    Don’t make things up.

    GuessWho: “Budget plans are policy decisions, the purview of the White House.”

    Sure, but that doesn’t mean that the option selected by the White House didn’t originate elsewhere. To refer to the details of the plan embodied in NASA’s FY 2011 budget request as “Obamaspace” as the other poster did is like giving Kennedy credit for the Apollo LOR over EOR decision. Presidents don’t develop decisions at that level of detail (at least when it comes to the civil human space flight program).

    FWIW…

  • MrEarl

    No one’s making things up Tom. It’s just different interpretations to the report.
    Just Sayin’

  • Major Tom

    “No one’s making things up Tom. It’s just different interpretations to the report.”

    There’s nothing to interpret. Either Option 5B includes Constellation cancellation, ISS extension to 2020, commercial crew, heavy exploration technology investment to enable Flexible Path destinations, and a commercially-derived HLV or it doesn’t.

    FWIW…

  • MrEarl

    It is interpretation Tom because Option 5B which you love to bring out calls for an EELV derived heavy lift vehicle which is not mentioned in the FY2011 budget.
    If you read closely, and this is my interpretation, the committee seems to lean ever so slightly to the 5A option and the Aries V lite.

    Just Sayin’

  • Major Tom, it would be option 5B ‘if’ they began the development of Heavy-Lift launch system.

    The current plan doesn’t do that; it just begins ‘Heavy-Lift Research’ which is really a place holder for the Federal Employees at MSFC. So don’t expect a whole lot of actual progress under this line item. Ditto for the ‘21st Century Launch Complex’ because this is a place holder for the Federal Employees at KSC. The Federal Employees at JSC will be covered under ISS support.

    I fear that the real purpose of shutting down the Human Space Flight program is to distribute that money to every University in the nation to fund a myriad of PhD papers that talk about advanced technology rather than doing it. Looks like the advisors to the President may have reverted back to their original plan for the NASA which was to shut down the Human Space Flight program in order to fund ‘education’. Hopefully the President will reaffirm what he said in Florida during the campaign or even make it better by officially endorsing Augustine option 4B or 5C with an STS-Extension.

  • Frank

    It’s a bit more specific:

    “The “Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology” line will fund development of a new LOX/kerosene engine roughly equivalent to the RD-180.”

  • MrEarl

    Frank,
    Read Steve’s comments above and I think they exactly state the purpose for the RD-180 equivalent. Why re-invent the wheel?
    If 5B was really what the president was after why not ut that wording in the budget?

  • Frank

    Well, MrEarl,

    Maybe it’s wishful thinking but I hope it actually will mean development of a more capable variant of the RD-180.

  • Major Tom

    “It is interpretation Tom because Option 5B which you love to bring out calls for an EELV derived heavy lift vehicle which is not mentioned in the FY2011 budget.”

    The Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology program writeup in the FY 2011 budget request makes multiple references to a DOD “partnership” and “cooperative effort”, especially in regard to the development of a “hydrocarbon (liquid oxygen/kerosene) engine, capable of generating high levels of thrust approximately equal to or exceeding the performance of the Russian-built RD-180 engine”. Between the LOX/kerosene and DOD references, and the EELV-derived HLV option in the Augustine report, NASA’s FY 2011 budget request couldn’t be referring to anything other than EELV.

    “5A option and the Aries V lite”

    Ares V (Lite or otherwise) employs LOX/LH2 engines in its first stage, not LOX/kerosene. If NASA’s FY 2011 budget request was pursuing Ares V Lite, then it wouldn’t be funding a LOX/kerosene engine.

    Again, there’s no interpretation involved here. Either the FY 2011 budget is funding Ares V Lite or it’s funding a joint-DOD LOX/kerosene engine for an EELV-derived HLV. It’s clearly and obviously the latter — there’s no mention of the former but multiple mentions of the latter.

    FWIW…

  • MrEarl

    Frank:
    “Maybe it’s wishful thinking but I hope it actually will mean development of a more capable variant of the RD-180.”
    It could also mean duplication or a place holder for MSFC. But you keep wishing!

    Tom:
    “NASA’s FY 2011 budget request couldn’t be referring to anything other than EELV.”
    Sure it could! It could be talking about a totally new and different launch vehicle.
    No matter how you try to spin it the quotes you make from the budget is either a re-invention of an existing engine that Pratt and Whitney already have rights to or a place holder to try to coddle MSFC.
    Either way its bad policy if you want to create “trasformitive technologies”.

  • MrEarl

    But we’re getting off subject.

    The subject of Jeff’s post is Congressman Aderholt asking the GAO if FY2010 monies are being used to shut down projects previously approved by congress.

  • Major Tom

    “The current plan doesn’t do that; it just begins ‘Heavy-Lift Research’”

    No, NASA’s FY 2011 budget request funds a “Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology” program. It’s not a “research” line.

    With all due respect, please don’t make things up.

    “Major Tom, it would be option 5B ‘if’ they began the development of Heavy-Lift launch system.”

    How is developing the first-stage engine for an HLV not HLV development?

    Again, please don’t make things up. The DIRECT team is better than that.

    “which is really a place holder for the Federal Employees at MSFC. So don’t expect a whole lot of actual progress under this line item. Ditto for the ‘21st Century Launch Complex’ because this is a place holder for the Federal Employees at KSC. The Federal Employees at JSC will be covered under ISS support.”

    Given your leadership on DIRECT, I don’t understand the logic here. A big part of the DIRECT argument is that it keeps more of the human space flight workforce continuously employed than Constellation did. But when elements of NASA’s FY 2011 budget request do the same, that’s wrong?

    Either NASA’s human space flight workforce is valuable or not. We can’t have it both ways.

    “I fear that the real purpose of shutting down the Human Space Flight program”

    Extending ISS to 2020 is not “shutting down the Human Space Flight program”. Proposing to spend more than what the Augustine Committee, backed by independent Aerospace Corp cost estimators, said was needed to put in place two providers of ISS crew transport by 2016 is not “shutting down the Human Space Flight program”. Accelerating HLV development over the previous plan is not “shutting down the Human Space Flight program”. Investing strongly in technologies like in-space cryo management that everyone, including the DIRECT team, has repeatedly pointed out are critical to human space exploration is not “shuttle down the Human Space Flight program”.

    Please stop making things up. Again, the DIRECT team is better than that.

    “is to distribute that money to every University in the nation to fund a myriad of PhD papers that talk about advanced technology rather than doing it.”

    This argument is all over the place. First you argue that the Heavy Lift Propulsion Technology program is a “place holder for the Federal Employees at MSFC”. Now you claim that it’s going to a “myriad of PhD papers” at “every University in the nation”. Which is it?

    If we bother to actually read the budget document, “Heavy Lift Propulsion Technology” is very clearly aimed at a DOD development partnership, not an MSFC make-work project or myriad university research grants.

    I’m not trying to pick a fight here, but DIRECT and/or STS extension needs to stand on its own legs, not by grossly misportraying the competition.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “Sure it could! It could be talking about a totally new and different launch vehicle.”

    Not if that LOX/kerosense engine is put in the context of the DOD partnership referenced in the FY11 budget request and the EELV-derived HLV options from the Augustine report.

    And even if it’s some clean-sheet HLV with a LOX/kerosene first-stage, that’s nothing like your preferred Ares V Lite vehicle.

    “a re-invention of an existing engine that Pratt and Whitney already have rights to”

    Rights and production capability are very different things. For example, there are metallurgical processes involved in the production of Russian engines that U.S. industry doesn’t have. Alternatives to those processes have to be found or those processes have to be replicated here for domestic production.

    “or a place holder to try to coddle MSFC.”

    A specific engine development with defined propellants, thrust levels, etc. is not a “place holder [sic]”. A DOD partnership does not “coddle MSFC”.

    Don’t make things up.

    FWIW…

  • MrEarl

    Tommy:
    Your High School ploy of mis-stating or mis-characterizing people’s statements, usually out of context, then yelling, “Don’t make things up” is getting old and dose not add to the debate.

    Many people see this budget for what it really is, a way to get NASA out of the HSF business in favor of some future promise of commercial capabilities. It’s basically what he advocated early in the campaign and only modified in an attempt to carry Florida.
    If you payed any attention to the debate and really read the Augustine Commission report you would see a general bias tword the Aries V Lite and Option 5A.
    Commercial HSF is coming and I’m glad of and glad to see support for that in the FY2011 budget.
    The place for NASA right now is BEO exploration and only the most optimistic reading of this budget will lead someone to the conclusion that is the road that the President has set for NASA.
    That’s my opinion and the opinion of many others more knowledgeable about these things than both of us.

    Just Sayin’

  • Loki

    Aw, Major Tom, you’re no fun, not letting them make up any old fact or inference they want. They have a whole book written about them, “True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society.” Of course, truthiness doesn’t work very well in engineering, since, as Richard Feynman said during the Challenger investigation, “Nature can’t be fooled.”

    A Proud Member of the Reality-Based Community

  • richardb

    In other news, Aviation Week has a story concerning Constellation and its cancellation. The Obama budget has a marker for 2.5 billion in shutdown costs. Evidently these costs are much higher than estimated. For instance that 2.5 billion doesn’t cover contract termination liabilities. I wonder how many hundreds of millions if not billions that might be? Since the article is an interview with Nasa’s CFO, its authoritative.
    Congress is right to ask pointed questions on Constellation’s cancellation for a variety of reasons, including the fact the administration has lowballed the termination costs to Congress. Just a guess, but I’ll bet Nasa is still spending funds directly associated to cancellation costs of Ares I in 2017 when the pessimists expected IOC. And we will still be flying on Soyuz to the ISS….if we are still funding the ISS.

  • common sense

    @Mr. Earl:

    Major Tom IS CORRECT in his reading, you and others are actually interpreting things. It does not mean it is not subject to interpretation, obviously unfortunately so, but it is not written as you all say. This budget if correctly implemented by NASA and that remain to be seen in view of the latest accomplishments will lead to BEO HSF at NASA and possibly commercial. There is no other way right now. It seems to me that you and others are making a big, big mistake in fighting it. Sometimes I wish we’d go back to Constellation, bankrupt HSF and NASA so that the point gets made. See what I mean? Sometimes people need to be shown things the hard way. Sorry but this is getting nutty.

    As for DIRECT I only see a lot of bitterness and nothing else at all. It is either DIRECT gets on board with the plan or they will go the same as Ares, but DIRECT. Unlike Robert I think you have a chance (right or wrong, does not matter) BUT considering the language used against the policy you may get what you deserve and this time rightfully so.

    I can’t believe all this nonsense going on. People talking out of fear and not trying to be productive? Those who like commercial but not the WH, those who like the WH but not NASA or not commercial.

    People you wither get together behind this plan or you will get the remainder of the division. And it won’t be much. Because once the jobs are lost and the programs are gone the only thing left will tears in your eyes. I know Congress will save HSF! Can’t you learn? Look at the subject of this thread. Congress will do what is best for Congress. The congress people will do what is best for their constituents and NO, NASA HSF is not a priority to those constituents. Most of the Congress so very upset is AL and TX. Unlike what they seem to believe AL+TX is not equal to USA. Get onboard or watch and weep.

  • MrEarl

    No one is making anything up, We’re stating our opinions and our interpretation of what all this means.
    Tom likes to throw out things like “metallurgical processes” as a red herring to make it look like he knows what he’s talking about.

    Tom and others of the same opinion see this budget as the holy grail for commercial HSF.

    Myself and others who would like to at least see the start of human space exploration in their lifetime see this budget as the death of NASA’s HSF program and the chance for BEO capabilities anytime in the next decade.

    Supporters of commercial HSF should reconsider their wanting to kill NASA HSF BEO. A robust plan for government space exploration can’t help but bring along commercial HFS in it’s wake like we are seeing now with COTS.
    We should be working together to see that happen not debating metallurgical processes.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ March 16th, 2010 at 11:27 am

    Frank,
    Read Steve’s comments above and I think they exactly state the purpose for the RD-180 equivalent. Why re-invent the wheel?..

    for a few reasons…

    1. develop US technology

    2. develop something that is affordable.

    The key thrust of the Bolden space effort is to try and “Syncom” HSF.

    right now HSF is simply high tech welfare…and all the “save our jobs” programs and that joke that is DIRECT are the same thing…they are federal spending which goes to creating no infrastructure that actually has ANY applications beyond the federal dole.

    People who truly believe in human spaceflight as the future of The REpublic (and I do) should read the Syncom/Advent story…it is the story of the decision we have to make today

    Robert G. Oler

  • MrEarl

    CS, I think we’re after the same thing, Human Space Exploration.
    The first part of your third sentence is vary telling; “This budget if correctly implemented by NASA…”. That’s interpretation! You want to believe that this budget will lead to BEO and only ineptness on NASA’s part can stop it.
    No myself, being much more cynical of the political/budgetary process, see it very different considering the past statements by the President and the fact that only now is there some sort of plan emerging out of this.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ March 16th, 2010 at 6:36 am

    We can’t, after all, let a little thing like the law stand in the way of Obamaspace…

    first off when did you start worrying about “the law”?

    second it isnt the law

    third…Obamaspace is everything you were once for. remember the piece you asked to have yourname on?

    It is about creating a different mindset in this country toward how human spaceflight is done. All you are for is pork barrel exploration…or simply oppossed to Obama I dont know which.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ March 16th, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    Myself and others who would like to at least see the start of human space exploration in their lifetime see this budget as the death of NASA’s HSF program and the chance for BEO capabilities anytime in the next decade. ,,

    I dont really care about human exploration of space if all that means is a bunch of NASA astronauts blowing soap bubbles, telling us how they are docking at 17,500 mph and costing about 10 million a day to keep on their “voyage”.

    It does far less for me then pictures and data from say Messenger or New Horizons.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    “Myself and others who would like to at least see the start of human space exploration in their lifetime see this budget as the death of NASA’s HSF program and the chance for BEO capabilities anytime in the next decade.”

    Why? Heck WHY? Why is it incompatible with commercial providers? We all, in the HSF community, want to see that happen. Especially if you dedicated your life to it. BUT we just saw how it went with Constellation did we not? How about X-33. X-38, etc. What more do you want? No the budget is not all there is – just in case. Who is to say that if we were to rely only on NASA to do it that it would succeed? Based on what? Can’t you see all this bs about safety? Ares I the safest rocket ever? Based on what? Numbers? I can give you numbers, any number you want that say anything you want.

    NO ONE WANTS TO KILL NASA BEO, LEO, ETC – GET OVER IT.

    It is NASA that messed up but not only. Congress and the former WH, yes the former WH are to blame for now anyway. So now we are just going to try another way. Such is life. You cannnot get a different result by trying the same old ways, you just CANNOT.

  • Robert G. Oler

    richardb wrote @ March 16th, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    everything about that fracken program is expensive. who cares what it cost to shut it down…it will cost 10 times that (at least) to finish it.

    pull the fracken plug

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen Metschan wrote @ March 16th, 2010 at 11:11 am

    as oppossed to what? DIRECT whose theory is to call 40 year old technology “the future”?

    This budget is the first in NASA’s history post Apollo which bets on the Free Enterprise system.

    The rest (and even your DIRECT thing) bet on a quasi government/corporate system that is the worst of socialism. it is private industry masquerading as such…with absolutly no requirement to produce results. None.

    The worst part of the DIRECT group is that while their technology derivation is “entertaining” (although about 30 years to late) is that you do not address how DIRECT stops being another Ares/Orion. IE a government jobs program with results that never occur and cost that always bulge.

    In my view Charlie is not violating the law. this is how federal programs die when there is no longer executive branch support to carry them on.

    And how I know that? The folks who are oppossed to the future have tried everything else that they have (‘the chinese are coming’, ‘the future of America is at stake’) and none of those have caught on. Now they are into anti Obama stuff.

    Build a model of “Jupiter”…heck I Might do it too.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    ““This budget if correctly implemented by NASA…”. That’s interpretation! You want to believe that this budget will lead to BEO and only ineptness on NASA’s part can stop it.”

    Not quite. I am saying the budget as it stands makes a lot of sense. A budget prepared by NASA Admin Charles Bolden (I will not get in the speculation game as to who actually wrote it). It is Bolden’s budget as far as I am concerned. So the budget is okay. Now. Who will run the implementation: NASA. I don’t believe for one minute that NASA is inept. Just plain inept. Those who ran Constellation into the ditch certianly are. They obviously did not understand to live within their means. But who does? Right? Anyway. There is a need to re acquaint NASA with reality. Read a lot of posts here and elsewhere about workers at NASA actually surprised today that they not have made the cut for Constellation! Unbelievable. It was the plan all along, until ESAS that is. CUT THE WORKFORCE we cannot afford it anymore. The smart way was through attrition, you just don’t replace those who go. Big deal. A lot of places do just that. They reduce their cost in a way that has minimal impact. But NO not at NASA, we’d rather bankrupt the system so the whol ship sink. Well it is sinking. Poor decisions lead to poor results. If you go bankrupt you cannot afford your new houe, new car, new TV. Same goes for NASA. They are learning it the hard way that is all.

    I don’t know if you work(ed) on Constellation. I did. I am upset, very upset about what happened and about the people who still cannot get around it. Blaming Obama, blaming OSTP, blaming “common sense” but not blaming themselves. It is call DENIAL.

  • common sense

    “The rest (and even your DIRECT thing) bet on a quasi government/corporate system that is the worst of socialism. it is private industry masquerading as such…with absolutly no requirement to produce results. None.”

    See? Here I do totally agree with Robert on this one. At the very leastest (nice huh?) had the program worked there would have been some “justification”. It did not work. Today the only way is what Robert describes. Like it or not.

  • MrEarl

    CS…….
    Wow, you’re back up there at 10 again.
    “Why? Heck WHY? Why is it incompatible with commercial providers?”
    You said why in your description of providers, commercial. Commercial providers have to turn a profit. Right now there’s nothing in the HSF field that can be profitable except crew transport to the ISS.

    You go on on a rant about the X33 and X38, it’s only fair to mention the X34 that is being turned into the privet Dreamchaser, or the X37 now being readied for launch by to DoD, or Transhab being deployed by Bigalow as Sunchaser ans Genisis.

    I don’t think you or most people on this bog want to see NASA HFS killed but seeing the budget and knowing past statements made by the President I’m skeptical of his commitment.

    Robert,
    I don’t want to see us locked in LEO for another 4 decades either, that’s why I’m very skeptical of this budget. I think NASA HSF should be the trail blazer then bring in commercial HSF in a supporting role.

  • Major Tom

    “Your High School ploy of mis-stating or mis-characterizing people’s statements”

    Cutting and pasting your statements, word for word, is not “mis-stating [sic] or mis-characterizing [sic]” them.

    Don’t make things up.

    “then yelling, ‘Don’t make things up'”

    If I was “yelling”, then that phrase would be capitalized or it would be followed by an exclamation point. It’s not.

    Don’t make things up.

    “Many people see this budget for what it really is, a way to get NASA out of the HSF business”

    Extending ISS to 2020 is not “a way to get NASA out of the HSF business”. It’s keeping NASA in the HSF business longer.

    Developing two providers of ISS crew transport services by 2016 — one more provider one to three years earlier than the old plan — is not “a way to get NASA out of the HSF business”. It’s getting NASA astronauts off foreign HSF vehicles faster than the old plan and with more backups to ensure that NASA’s HSF business remains uninterrupted longer than the old plan.

    Don’t make things up.

    “If you payed any attention to the debate and really read the Augustine Commission report you would see a general bias tword the Aries V Lite and Option 5A.”

    You keep claiming this, but offer no specific references or quotes to support your claim. Moreover, it’s not germane to the earlier discussion of what’s in or not in the NASA FY 2011 budget request. Ares V (Lite or otherwise) is clearly not in there.

    And it’s “Ares”, not “Aries”. You’ve repeatedly spelled that name wrong. “Aries” is the ramshead constellation, while “Ares” is the petulant god of war from Roman mythology. Two very different mythical references.

    “The place for NASA right now is BEO exploration and only the most optimistic reading of this budget will lead someone to the conclusion that is the road that the President has set for NASA.”

    Starting HLV development at least four years earlier than the old plan clearly sets NASA on the “BEO exploration… road”. It may not be fast enough for you, but it’s clearly on the “BEO exploration… road”.

    Investing billions of dollars in critical exploration technologies like in-space propellant management and ISRU clearly sets NASA on the “BEO exploration… road”. Again, it may not be fast enough for you, but it’s clearly on the “BEO exploration… road”.

    Don’t make things up.

    “That’s my opinion and the opinion of many others”

    Opinions and appeals to authority mean nothing when determining facts about what is or is not in a budget. Either the program content is written in the document or it is not.

    We’re all certainly entitled to our opinions. But that doesn’t give us a license to make up false facts.

    If you disagree with details of the budget, then questions those details, describe how they should be different, and why. But don’t claim that those details aren’t there when they are, or that they are something different from what’s printed in black and white in the budget document.

    We shouldn’t make things up.

    “more knowledgeable about these things than both of us.”

    You don’t know who I am. You have no idea how knowledgeable I am (or am not).

    Don’t make things up.

    And it shouldn’t matter how knowledgeable I am (or am not). The budget document is written in plain English. I could be the village idiot, but the budget document still contains what the budget document contains.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “A Proud Member of the Reality-Based Community”

    Reality is probably asking too much. That would require folks to think through things like probable budget limits, likely costs, historical precendents, independent reports, and technical issues.

    Right now, I’m settling to be a member of the “Actually Reads What’s Written in Key Documents and Doesn’t Deny or Reword Said Documents to Suit One’s Own Politics” community.

    FWIW…

  • common sense

    “Wow, you’re back up there at 10 again.”

    Told you, can’t help. But 10 is good, 10 is nice. You should use 10 too it will make your life brighter too.

    “Right now there’s nothing in the HSF field that can be profitable except crew transport to the ISS. ”

    So what? What is the problem with that? Is profit such a bad word now? If you do the right thing and have the right idea why is it so bad to make a profit? BTW, any idea how the usual contractors make profit off NASA? If not I suggest you inquire. You might be surprised.

    Dreamchaser is the old HL-20, not X-34. Just in case. X-37 no longer is NASA. Why? I don’t know, you ask them.

    Skepticism is good I grant you that much. And it is our duty to keep this President’s feet to the fire, on Space or any other things including healthcare, especially healthcare, most importantly healthcare. Did I say healthcare was important? Much more so than NASA? This being said most people complain about destination and time line.

    Most the same people did not ever read the VSE with destination and timeline. This just is gibberish. I will try and explain a little. When you run a budget you need BOEs (basis of estimates), when we ran Constellation BOEs we ended up with nothing. Nothing in the sense that when was the last time we develop a lunar system? Apollo! Now go and check what Apollo costs. So we had to use aircraft programs for our BOEs. Please find an aircraft whose requirements are any similar to that of Orion for example. Then try and come up with a BOE that fits the current (former) NASA budget for Constellation. Have fun! As I said there is daydream and there is reality and its bite can be quite nasty. At 10 or at any rate… ;)

  • googaw

    Robet Oler:
    should read the Syncom/Advent story

    Yes. And also the SCORE and Telstar stories.

    The first communications satellite was SCORE built by a team headed by military communications engineer Kenneth Masterman-Smith at ARPA (now DARPA) and launched in 1958. The first commercial comsat, Telstar, was built and funded by AT&T and was launched in 1962 whereas Syncom was built by Hughes, funded by NASA, and launched in 1963. AT&T paid NASA to launch the Telstars — the first commercial purchases of launch services.

    In other words, military research helped inspire AT&T’s commercial initiative. Add in somebody’s (here NASA’s) launch services this was sufficient to start up the comsat industry. Syncom was a useful but not necessary part of the development of this industry.

    Comsats, like air mail, serve a basic human need that people have long been willing to pay for — communications. No such need is served by HSF. The orbital tourist market is less than 1% of what government space agencies spend on HSF. And there is no microgravity science market, it is over 90% funded by government space agencies themselves, and microgravity experiments work better when there aren’t astronauts around jostling them.

    We can’t privatize an economic fantasy. We can only shut it down when people get tired of subsidizing it.

  • richardb

    Robert G, you miss the point. Its clear we will spend as much money coming up with some striped down Anti Constellation than it would cost to have IOC with Constellation. Obama wants to spend 6 billion on commercial plus 2.5 billion on shutdown. Those are all low ball figures. If we spent that money on Constellation we would definitely have a working BEO launcher that is technically sound. With Obama’s plan we might have an American launcher for only LEO or we might not by 2017.

    Constellation expensive? Absolutely. Anymore than EELV or SpaceX? Possible, or not.
    Oh did you read the testimony of the Airforce yesterday on the Hill? They said they weren’t consulted on the impact of killing Constellation on DOD costs. The AF official said its likely to “soar” in his words.
    http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1003/15eelvcosts/

    Ok. So we spend at least 8.5 billion coming up with the Anti-Constellation plus see Airforce EELV costs soar. Thats sound strategic cost management Prez Obama.

    .

  • Major Tom

    “In other news, Aviation Week has a story concerning Constellation and its cancellation. The Obama budget has a marker for 2.5 billion in shutdown costs. Evidently these costs are much higher than estimated. For instance that 2.5 billion doesn’t cover contract termination liabilities.”

    The shutdown costs are not “higher than estimated”. NASA couldn’t discuss contract termination costs with Constellation contractors until after the embargoed President’s budget request was released. So of course the budget request doesn’t include those costs. It can’t.

    Don’t make things up.

    “the administration has lowballed the termination costs to Congress.”

    The Admnistration hasn’t lowballed anything. NASA couldn’t begin discussions with Constellation contractors on contract termination costs until after the embargoed President’s budget was out. So again, of course, the budget request couldn’t include those costs.

    Don’t make things up.

    “Ares I in 2017 when the pessimists expected IOC.”

    The pessimists expected IOC in 2019 or later, not 2017. 2017 is the earliest possible date in the Augustine report. 2019 is the most likely date in the Augustine report.

    Don’t make things up.

    “And we will still be flying on Soyuz to the ISS…”

    Why? The Augustine report, backed by independent cost estimators at the Aerospace Corp., estimated the cost of developing two ISS crew transport providers by 2016 at $5 billion. The President’s FY 2011- FY 2015 budget request for NASA provides $6 billion.

    Don’t make things up.

    “…if we are still funding the ISS.”

    Why not? The President’s FY 2011-2015 budget request for NASA funds ISS extension activities and the draft FY 2011-12 House and Senate authorization bills for NASA both fund ISS extension activities.

    Don’t make things up.

    FWIW…

  • MrEarl

    Oh Tommy boy….
    The first thing in your post proves my point:
    You put:
    “Your High School ploy of mis-stating or mis-characterizing people’s statements”

    My original post was:
    “Your High School ploy of mis-stating or mis-characterizing people’s statements, usually out of context, then yelling, “Don’t make things up” is getting old and dose not add to the debate.”
    Changing the meaning by again taking things out of context.

    “And it’s “Ares”, not “Aries”. You’ve repeatedly spelled that name wrong. “Aries” is the ramshead constellation, while “Ares” is the petulant god of war from Roman mythology. Two very different mythical references.”
    Dose it make a difference in this debate? No.

    “Extending ISS to 2020 is not “a way to get NASA out of the HSF business”. It’s keeping NASA in the HSF business longer.

    Developing two providers of ISS crew transport services by 2016 — one more provider one to three years earlier than the old plan — is not “a way to get NASA out of the HSF business”. It’s getting NASA astronauts off foreign HSF vehicles faster than the old plan and with more backups to ensure that NASA’s HSF business remains uninterrupted longer than the old plan.

    Don’t make things up.”
    NASA will be buying seats on a crew transport either from Russia or a commercial provider.
    When I buy a ticket from Southwest dose that put in the airline business? No.

    “You don’t know who I am. You have no idea how knowledgeable I am (or am not).”
    So I guess you are the purveyor of all knowledge in regard to space flight.

    “Starting HLV development at least four years earlier than the old plan clearly sets NASA on the “BEO exploration… road”. It may not be fast enough for you, but it’s clearly on the “BEO exploration… road”.”
    Now you’re the one who can not read the budget. It only provides for studying HLV not starting development. I could tell you don’t make things up.

  • Major Tom, concerning ‘Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology’ you are correct that this line item is intended to develop an more capable modern RD-180. Boy I just get goose bumps thinking of the incremental improvements possible by polishing yet again a technology that is over fifty years old. Regardless, the problem is one of practicality, because once the MSFC program management overhead is deducted there is very little money left over to actually cut metal and fire/fly the engines. Given that the Administrator is also on the record of saying that we don’t need an HLV until 2020-2030 time frame you can bet this slow boat to China is just that. In fact given the tight budgets ahead it’s probably not practical to politically support a line item whose objective extends well beyond the physical life span of most people in Congress. 2025 is also a horrible time demographically to be going to Congress and asking for the Billions of dollars need to actual re-build what would amount to America’s third heavy-lift launch system having foolishly destroyed two perfectly good systems (ie SaturnV and STS).

    I’ve always used the rule of thumb that you need get what you want done in five years or less or face a serious risk of cancellation. Given that important safety tip engineers should break up any development into five year chunks, that while building towards greater objectives are useful and self-justifiable capabilities all by themselves.

    Frankly if you want a new Kero/LOX engine development that is quick, cheap and isn’t ultimately canceled before you finish your better partner is SpaceX. Again my point stands as to what this line item is actually all about. KSC management was told the same thing, shut up or we will yank your ‘21st Century Launch System’ line item away from you. JSC really couldn’t be threatened or placated due to the ISS extension.

    Concern the DIRECT experienced workforce argument, yes retaining the experienced workforce is key advantage but as Bo correctly pointed out most of the real practical experience is in the Contractor workforce by virtue of the simple fact that they not only dominate in terms of numbers but also are predominately the hands on touch labor of Human Space Flight program. Most of the Federal NASA employees are mid-Level and above program managers. Ironically the already top heavy nature of NASA is about to look like an inverted pyramid once most of the contractors are gone.

    Concerning Shutdown the HSF, given that it has been seven years since Columbia I consider it a shutdown if over the next two decades all our money goes into doing more laps in LEO.
    Look, I’m certainly no fan of the PoR and I think the new initiatives within the President’s current plan are good ones. I just think their should be more balance between what works and can provide us near term beyond LEO capability and what we need over the long haul to lower the cost as we move forward.

    Having been witness to this whole affair since even before Columbia (where we were told that a SDHLV beyond LEO program for NASA was not welcome, its laps in LEO ISS/Shuttle forever yah baby), I’ve have seen the pendulum swing from one extreme to other and have predicted well in advance all of the problems that plague such unbalanced myopic world views.

    It has definitely been a “Horton hears a Who” experience throughout the last ten years. Regardless, we are approaching the point of no return, either we will choose to destroy the Whos or we will not. Hopefully saner minds will prevail in the end. Then again not all stories have a happy ending.

    http://despair.com/ambition.html?mybuyscid=9352535163

    This is one of the interesting aspects of reading history BTW. Once you understand that those who played a role didn’t know how it would ultimately turn out but made the effort none the less. Regardless, at least I will be able to sleep at night knowing that we fought the good fight.

  • MrEarl

    Tom said:
    “Right now, I’m settling to be a member of the “Actually Reads What’s Written in Key Documents and Doesn’t Deny or Reword Said Documents to Suit One’s Own Politics” community.”

    When you get there let us know.

    Just Sayn’

  • googaw

    richardb, Gary Payton is Mike Griffin’s former assistant. He’s making these numbers up off the top of his head — there is no documentation that shows anything remotely close to what Payton has been rambling on about. ULA, Pratt & Whitney, etc. have refused to confirm Payton’s whinings.

    Even if there were some problem of this nature, and even if it were NASA’s job rather than the DoD’s job to solve it, it would make far more sense for NASA to purchase EELVs directly than to misdirect ULA and Pratt & Whitney into other projects.

  • common sense

    “Frankly if you want a new Kero/LOX engine development that is quick, cheap and isn’t ultimately canceled before you finish your better partner is SpaceX. ”

    So what do you think is going to happen? Remember my statement about HLV at NASA then on with commercials once NASA fails it yet another time?

    ” Ironically the already top heavy nature of NASA is about to look like an inverted pyramid once most of the contractors are gone. ”

    Here is your clean-up event at NASA. How will they justify their own jobs then?

    “Look, I’m certainly no fan of the PoR and I think the new initiatives within the President’s current plan are good ones.”

    Finally! Shout it louder so that they can hear you! Darn!

    “I just think their should be more balance between what works and can provide us near term beyond LEO capability and what we need over the long haul to lower the cost as we move forward.”

    And if you can show what works then do it over and over again. But use the right footing as you did in the preceding sentence. Because if you keep blaming the WH you’ll go nowhere realy quickly – human psychology 101 if I may say so. If you work with them there is no guarantee but at least a little chance.

    “Regardless, we are approaching the point of no return, ”

    I am afraid we already crosse that line.

    BTW I am still waiting for the safe abort post you said you would provide…

  • MrEarl

    CS….
    You miss-understand. Profit is good. What I meant to convey is that commercial space won’t go out of LEO on their own. There’s no way for them have any chance of making a profit at it. Tourists in Hawaiian space suits can’t provide the revenue base, at least for a long while. But If NASA develops a moon base that needs to be supplied or an outpost on an asteroid or a station at a Lagrange point these are all places that commercial space can gain experience and excel.

    I’ll bow to your expertise on the BOE’s :-)

  • Major Tom

    “Obama wants to spend 6 billion on commercial… Those are all low ball figures.”

    That’s not a “low ball [sic]” figure. $6 billion is $1 billion more than what the Augustine report, backed by independent Aerospace Corporation cost estimators, said would be conservatively needed to put in place two commercial crew transport providers by 2016.

    Don’t make things up.

    “If we spent that money on Constellation we would definitely have a working BEO launcher that is technically sound.”

    No, we wouldn’t. Total costs for Ares I/Orion development ranged from over $30 billion (statements of various NASA managers in the press) to just under $50 billion (various GAO reports). Only $9 billion had been spent. That leaves over $20 billion to over $40 billion to finish Ares I/Orion. The $8.5 billion for Commercial Crew and Constellation closeout will only buy you one-quarter to one-half, at best, of Ares I/Orion development.

    And Ares I/Orion is not a BEO capability without Ares V, which would have been tens of billions of dollars more.

    Don’t make things up.

    “The AF official said its likely to ‘soar’ in his words.”

    The word “soar” doesn’t appear in any of Payton’s quotes in that article.

    What he does say is that “The propulsion systems for our EELVs might double in price”, but that he’s “also looking at different ways to buy EELVs that could perhaps save costs” and that “concentrating more flights per year in the EELV program would possibly help us in acquiring the elements of a launch vehicle, the piece parts, the components.”

    Don’t make things up.

    FWIW…

  • common sense

    Gary Payton should start packing. This is another outrageous behavior. I wish the WH would just do what they are supposed to do in such cases. Darn! They should hire some Republican to do the nasty job if they cannot do it themselves!

  • common sense

    “What I meant to convey is that commercial space won’t go out of LEO on their own.”

    Sometime ago people did not think they might make it to LEO. So there is quite a bit of progress is there not? And you don’t know whether they can or not.

    “There’s no way for them have any chance of making a profit at it. ”

    You don’t know that either.

    “Tourists in Hawaiian space suits can’t provide the revenue base, at least for a long while. ”

    They absolutely can. It all depends how much it costs to do it.

    “But If NASA develops a moon base that needs to be supplied or an outpost on an asteroid or a station at a Lagrange point these are all places that commercial space can gain experience and excel. ”

    So? Are you suggesting they should join forces now?

    “I’ll bow to your expertise on the BOE’s ”

    Yes I know that is what is good about being 10 you become expert at a lot of things. I think.

  • Robert G. Oler

    richardb wrote @ March 16th, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    Robert G, you miss the point. Its clear we will spend as much money coming up with some striped down Anti Constellation than it would cost to have IOC with Constellation. Obama wants to spend 6 billion on commercial plus 2.5 billion on shutdown. Those are all low ball figures. If we spent that money on Constellation we would definitely have a working BEO launcher that is technically sound.

    I dont think that is accurate. I’ve seen nothing in the numbers that says 10 billion more gets an Ares 1/Orion system that is “technically sound”. Even if one makes the great leap of faith that Ares as a launcher is technically sound…something impossible to make since there is no real hardware for Ares 1 right now.

    I dont think that the shutdown numbers are a low ball…but it would nto surprise me if the number is high, because every cost associated with that program is high.

    Second “Oh did you read the testimony of the Airforce yesterday on the Hill? They said they weren’t consulted on the impact of killing Constellation on DOD costs. The AF official said its likely to “soar” in his words.
    http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1003/15eelvcosts/

    I read it…I dont buy it. I dont buy things that are “likely” without any quantification of how likely or why it is likely. It is like buying the stats on Ares…

    they are all made up. There are no real stats on the Ares 1 launcher, because it simply does not exist…yet Charlie Precourt has made it out to be the safest launcher ever (and as it is on paper it can barely make it into orbit).

    The difference between the “stay the course” folks and myself (and others who want to change) is that I dont see anything in the last four decades to recommend doing more of the same.

    In fact I think if the best we can do is what has been done in the last four decades…I dont think it is worth doing at all.

    I dont see the point in spending 10 million a day so a few Astronauts can go to the Moon and play golf or even do science that doesnt change anything.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen Metschan wrote @ March 16th, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    because once the MSFC program management overhead is deducted there is very little money left over to actually cut metal and fire/fly the engines. …

    the other points aside.

    DIRECT escapes this “how”?

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    “a few Astronauts can go to the Moon and play golf ”

    Yep! The good ol’ days…But you gotta admit it must be something else!

  • googaw

    Frankly if you want a new Kero/LOX engine development that is quick, cheap and isn’t ultimately canceled before you finish your better partner is SpaceX.

    Say, let’s have a contest to see who can ruin SpaceX the fastest by piling NASA make-work jobs on it.

    In much better news, Loral has purchased a Falcon 9 launch for one of its comsats. There is still a chance that real commerce can save SpaceX from becoming a government contractor zombie:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703909804575124772932031294.html?mod=WSJ_business_whatsNews

  • common sense

    “DIRECT escapes this “how”? ”

    It does not and it is probably why DIRECT still has a chance with the current NASA and Congress.

  • Robert G. Oler

    googaw wrote @ March 16th, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    … Syncom was a useful but not necessary part of the development of this industry.

    Comsats, like air mail, serve a basic human need that people have long been willing to pay for — communications. No such need is served by HSF…

    two points that stem from the quote (although I did not mean to quote you out of context and if you feel I have then I offer my apology in front…)

    First. Syncom was not useful it was essential. SCORE, Relay, Telstar (and of course dont forget OSCAR…grin) were all things that could be done with the technology and rocket boosters in hand…and more or less they proved (ignore Oscar 1 it was only a beacon)…that there was really no future for satellite communications in LEO commercially or for the military.

    to make moneyor be useful for the most part “com” between two points has to be almost 24/7. the USNavy was getting more data passed between its relay points at Canoe U and Pearl Harbor and between those two points and the few ships that had TRSCOM using the Moon then was passed by SCORE/Relay/Telstar combined…the link between Pearl and Canoe U was almost 100 percent when the Moon was covis for what was then high speed RTTY. There is some “store and forward” (the Army used Courier for that) but even today those apps are limited. The multiplier on com is 24/7 real time.

    At the time of Syncom the concept of Geosynch comm was in question, the rx were just not that good. The Armed Forces wanted to go with this battlestar galactica approach called Advent…NASA had a simpler project in mind…which was to just demonstrate that it could be done and was practical and had some commercial value.

    Once those three things were done, the rest was just baking the bread.

    What is lacking in human spaceflight is not a market. What is lacking in human spaceflight is demonstrating that it could be done and was practical and had some commercial (and hence military) value.

    NASA has done the first two, but without any regard to “cost” the latter is almost impossible. I am told a reasonable figure of cost for a day on the space station by a person is close to 10 million dollars. That is roughly half a million dollars a productive hour (a tad more actually).

    As long as that cost remains then HSF is doomed. NOTHING humans can do can make that dollar figure seem acceptable.

    I predict if commercial resupply makes its cost numbers…10 years from now (or less) it will be the Syncom of human spaceflight.

    Robert G. Oler

  • richardb

    Robert G, glad to see you aren’t convinced that the same gov’ment that saw Constellation costs explode won’t mange to do the same with whatever SpaceX, Orbital or ULA does under that same gov’ment contracting. Even though Obama’s own appointee as Nasa CFO already acknowledged that contract termination costs weren’t included in the 2.5 billion shutdown. Those excluded costs are always significant. But you know better I guess.

    Robert G, glad to see you think your judgement is better than Undersecretary Gary Payton. Unlike you, he gave his assessment under oath in front of Congress. Unlike you he is sworn in to protect the national security of the nation while managing the Airforce’s space programs. He ,who has to pay for the EELV’s, judgement is wrong but your’s is right.

    I only wish we had more guys like you in government who are so sure of their judgement despite the facts. You would have been perfect in the prior administration. Wait, there is hope, the current administration wants people with your certainty even more than the prior one.

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ March 16th, 2010 at 3:53 pm

    lol

    but if DIRECT cannot escape this, then it is no more affordable then Ares…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    richardb wrote @ March 16th, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    Robert G, glad to see you aren’t convinced that the same gov’ment that saw Constellation costs explode won’t mange to do the same with whatever SpaceX, Orbital or ULA does under that same gov’ment contracting. Even though Obama’s own appointee as Nasa CFO already acknowledged that contract termination costs weren’t included in the 2.5 billion shutdown..

    I dont think it is the same government contracting…although I agree that one has to watch the “stupid” requirements that groups like internal NASA human spaceflight are going to put or try and put on commercial suppliers.

    I am quite sure that they will try, I dont think that they will be successful…because I think (Hope) that for the first time in human spaceflight lobby groups (grin) are going to be established that are outside the normal Space industrial complex group

    “Robert G, glad to see you think your judgement is better than Undersecretary Gary Payton.”

    Gary Payton nor anyone else gave any indication as to how their judgment was formed. no stats, no data just “this is my opinion” and btw I really am not going to do anything other then give one that.

    It was in my view no more valuable then the DIRECT folks who can tell us their development cost.

    “I only wish we had more guys like you in government who are so sure of their judgement despite the facts.”

    the facts I have seen so far is that Boeing/Lockmart and SpaceX have managed on far fewer dollars then Ares has spent total… to develop a launch vehicle that either is flying or is about to fly.

    that fact should trouble you.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    “then it is no more affordable then Ares…”

    Well it might be in terms of the technological content but what is the percentage of that compared to the rest. Remember that Stephen claims he uses the same workforce. Hence my comment. It’ll be marginally less expensive yet use all the same people. What is there not to like if you are a Congress person?!?! You just lowered the cost of the vehicle by xxx%, keyword is “vehicle”. The rest of the cost ,the at least $2.4B/yr (same as Shuttle say), are still there but who cares?

  • MrEarl

    OK CS….
    Enlighten me on how a commercial carrier can make money with HSF without NASA. I think you have an over inflated view of the market.

    ““But If NASA develops a moon base that needs to be supplied or an outpost on an asteroid or a station at a Lagrange point these are all places that commercial space can gain experience and excel. ”

    So? Are you suggesting they should join forces now? ”

    YES! That’s been what I’ve been saying all along. NASA the trail blazer, commercial the settlers for lack of a better analogy.

  • common sense

    “I am quite sure that they will try”

    They wil and already started actually: Remember this? http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=33632

    ” I dont think that they will be successful…”

    The name of the game is “billions”. The commercials won’t have it as easy if they NASA becomes the primary customer. That is for sure. It’ll all come down to Charles Bolden. Risk or no risk? What kind of risk? Must be fun to be in his shoes right now though.

  • common sense

    “Enlighten me on how a commercial carrier can make money with HSF without NASA. I think you have an over inflated view of the market. ”

    I will pass on this one except to say that I refer you to some posts by Major Tom about people willing ot pay millions for seat on Soyuz and Bigelow stations. I am an expert at BOEs ;) but not at marketing. I “believe” there is a market. I have seen people paying to go to space. VG has a waiting list for suborbital flights. There is a market. Will it be sustainable is more of a real question and that I don’t know. No one knows.

    “YES! That’s been what I’ve been saying all along. NASA the trail blazer, commercial the settlers for lack of a better analogy.”

    FINE!!! So we do agree at least for this. As I said to Stephen then shout it loud very loud. Make sure NASA and the WH hear that. This is what we need. I think that the NASA budget exactly supports that aspect of things. So let’s get behind it and we’ll take care of the detail once the budget is passed.

    That was not that difficult was it? Are you nearing a 10??? ;)

  • Major Tom

    “No one is making anything up, We’re stating our opinions and our interpretation of what all this means.”

    No, you’re not. You’re claiming that things are not in a budget document when they are in the document or grossly misportraying what is in the document.

    That’s not an opinion. That’s making things up.

    “Tom likes to throw out things like “metallurgical processes” as a red herring to make it look like he knows what he’s talking about.”

    It’s not a red herring. Replicating RD-180 performance domestically requires U.S. industry to apply powder metallurgy to rocket engine components or identify and develop an alternative to powder metallurgy.

    Don’t make things up.

    “Tom and others of the same opinion see this budget as the holy grail for commercial HSF.”

    Where did I say that I “see this budget as the holy grail for commercial HSF” or anything of the sort?

    My arguments are based on the much greater affordability of the Commercial Crew program over Ares I/Orion to NASA and the U.S. taxpayer. It’s about dollars and common sense (at least for me), not any “holy grail”.

    Don’t make things up.

    “Myself and others who would like to at least see the start of human space exploration in their lifetime see this budget as the death of NASA’s HSF program”

    Extending ISS to 2020 is not “the death of NASA’s HSF program”. It’s keeping NASA’s HSF program around longer.

    Developing two providers of ISS crew transport services by 2016 — one more provider one to three years earlier than the old plan — is not “the death of NASA’s HSF program”. It’s getting NASA astronauts off foreign HSF vehicles faster than the old plan and with more backups to ensure that NASA’s HSF program remains uninterrupted longer than the old plan.

    Don’t make things up.

    “and the chance for BEO capabilities anytime in the next decade.”

    The NASA Deputy Administrator showed roadmaps with “Human Exploration Missions” starting before 2025 at the Goddard Symposium last week. Per Augustine, that’s a decade sooner than the old plan.

    Don’t make things up.

    “Supporters of commercial HSF should reconsider their wanting to kill NASA HSF BEO.”

    Who has said that they want to “kill” NASA human space exploration?

    And how does anyone “kill” something that doesn’t exist?

    Don’t make things up.

    “A robust plan for government space exploration can’t help but bring along commercial HFS in it’s wake”

    It wasn’t a “robust plan for government space exploration” that enabled Commercial Crew. It was the massive overruns, years of schedule slips, and persistant technical issues that led to the collapse of the Constellation plan for ISS crew transport that enabled Commercial Crew.

    Don’t make stuff up.

    “We should be working together to see that happen not debating metallurgical processes.”

    You’re the one debating whether the RD-180 engine is needed and questioning common knowledge about metallurgical processes in the rocket industry. I was only pointing it out as one example of the kinds of capabilites that the U.S. rocket engine industry currently lacks that would need to be replicated (or alternatives found to) to match Russian rocket performance.

    Don’t make things up.

    “Oh Tommy boy…”

    Why are you resorting to namecalling? I havn’t called you any names.

    “The first thing in your post proves my point”

    No, it doesn’t. Reread my post. I quoted and responded to both parts of your statement — both the “mis-stating or mis-characterizing” part and the “yelling” part.

    Don’t make stuff up.

    “Dose it make a difference in this debate? No.”

    It does if you want your arguments to be taken seriously. If you repeatedly misname a program (and with the same wrong name each time), it doesn’t look like you know what you’re talking about.

    “NASA will be buying seats on a crew transport either from Russia or a commercial provider. When I buy a ticket from Southwest dose that put in the airline business? No.”

    This is nonsensical. They’re both repeat service business models. Multiple purchases are needed to close any repeat service business model.

    “So I guess you are the purveyor of all knowledge in regard to space flight.”

    No, I’m not. I specifically said that I could be the village idiot, but what’s in the budget document doesn’t change.

    Don’t make things up.

    “Now you’re the one who can not read the budget. It only provides for studying HLV not starting development.”

    Incorrect. The budget provides $3.1 billion for Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology development, including three specific engine developments. That’s not studies — that’s HLV development.

    The old Ares V plan, which only provided $25 million per year through FY 2014 (or $125 million over five years) was limited to studies, because that’s all that could be afforded.

    “I could tell you don’t make things up.”

    You could tell me that, but you’d be making things up.

    “When you get there let us know.”

    Pot, kettle, black… glass houses, stones, throwing… doctors healing selves… and all that.

    FWIW…

  • MrEarl

    CS,
    Where you and I differ is that you believe the budget provides NASA with a BEO plan going forward and I don’t.
    Yes there are people willing to pay millions for seats to LEO but is it enough by itself to be profitable, I don’t think so. But could the NASA establishment of a lunar base and contracting out supply and crew transport lead to tourist services. Yep!
    The time to study HLV is over, let’s build it with the technology we have and evolve it over time. Let’s pick the destination or capabilities and start building the BEO craft. Until I see some metal bending I’ll remain skeptical.

  • Bennett

    Excellent debate gentlemen!

    When I first read about the FY2010 budget I was depressed as I too saw it as a halt to HSF, but then I read further. I have come to think that it is the best move possible, and that 40 years of disappointment are about to end.

    Granted, SpaceX/Falcon 9 in itself is enough to bring a long time dreamer to his feet, but a refocus of NASA in a way that will make BOE possible and repeatable? Not a one-off?

    Fantastic!

    Now if only NASA will take a page from SpaceX regarding PR and that whole vision/marketing thing… SpaceX’s open development, publicly available videos of milestones, simulations, hell even Rock Videos!

    If Constellation had put this into place 5 years ago, the WH would be buried in letters from school kids demanding that the program continue. It surely needs to put it into place for whatever role it plays in HSF over the next 5 years.

    Thank you all for an informative and very interesting comments section!

  • common sense

    @MrEarl:

    Look you have to start somewhere. LEO is just the beginning. There is all you say you doubt in the budget. Timeline and destination will get you nowhere: A sore failure of the VSE in that regard, not Constellation. Constellation failed everything else. Having an HLV now is like outting you know the carriage before the horses. Until there is a semblance of space architecture all this is moot. An HLV for the sake of it serves no purpose and you may end up in the Apollo/Constellation paradigm again. First things first. Lower access to space and make sure that happens. Prime the embryonic market and make sure it goes then we will see.

    “Yes there are people willing to pay millions for seats to LEO but is it enough by itself to be profitable,”

    I think so it all depends on the cost of the LV and RV. And some will be inexpensive IF they are successful.

  • common sense

    “Now if only NASA will take a page from SpaceX regarding PR and that whole vision/marketing thing…”

    They cannot and they won’t at least for some time. See, unlike SpaceX they are not in the HSF “business”. That makes a big, big difference.

  • Major Tom

    Common Sense: “Gary Payton should start packing. This is another outrageous behavior.”

    It’s not. If you actually read the article and don’t just go by posts here, Payton’s comments were balanced and measured. He said that costs could go up or down, that there are six studies underway, and that he’s meeting with NASA on all this.

    Googaw: “Gary Payton is Mike Griffin’s former assistant.”

    Not really. They overlapped at OSC, but Griffin was chief technologist while Payton ran the Orbview division. They both reported to more senior management.

    I worked with Payton back in the days of X-33, -34, -37. At least back then, he strongly wanted to see launch costs come down. At the end of the day, he has to be a responsible DOD manager. But knowing Payton, it’s hard for me to see him walk away from this opportunity to expand the EELV customer base — at least not without trying really hard to make it happen.

    FWIW…

  • Bennett

    “See, unlike SpaceX they are not in the HSF “business”. That makes a big, big difference.”

    Sorry to not be an expert, but could you briefly explain why NASA shouldn’t (or can’t ) be generating excitement about what they are doing?

    Don’t get me wrong, I love the NASA website, my son likes the games, and the access to thousands of pictures from all of the robotic explorers is fantastic. I just think more could be done to get the country’s kids into dreaming about being an engineer or astronaut.

  • common sense

    “It’s not. If you actually read the article and don’t just go by posts here, Payton’s comments were balanced and measured. He said that costs could go up or down, that there are six studies underway, and that he’s meeting with NASA on all this”

    I did and I am upset at the bias shown then. Especially after the consultation question. Though I will grant you that I may make more of it than there really is. BUT I still don’t like it. Not one iota. He should have said he did not know about the cost and that was that and/or limit his comments to the various ongoing studies.

    As MrEarl would say I am at 10. Always have been…

  • common sense

    “but could you briefly explain why NASA shouldn’t (or can’t ) be generating excitement about what they are doing? ”

    NASA has an ongoing budget in the $15B to $20B almost assured no matter what. They do not need to generate excitement to get this budget, only some political bienveillance. And so far historically despite whatever failures they got the budget or an increase! SpaceX on the other hand needs to attract customers, including NASA, therefore they must make sure their message is loud and clear. Simply put.

    ” I just think more could be done to get the country’s kids into dreaming about being an engineer or astronaut.”

    Yes. SpaceX may be the best PR that NASA has ever done. They jut don’t quite get it but if SpaceX is successful that would revive the interest in engineering or astronauts. Just not at NASA per se.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Sorry to not be an expert, but could you briefly explain why NASA shouldn’t (or can’t ) be generating excitement about what they are doing?

    Because they do a crappy job of it. Part of the issue is that they can’t do public outreach to the larger society, but they can talk to kids vis-a-vie education. The problem is that public opinion isn’t just about what a 10 year old thinks, but about what voting age people think.

    Don’t get me wrong, I love the NASA website, my son likes the games, and the access to thousands of pictures from all of the robotic explorers is fantastic. I just think more could be done to get the country’s kids into dreaming about being an engineer or astronaut.

    Again, why the focus solely on kids? To do real outreach about the greatness of space, it can’t be about getting more kids excited about engineering or becoming an astronaut. And lets not kid ourselves – its not like there is a clear way to become an astronaut, which doesn’t help

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bennett wrote @ March 16th, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    If Constellation had put this into place 5 years ago, the WH would be buried in letters from school kids demanding that the program continue. It surely needs to put it into place for whatever role it plays in HSF over the next 5 years. ..

    my guess is not.

    I do not know your age…but I grew up in the 60’s (ie single digits) during the “race to the Moon” and while it is accurate that school kids of a certain age have a “gee whiz” view of human spaceflight…that fades pretty fast.

    When I was growing up there was a vision among the people that human spaceflight was part of the “new” America that the election of 1960 signaled…there was even a term “the space age”.

    that simply does not exist now. If there is a “frontier” it is here on earth (at least for kids) being able to get to know places away from their homes (and country) on a level that we could hardly imagine as I grew up. I use to have friends my age in other countries through amateur radio…now on a weekly basis classrooms “video” with classes in all sorts of places…and they are far more wowed with that then watching things in space…

    People at an amazing age these days default to things which are “achievable”. Take a group of kids to the Shuttle simulator…and they look at it as if it was from the stone age. Small children of course are awed…but get much into junior high…and the “techno savy kids” (Opps junior high is middle school) are already so far ahead in terms of computer use then anything that they see at NASA…they just kind of walk away shaking their heads.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bennett wrote @ March 16th, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    Sorry to not be an expert, but could you briefly explain why NASA shouldn’t (or can’t ) be generating excitement about what they are doing? ..

    what kind of excitement do you think is appropriate? High school football game? Olympics?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bennett

    Mr. Oler, Even though I have a 4 year old, you and I are contemporaries. I just got elected to the local school board, my first real chance to make a difference, and I’ll keep your words in mind as I learn how to move an agenda along.

    Thank you.

  • common sense

    “If there is a “frontier” it is here on earth (at least for kids) being able to get to know places away from their homes (and country) ”

    So very true and seemingly so very remote to so many people! Especially remote dare I say to the anti China Constellation huggers!

    “they just kind of walk away shaking their heads.”

    Some argue that the next frontier actually lies in the… Internet. They develop virtual reality there and I am not talking pretty pictures but rather worlds where they have a real impact. Worlds where they adapt their personality and capabilities. Games only? Nope not at all. Lots of people, me included, just don’t get it. The Moon? In their worlds they already landed on this Moon of ours and so many more. Talk about capturing imagination now…

  • Major Tom

    “Major Tom, concerning ‘Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology’ you are correct that this line item is intended to develop an more capable modern RD-180. Boy I just get goose bumps thinking of the incremental improvements possible by polishing yet again a technology that is over fifty years old.”

    RD-180 is not 50-year old technology. It was first used on the Atlas IIA, which dates to the 1990s, not the 1960s.

    Even if you go to the predecessor engine, the RD-170, it was first used on the Energia launch system. That dates to the 1980s, not the 1960s.

    “Regardless, the problem is one of practicality, because once the MSFC program management overhead is deducted there is very little money left over to actually cut metal and fire/fly the engines.”

    Again, the Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology write-up is clearly aimed at a DOD partnership, not an MSFC-exclusive program.

    And even if it was, why does this massive MSFC overhead rule apply to the budget proposal but not to DIRECT?

    “Given that the Administrator is also on the record of saying that we don’t need an HLV until 2020-2030 time frame you can bet this slow boat to China is just that.””

    Bolden said he “wanted” an HLV in the 2020s, not that NASA didn’t need one until that timeframe. Garver showed slides at the Goddard Symposium last week with HLV operations starting before 2025. Per Augustine, that’s years before Ares V. Maybe not as fast as you would like, but a definite improvement.

    “In fact given the tight budgets ahead it’s probably not practical to politically support a line item whose objective extends well beyond the physical life span of most people in Congress. 2025 is also a horrible time demographically to be going to Congress”

    I’d make the same argument about retaining a large, inefficient, heavy lift infrastructure and workforce that NASA foots the bill for exclusively through that timeframe. After paying for that infrastructure and workforce, there may be no budget left to put actual space exploration hardware to put on top of that heavy lifter.

    “I’ve always used the rule of thumb that you need get what you want done in five years or less or face a serious risk of cancellation. Given that important safety tip engineers should break up any development into five year chunks, that while building towards greater objectives are useful and self-justifiable capabilities all by themselves.”

    Maybe I’m dense, but this seems like an argument for building the engine before committing to the vehicle, as the budget proposes.

    “Frankly if you want a new Kero/LOX engine development that is quick, cheap and isn’t ultimately canceled before you finish your better partner is SpaceX.”

    Unlike all the sole-sourced Ares work, nothing prevents them from competing for it.

    “Again my point stands as to what this line item is actually all about.”

    You’re throwing around a lot of unsupported accusations of what the Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology program could be about, but ignoring what the budget document says it is actually about.

    “KSC management was told the same thing, shut up or we will yank your ‘21st Century Launch System’ line item away from you.”

    Evidence? I’m not trying to be mean, but these unsubstantiated rumors are really beneath the DIRECT team.

    “most of the real practical experience is in the Contractor workforce by virtue of the simple fact that they not only dominate in terms of numbers but also are predominately the hands on touch labor of Human Space Flight program.”

    Nothing prevents contractors from working under another company badge, if their skills really are useful.

    “Ironically the already top heavy nature of NASA is about to look like an inverted pyramid once most of the contractors are gone.”

    Maybe, maybe not. COTS clearly hasn’t been run with the same level of civil servant workforce as Shuttle. Presumably Commercial Crew won’t either. On the heavy lift side, the Augustine report specifically references a DOD management model that would be considerably slimmer than even what DIRECT assumes.

    “Look, I’m certainly no fan of the PoR and I think the new initiatives within the President’s current plan are good ones. I just think their should be more balance between what works and can provide us near term beyond LEO capability and what we need over the long haul to lower the cost as we move forward.”

    That’s a fair opinion. But given how tight federal budgets are likely to be in the coming years or couple decades, I’d come down on the side of affordability over the long stretch. I’m willing to wait for human space exploration next decade (which is better than what the POR was going to deliver anyway) or longer if it’s set up to be sustainable this time around. I’m much more fearful of an Apollo/SEI/Constellation repeat.

    “Regardless, we are approaching the point of no return, either we will choose to destroy the Whos or we will not. Hopefully saner minds will prevail in the end.”

    Maybe I’m insane, but given the high carrying costs of those Whos and the fact that NASA has to pay all their bills, I come down on the side of letting Whoville go if it comes to that (as cruel as that might sound).

    “Regardless, at least I will be able to sleep at night knowing that we fought the good fight.”

    That’s all I can ask for on my tombstone.

    FWIW…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bennett wrote @ March 16th, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    Mr. Oler, Even though I have a 4 year old, you and I are contemporaries. I just got elected to the local school board, my first real chance to make a difference, and I’ll keep your words in mind as I learn how to move an agenda along.

    ..

    congratulations on getting elected to the school board. BEfore my time overseas I did the community association and school board gig…and found both efforts both rewarding (and somewhat frustrating…)

    The problem with human spaceflight is that right now it is relevant to no ones life…other then the people who are employed in the program. NASA almost goes out of its way to kill any enthusiasim that might crank up for it. An example.

    I recall one time when an astronaut (they all live around the school district) came to a science class assembly (ie it was honors science/math students) and was giving a go by on the recent mission this person had flown on which including docking to ISS. The phrase “we docked all at 17,500 mph” which is oft repeated by the PAO came out…this was a honors level group…the first question that came up challenged that statement.

    The kids can sit there and video classroom with kids even in South Africa…the first graders in our district use computer based learning…

    I find it amusing (or did anyway) when Parents would come to the school board meetings tell us how we had to teach “this or that” as if they didnt realize now that with the internet kids have access to learning things that defies the control of information.

    The technology NASA might be using is cutting edge to the people on NASA Parkway…but to everyone else. It really isnt all that impressive…and few if any of the folks outside of NASA believe in human spaceflight as a way to change people’s lives.

    enjoy the school board. My wife has forbidden me to run again…(grin) As she put it “havent you been shot at enough?”

    Robert G. Oler

  • Guys NASA is giving somewhere around half a billion to HLV for the next decade (incrementally increasing until the end of the FY2011 budget, presumably continuing until the end of the decade). I would reiterate that, yes, it is obvious that they chose option 5B in the Augustine budget.

    Everyone who is against the new budget must accept that Cx was not flying before 2020 anyway, and that manned flight BEO was unlikely to happen until well after the mid 2020s, if not the 2030s. That’s just how slow and costly Cx was.

    Of course the FY2011 budget cannot reflect significant HLV development. That doesn’t happen until the late 20-teens.

    I personally am in favor of an idea one of my moderators suggested: COTS-E, or COTS Heavy Lift. Yeah, yeah, I know that it’s bad for private space to be totally reliant on government money, etc, etc. But they took $300 million and built a rocket that is capable of servicing ISS (if all goes well). That’s a remarkable use of tax-payer money. Half a billion a year for a decade will mean that NASAs HLV will cost on the order of $5 to $10 billion, which I’d argue is at least twice to four times what private space could pull off.

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ March 16th, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    what we are seeing in my view…is the next step in “flat earth” (to use a term a popular columnist came up with).

    The “South” in the 1950’s60’s could hold on to its last vestige of its peculiar institution until it became public to the rest of America…and then that was it. As national TV spread the pictures of how things were going in Atlanta, Selma, and other places the vast majority of the rest of America looked around and said “not so much”…and it was done.

    Now it did not go quietly just because the rest of the country thought it bad behavior…but that motivated them to do something about it (like send the FBI down to shut it down).

    Perversely as ISS opens up to the “net” in my view the more people will become against human spaceflight…because what they see being done is not much. The lunar landings (oft repeated as some focal point of excitement) died in large part due to the TV coverage. The first one was “wow” and then the rest of it…boring. And Americans started asking “is this what we paid all that money for”.

    NASA is lucky in my view Select has such a small audience.

    Robert G. Oler

  • richardb

    Robert Oler, Payton is no doubt tasking his people to come up with the studies to more precisely answer the question of what constitutes “soar”. Now we know the administration didn’t consider industrial base or national security issues when it cancelled Constellation and the VSE. The Air Force just said so.

    What makes you feel confident that 6 billion over 5 years leads to IOC for commercial? Might it be 9 billion or more? Did the administration produce any docs justifying this number?

    We now know the 2.5 billion closeout price is low, probably by hundreds of millions, could be more.

    No national security examination; no industrial base examination; little more than hand waving on costs. Yet you still want to ride this unicorn to the promised land of LEO for the masses.
    Obviously a plan born of such flimsy beginnings is good enough for you. For me its not.

  • common sense

    @Robert Oler:

    No one ever tried and I mean really tried to involve the public in any of that. Hence the poor appreciation by the public. Look at the most visible aspect of it all: Astronaut. 3000 qualified applications for 200 to 300 interviews to 5 to 20 slots. Now explain to me how they decide anyone of the 200/300 is not qualified, save for medicals. If you are as crazy as me you will still give it a shot but the work, the choices and sacrifices it requires are not what anyone would like to do for an essentially zero chance to make it. The day Virgin Galatic, SpaceX and the others make it is possibly the day some “regular” people will fly not because they have 20 PhDs, fly comabt missions, have an MD and know the right people (emphasis here) but because they can pay! I believe I read on NASAWatch once that Buzz Aldrin was commiserating about he and the few others being the real astronauts. He may be right in as much as Bleriot and Lindbergh and the other pioneers may have been the “real” pilots. But had they stayed the only real pilots we’d still use the train to travel or worse the car. And they’d still be flying “super advanced” single engine aircraft barely making it across the water extent of their choice. This glamour is gone never to be repeated. Let’s have another kind of glamour…

  • common sense

    “Now we know the administration didn’t consider industrial base or national security issues when it cancelled Constellation and the VSE. The Air Force just said so.”

    Are you saying that the Air Force holds the industrial base and naational security? How do you know Robert Gates was not consulted? Since when does NASA work for the DoD? Or conversely? You just go with the pundits and have no clue what you are talking about. I for one don’t know that DoD or the industry was not consulted and I say so, do you?

  • Major Tom

    “Now we know the administration didn’t consider industrial base or national security issues when it cancelled Constellation and the VSE.”

    By law, NASA is a civilian, not a national security, agency. DOD has to pay for its own industrial base costs.

    “What makes you feel confident that 6 billion over 5 years leads to IOC for commercial? Might it be 9 billion or more? Did the administration produce any docs justifying this number?”

    The final report of the Augustine Committee and truckloads of supporting documentation.

    Duh…

    “Obviously a plan born of such flimsy beginnings is good enough for you. For me its not.”

    Are you sure, given your support of Constellation and its “flimsy beginnings” in ESAS?

    FWIW…

  • Vladislaw

    “Right now there’s nothing in the HSF field that can be profitable except crew transport to the ISS”

    Right now, the program of record is Constellation, the best profits currently, in human space flight, is getting a cost plus contract from NASA, regardless if it flys in 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035.

    Having NASA switch to a fixed price per seat cost, that can also provide services to individuals with big check books, will be a win win.

    Bigelow is planning on a 2015-2016 launch of the Sundancer module right about the time commercial space access companies should be coming online. With two BA 330’s by 2020. I have a feeling, the ISS will be insignificant by 2020 as far as the total amount of human traffic it sees per year compared to what commercial does.

  • “The final report of the Augustine Committee and truckloads of supporting documentation…”

    Augustine is an Obama tool! Obama lies…Augustine lies!

    I don’t buy all of this extended schedule stuff. What we need is a special retirement option to cut a lot of the “dead wood” in the NASA organization. Then we can get the Ares back on track. There is no good reason waste all the money spent so far. The SRO will soften the blow to the NASA people and limit the political backlash. There is just no way that Ares I should cost $30 to $50 billion.

    “died in large part due to the TV coverage”

    Nonsense … it died because the N-1 blowup! Anyway TV is now longer a threat because they can tune into the comedy channel or something.

  • red

    richardb: “Now we know the administration didn’t consider industrial base or national security issues when it cancelled Constellation and the VSE.”

    The current Administration didn’t cancel the VSE. That essentially happened when the ESAS version of Constellation took power. The VSE was centered around science, security, and economic benefits, commercial and international participation, robotic precursors, technology innovation, and sustainability. Constellation offered little to none of all of those things. The current plan is a lot closer to the VSE than the ESAS-derived plan ever was. I suspect that it will get even closer as the details get worked out.

  • red

    richardb: “Now we know the administration didn’t consider industrial base or national security issues when it cancelled Constellation and the VSE.”

    As for considering industrial base and national security issues, we already know that the Augustine Committee gathered and presented information on these topics. We already know NASA consulted with the DoD.

    Here’s a recent document from the OSTP on “Space Launch Propulsion”:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/ostp/press_release_files/OSTP%20Letter%20on%20Space%20Launch%20Propulsion-12%2022%2009.pdf

    Some excerpts:

    The document is “the assessment of the Director as to the capacity of the United States industrial base for development and production of engines to meet United States Government and commercial requirements for space launch vehicles.”

    The document was made in part from an assessment by the STPI, which is “operated by the Institute for Defense Analyses”. The assessment included “information and insights presented by representatives of nine companies, includign all of the domestic propulsion and launch vehicle companies cited in the report” plus others. “Further input was received from government launch customers and program managers throughout the Department of Defense” and NASA, plus supporting sources.

    The report notes the importance of “defense and national security needs, science and technology, weather forecasting, and positioning, navigation and timing services” – all essential for national security, and all better supported with the new NASA approach than with ESAS-style Constellation.

    The report notes that “this U.S. industrial sector is under significant stress, due largely to low demand”. Now, if NASA is going to start using EELVs, Falcons, Taurus II, and other commercial rockets for its new ISS cargo needs, ISS crew needs, Earth observation satellites, technology demonstration missions, and robotic precursors, maybe that low demand will no longer be reality!

    The report also notes that U.S. government launch rates have declined, and under the old ESAS NASA plan were expected to stay at a low rate. That may be changing to some extent with the new NASA plan that actually launches a respectable number of rockets.

    The report mentions the Russian Atlas V engines: “… as an outcome of the decision, a substantial fraction of U.S. propulsion demand is now – and will continue to be for some time – filled by foreign suppliers. … This dependence on foreign suppliers contributes to substantial overcapacity for U.S. space launch propulsion production, making it even more difficult for U.S. propulsion providers to sustain the industrial base in this area. … industry-wide capacity utilization appears to be roughly 50% or less.”

    Note that the 2011 budget proposes doing something about that with the RD-180 niche-filler, unlike the Constellation plan.

    Also: “…low volumes have led to a focus on using existing and well understood approaches wherever possible and have eliminated many of the incentives for creating new technology. While this progamatic approach will keep near-term launch vehicle development costs as low as possible, it also reduces (potentially to the point of eliminating) the ability of the U.S. industry base to identify new, potentially game-changing propulsion technologies without significant government investments.”

    So … it looks like there are 2 solutions to this problem in the new plan – have NASA partially address the low volume and actually get U.S. industry to launch lots of things into space (rather than think about it for year after year in the ever-delayed Ares scheme) and invest heavily in new technology, including space access and in-space propulsion.

  • Robert G. Oler

    richardb wrote @ March 16th, 2010 at 5:49 pm

    Robert Oler, Payton is no doubt tasking his people to come up with the studies to more precisely answer the question of what constitutes “soar”. Now we know the administration didn’t consider industrial base or national security issues when it cancelled Constellation and the VSE. The Air Force just said so…

    if this is what Gary is doing then he should have done it before making the statements he made.

    We dont know that the administration didnt consider the industrial base…in fact I dont see any concerns about the industrial base period. Cancelling Ares buying more EELV’s does nothing but help lower launch cost for the rest of the government.

    sorry not a big deal. It is like saying “we went to the Moon to develop tang”

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ March 16th, 2010 at 5:57 pm

    I concur completely. At some point in the history of post Apollo NASA they should have figured out a way to “normalize” the astronaut group (although with people like Nowak perhaps they have in a Fox entertainment sort of way!)…and normalize the entire work force.

    But to do that one has to have a mission that has some function of making the rest of the country better…and NASA has no interest in doing that. Just like Bush and his thuds were trying to out Reagan Reagan…the twits at NASA mostly have a “we wish we had done Apollo” mindest…sadly they didnt have a chance at doing it (ie they are mostly inept).

    Robert G. Oler

  • googaw

    What is lacking in human spaceflight is not a market.

    A market is exactly what’s lacking. After decades of touting the supposed commercial possibilities of HSF, over 99% of the HSF “market” is government space agencies launching astronauts for the sake of launching astronauts. There’s been a ludicrous amount of hype about orbital tourism and microgravity science for many decades. This hype has won many fat NASA contracts, but only a minuscule number of highly subsidized private customers. It’s NASA propaganda that has turned into religion. It is not real commerce.

    As for launch costs reduction, it is sheer economic fantasy to think that SpaceX or anybody else, especially when NASA is their main customer, is in the foreseeable future going to lower costs by the two orders of magnitude needed to make unsubsidized orbital tourism viable. As Stephen pointed out, depending on your assumptions Dragon is as expensive per kilogram of cargo as the Shuttle. Falcon 9 will probably be a nice step forward but it is clearly not the dramatic orders-of-magnitude reduction in launch costs that the daydreamers have been hoping for all these years and would be required to make the Von Braun/NASA HSF plans more than the preposterous economic fantasy that they have been since the Collier’s articles.

    It’s quite unclear that anybody beyond a handful of billionaires want to tour LEO. By sharp contrast, comsats became an unsubsidized and profitable business within a few years of the launch of the first one. They served a real and very old market, namely the need for communications.

    All the hype about orbital tourism and microgravity science is what it has been for decades — propaganda that serves to motivate NASA gigaprojects and win the resulting fat NASA contracts — “commercial” or otherwise. It hasn’t and won’t in the foreseeable future produce real industry that pays taxes instead of soaking them up. And why obsess about these NASA-generated memes when there are so many real commercial space businesses?

  • Robert G. Oler

    googaw wrote @ March 16th, 2010 at 10:56 pm

    What is lacking in human spaceflight is not a market.

    A market is exactly what’s lacking…

    well we disagree…again I think “What is lacking in human spaceflight is demonstrating that it could be done and was practical and had some commercial (and hence military) value.”

    we cannot do any different from what has been done the last 40 years with the current trends. Trying something new has its perils but that is what courage is for.

    See what happens in the next five to ten years. We cannot be any worse off then we are now.

    Robert G. Oler

  • googaw

    Robert, Google “opportunity cost.” When we spend money on bad ideas rather than good ideas, we are worse off.

  • Robert G. Oler

    googaw wrote @ March 16th, 2010 at 11:52 pm

    Robert, Google “opportunity cost.” When we spend money on bad ideas rather than good ideas, we are worse off…

    that would be the definition of “DIRECT/ARES/ORION” and anything else from the last 40 years.

    Robert G. Oler

  • One thing that is totally missing from the new space plan is any mention of nuclear propulsion. This is a must if we are going to accomplish any long term goals.

  • googaw

    that would be the definition of “DIRECT/ARES/ORION” and anything else from the last 40 years.

    In terms of HSF I don’t disagree with this. The problem is that what Exploration Directorate is expecting to do in the next forty years is not all that different from what it has been doing or trying to do for last forty: using oversized rockets to blast astronauts off on gold-plated spectaculars that don’t accomplish much of anything actually useful, accompanied by nonsensical hype about hypothetical markets that really only constitute fat NASA contracts. The recent budget does have some steps in the right direction:

    * Smaller rockets with finer granularity launches to increase flexibility and allow HSF on smaller budgets.

    * A better kind of government contracting (not really “commercial”, but better than cost-plus).

    * More research, to lower costs and increase capabilities in the future.

    * More robotic missions directed at least in part towards applications rather than pure science.

    But these are just baby steps. It’s like painting over a hole in the wall rather than replacing the wall. What the Exploration Directorate needs is a full reboot. We have a long way to go before economic reality meets the E.D. Meanwhile, the Loral/SpaceX deal being the latest example, real commerce is humming along fine regardless of the weeping and gnashing of teeth at the E.D.

  • Major Tom,

    Concerning Rocket Engines, throwing hot gasses out the back end of combustion chamber with a nozzle is ‘very’ old technology. My point is that all the tweaks the ‘people’ are calling advanced technology is in fact most definitely ‘not’ advanced technology. If it’s not a true game changers than why bother. What works is already paid for. Remember in any business case the future improvement must pay back the investment or you are loosing ground. You’re better off just putting that money in the bank and using the interest to offset future costs. Improving the existing cost/performance of existing of rocket engines by just a few percentage points (ie all you are going to get based on the limits of materials, manufacturing and physics at this point) is just not worth it.

    I’d rather put that same money into propellant depots, ISRU, Propellantless engines, faster than light communication (ie using entanglement) etc. These are true game changers that if they work will significantly lower the cost and increase capability.

    Concerning Lori’s charts on HLV, I learned a long time ago to discount what people advocate they want to do decades from now. There is no time like the present. I just pay attention to what they are advocating doing today. What Lori advocates doing today is that we should shut down the STS and thereby starve the ISS, destroy a perfectly adequate $40 Billion dollar HLV infrastructure and walk away from over $9 billion dollars worth of beyond LEO development progress. Either we choose support the ISS mission, build upon the existing beyond Earth capable Orion and SDHLV Jupiter now or we choose to abandon all the above until the baby boomers, like Lori, are in the ground, there is no third path available to us over a decade from now.

    Concerning NASA Overhead, this is precisely why you need a critical funding threshold in order to make progress on ‘any’ front whether it be warmed over rocket technology, Jupiter/Orion development or space propellant depots supplied using Lunar ISRU. This overhead saps the life out of your development if you have 100 different things you are trying to do all at once. It’s better to focus your funding on a smaller well thought-out sequence of capabilities that all build upon one another over time.

    Concerning KSC, this is 100% true. I’m sure you don’t seriously believe that DC/NASA politics is some kind I love Barney after school special, do you? I have first hand and second hand accounts of significantly more damming stuff that makes this look like some kid hitting up another kid for lunch money. You may think this stuff is beneath the DIRECT team and I agree with you since our objectives are clearly stated in full view of the public and provide no personal financial benefits to us, but I assure you these tactics are definitely not below those who stand to lose face or billions of dollars on how this ultimately plays out. What’s funny is to see how happy, smiling and magnanimous some these same people are in front of the camera and what little egotistical monsters they become after the press leaves. It’s not unlike a battered wife after she manages to convince the police that her phone call was all just a big mistake and overreaction by her. This unfortunately happens thousands of times a day in some people’s personal lives, why don’t you believe its close cousin happens at national political level as well? I’m still holding out hope that Charlie Bolden can clean up this mess where no one can state what they honestly believe for fear of their jobs or in my case NASA contracts.

    Concerning Augustine Cost Numbers, do think its ‘reasonable’ to produce a cost estimate for the development of a SDHLV that approaches the total from scratch development cost of the Space Shuttle? I think the CBO’s number for of $12 Billion for a Jupiter-241 equivalent was much closer to the mark. Since in our plan we delay the EDS development $8 Billion is the number we are carrying for the Jupiter-130 which just so happens is close to what a reasonable modification of the Space Shuttle development cost actuals would predict ‘with’ a cost safety margin. You can download our letter to the Augustine commission regarding this whole twisted affair from the link below.

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/383305main_CostEstimates_SDHLV_Rev1.pdf

    Concerning ‘inefficient’ Heavy-Lift, this canard is simple not true based on basic facts and math I have shown over and over again. STS is ‘less’ expensive than the COTS-CRS contracts right now on a $/kg to ISS basis alone even if one doesn’t consider the value of the crew rotation now going on the spot market at $80 million/seat. STS gets even less expensive in the form of the Jupiter/Orion systems once the dead weight and expense of the Orbiter is removed. In fact the cost per kg to LEO with crew (at no extra charge) falls to less than $5K/kg at only four flights per year ($2Billion/(4×100,000kg)).

    Look if the Government really wanted get the launch services cost to orbit down they could do it with a stroke of pen. All they would need to do is to stop forcing commercial customers to pay a portion of the Government’s strategic fixed cost (i.e. ULA important role in our Nation’s Security) every time they fly. The Government will pay this fixed expense regardless of whether there is a commercial flight or not. If the Government did that then the price for launch services would drop to below $1K/kg based on what the true incremental cost of each launch is once the fixed costs are paid for. Since the government is the dominate customer this is an arrangement they could bake into the contact if they wanted to (i.e. incremental cost plus 10% profit for all non-government launches). The significant expansion in the utilization of Space (i.e. the other 90% of the Space Industry not related to launch services of which both ULA parent organizations also participate in) would more than offset in the form of new payroll taxes and trade balance that the incremental strategic cost savings to the Government now enjoys by forcing the commercial sector to pick a portion of their strategic cost when these commercial applications manage to close their business case at these high $10-20K/kg to orbit prices.

    The above is yet another message I’m trying to get across to our Nation’s policy makers. Maybe you can help?

  • googaw

    The economic fantasy doubles down. Now we just use “strokes of a pen”, accounting tricks to magically reduce launch costs!

    Back in this galaxy, Iceland is bankrupt. California, Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain are nearly so. Moody’s is warning that it may have to reduce the U.S.’s AAA credit rating on its debt, formerly known as “the risk free asset”.

    Machines are far cheaper than HSF and getting less expensive every year. There will be plenty of robots going to Mars in our generation, but no people. Likewise, astronauts can’t do what may need to be done on the moon at reasonable costs, while robots and teleoperated machines often can and often will. All real commerce is unmanned and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

    HSF is far less useful than the money we currently spend on it and in the coming decade or more of government financial crisis its budgets will be reduced accordingly. Since HLVs like DIRECT or Ares V are useless for anything other than vastly overfunded astronaut extravaganzas, they are economic fantasies. Astronauts and space tourists will fly on the same kinds of rockets satellites and robots use or they won’t fly at all. Get used to it.

  • Googaw, it only reduces launch costs in the first phase for commercial applications. The Government’s yearly cost stays about the same more or less that is the whole idea. Provided that the cost to orbit is a key bottleneck preventing the significant expansion of the commercial utilization of space (the primary theory underpinning the alt space policy) then the Government could then switch roles in Phase 2. Basically in Phase 2, Space is now dominated by Commercial applications enabling the government now to just pay for a launch services at the competitively driven market rate when it needs it (i.e. like buy fleet cars from Ford Motor Company). In the end all early taxpayer support of any new industry is a self-serving objective if done correctly. Since we are going to be launching stuff into orbit anyway why not see if we can expand the tax base while we are at it?

    Concerning the current financial situation I agree but the Space Program is responsible for less than 1% of how we got into this mess. It thereby represents less than 1% of the solution as well.

    The Astronauts vs Robot debate is nothing new and is left unresolved even the President’s (Humans in LEO only for the next two decades) plan as well. Which I equate as reckless endangerment at great expense.

    What we have proposed is a plan that attempts to find a balance between ‘all’ extremes in this debate. Unfortunately when one attempts to break up a fight between junk yard dogs your’re likely to bitten by all dogs in the fight. Along the trail you can always tell who the pioneers were because they have arrows in the front and the back.

    Fire and bite away.

  • googaw

    a plan that attempts to find a balance between ‘all’ extremes in this debate.

    Sorry, a monster HLV is not a balance between anything. It is an extreme, and an outrageously frivolous one.

  • common sense

    “One thing that is totally missing from the new space plan is any mention of nuclear propulsion. This is a must if we are going to accomplish any long term goals.”

    NOT TRUE: Please read everything before posting things like that!

    BTW: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/428356main_Exploration.pdf

    “Advanced In-Space Propulsion: NASA will work with partners in industry as appropriate, to conduct foundational research to study the requirements and potential designs for advanced high-energy in-space propulsion systems to support deep-space human exploration, and to reduce travel time between Earth’s orbit and future destinations for human activity. These technologies could include nuclear thermal propulsion, solar and nuclear electric propulsion, plasma propulsion, and other high-energy and/or high-efficiency propulsion concepts. One or more concepts may mature to the level of a demonstration on a robotic precursor or Flagship mission.”

  • common sense

    “although with people like Nowak perhaps they have in a Fox entertainment sort of way!)…”

    It is a sad moment for the astronaut corps but also a reality check. These people are just that i.e. “people”. They have had often an execptional carreer and go to do extraordinary things. Still genetically they are only humans. Under enough stress they will break. Some can push the limit and some can fake they can push the limit. The problem often is you only know when they are past the limit. Usually astronauts are fairly sharp people and can figure to some extent what to or not to answer in a psychological assessment. And it is not becaue they put you in the “escape” contraption for a little while that they can find out your aptitude at stress exposure. I will even venture that combat pilots may have similar dispositions, especially after combat missions: Okay they survived but it does not mean unscathed… Anyway a long topic here…

  • Googaw,

    A 75mT High Volume SDHLV (ie the Jupiter-130) that will still make America second to none in the world, composed of largely paid for launch infrastructure, tooling, flight proven hardware, and workforce experience, from STS is not outrageously frivolous.

    Actually its outrageously frivolous to destroy this taxpayer paid for $40 billion dollar HLV industrial base while planning to go back to them a decade later and ask them to fund the development America’s third heavy-lift launch system.

    The true irony is that the specifications of this new ‘advanced technology’ (RP-1/LOX) HLV are little different than the SaturnV. You remember the first HLV we foolishly destroyed because it was also too expensive and didn’t have enough ‘advanced’ technology.

    Back then the justification was that an advanced RLV with airliner like flight rates would save the day. We are a lot smarter now. Now its alt space will show use the errors of our ways by using the same technology only with better lighting and marketing materials.

    Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen Metschan wrote @ March 17th, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    Concerning Lori’s charts on HLV, I learned a long time ago to discount what people advocate they want to do decades from now..

    and this is why we should discount DIRECT…it has no mission unless one figures out that the mission is to return to the Moon or go to Mars or do something else that there is no political support for in the US (would you like the polls?)…and even at best those are ‘decades’ away.

    I personally ditch DIRECT because your cost numbers are from fanatsy island…and that is why the AC shrugged as well.

    Robert G. Oler

  • One or more concepts may mature to the level of a demonstration on a robotic precursor or Flagship mission.

    OK, it is mentioned but that isn’t a determined program. I’d guess we will get some research and a small VASIRM powered by solar. We need a space nuclear reactor to really get a good interplanetary HSF capability.

Leave a Reply to common sense 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>