One can expect the appropriations hearings this week to touch upon concerns from some members that NASA is already taking steps to shut down Constellation, contrary to language in the FY2010 appropriations bill for the agency. The Orlando Sentinel examines the issue and finds that while NASA is terminating some planned procurements, it is continuing others, such as a $34.5-million contract for work on the Ares 1 upper stage. A NASA spokesman tells that paper that the agency is “fully complying” with the law, but is refraining from starting new work or expanding the scope of existing work related to Constellation.
While many of his fellow former astronauts have spoken out against the administration’s new direction for NASA, Apollo 14’s Edgar Mitchell, is largely supportive of the new plan in an essay in EE Times. “A new entrepreneurial spirit, coupled with NASA’s years of practical experience sending humans into space, can free humankind from its rut in low-Earth orbit and get it back to exploring the solar system,” he writes.
While Mitchell is comfortable with NASA’s planned greater reliance on the commercial sector, Buffalo News columnist Douglas Turner isn’t. “Now the Obama administration wants to put private contractors in the driver’s seat and transform NASA into some kind of a passive, benign observer of what the contractors do, or connected wheeler-dealers,” he writes in an essay Monday. Companies that could benefit from the change in policy, specifically SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, “both have fulfilled the main requirement for doing business here. They are both big campaign contributors.”
On the other hand, Planetary Society executive director Lou Friedman endorses NASA’s new direction in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times on Monday. “Declaring a destination is not enough. We have to prepare our way into the solar system, and the flexible path defined in 2009 by the Augustine Committee… will do just that,” he writes. As for the agency’s new direction: “Let’s give it a chance.”
OK, first let us acknowledge the automatic responses of Oler, gewgaw, etc. Yes you are all mad at NASA and are happy to see turmoil and chaos.
For us that would like to see people proceed into space – we are in the worst of situations right now, due to the high ranked appointed amateurs we have who are trying to make this transition. We are stuck with the current budget – which among other things spends money on Orion piece parts, etc. This is stimulus money. So we are buying parts (and cannot stop) for a cancelled program. The current budget will certainly be continued into early next year, so people will be working on contracts and work for cancelled programs.
Sure our resident critics will say that the people making these decisions are experienced, and certainly Charlie Bolden is. They have been cut out of the decision making process. The White House takes the credit for the confusion and waste. If they are not amateurs, they certainly have been acting like they are.
And Ed Mitchell is very smart, but the current direction appears to hand human space flight over to commercial companies while the NASA folks all go off to do some nebulous science. Will they be available to transfer their corporate knowledge? Apparently they will be busy with the new stuff they are gonna be working on.
Charlesthespaceguy
“Sure our resident critics will say that the people making these decisions are experienced, and certainly Charlie Bolden is. They have been cut out of the decision making process”
Charlie Bolden disagrees with you…who are you to tell him he is wrong?
Robert G. Oler
On the other hand, Planetary Society executive director Lou Friedman endorses NASA’s new direction in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times on Monday. “Declaring a destination is not enough. We have to prepare our way into the solar system, and the flexible path defined in 2009 by the Augustine Committee… will do just that,†he writes. As for the agency’s new direction: “Let’s give it a chance. 
this is pretty insighful.
It is hard to argue in my view that we can do worse then what has been done since VSE was initiated.
Plus I never understand why some people call it a space program when its just a few NASA astronauts blowing soap bubbles and bouncing around in microgee…and with Ares all we got was A LOT of people working on a rocket that is has to be the biggest resource waster since the V-2.
Robert g. Oler
I think for the purpose of this discussion it would be helpful to read Wayne Hales latest blog entry, Civics 101, especially the 11th paragraph down starting with; “National policy is made at one place in America: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That is as it should be.”.
“We are stuck with the current budget – which among other things spends money on Orion piece parts, etc… So we are buying parts (and cannot stop) for a cancelled program… people will be working on contracts and work for cancelled programs… The White House takes the credit for the confusion and waste.”
Senator Shelby inserted the language in last year’s omnibus appropriations bill that forces NASA to continue ongoing Constellation contracts despite the program’s termination. The White House has nothing to do with it.
Don’t make things up.
“… high ranked appointed amateurs… If they are not amateurs, they certainly have been acting like they are.”
The PhD of the President’s science advisor and head of OSTP is in aeroengineering. The branch chief that oversees NASA’s budget at OMB is an aeroengineer who worked for years in NASA’s IG office. There are multiple other career staff engineers and scientists that oversee NASA and its budget in OSTP, OMB, and other White House offices.
Don’t make things up.
“Sure our resident critics will say that the people making these decisions are experienced, and certainly Charlie Bolden is. They have been cut out of the decision making process.”
How do you know? Were you allowed to sit in on Bolden’s meeting with the President in late January? Can you read their minds?
Don’t make things up.
“the current direction appears to hand human space flight over to commercial companies while the NASA folks all go off to do some nebulous science.”
How is HLV development “nebulous science”?
How are in-space cryo management, ISRU demonstration, and other missions “nebulous science”?
How are robotic precursor missions “nebulous science”?
Don’t make things up.
“Will they be available to transfer their corporate knowledge? Apparently they will be busy with the new stuff they are gonna be working on.”
So you want to fire more Shuttle workers than planned so they’ll have more time on their hands to “transfer corporate knowledge”?
Really?
FWIW…
Certainly Jeff Foust, who supplies this site for our thoughts, does not want us to get into a silly personal argument. So I’ll try to keep this at a high level of professionalism.
Some of us can see that we have a two part discussion – 1. what group supplies launch vehicles and capsules/vehicles that contain people; and 2. if we are gonna make a change from government to commercial – how to do it?
1. (IMHO) Certainly commercial suppliers are ready to deliver rockets. Atlas/Delta have a long history.
2. How to make this switch? (IMHO) The way we are doing it is enormously wasteful of people’s talents and enormously wasteful of materials. Major Tom challenges me on – did the normal funding process get bypassed? This shows that he has never managed a program and has no idea of a large funding organization. Certainly the JSC Center Director has clearly stated that he was surprised by the Friday heads up that Orion was being cancelled. The Center Director is deeply involved in the old “POP Call” process and this shows that Mike Coats was not. No clearer evidence is needed that the implementing organizations were not consulted and not informed. Now they are handed a budget and have to figure out how it fits. This is wasteful and amateur way to run an organization. So many of his flimsy statements should be hooted down similarly. People that want to see the people of the world proceed smoothly into becoming a true spacefaring civilization should be loudly criticizing this manner of making a change.
MrEarl should consider reading the history of the US – we do not have a King as I recall. The person who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania implements the budget as passed by the Congress. Ask Sen Nelson of Florida if he should just do as the President says. Why people bother to voice such obviously wrong opinions baffles me.
And Oler of course wants to see people go into space, but all of these smart folks who have done it for decades are just blowing soap bubbles????
Unfortunately I must hide my identity, maybe one of these days we can have a large face to face and exchange thoughts.
@Major Tom
“The PhD of the President’s science advisor and head of OSTP is in aeroengineering. The branch chief that oversees NASA’s budget at OMB is an aeroengineer who worked for years in NASA’s IG office. There are multiple other career staff engineers and scientists that oversee NASA and its budget in OSTP, OMB, and other White House offices.â€
Just because a person is in aeroengineering or have a long career in science does not mean that the person is a competent decision maker or a skilled leader.
Don’t make things up.
For us that would like to see people proceed into space – we are in the worst of situations right now
You are in the worst of situations now because of the economically idiotic ideas you have been pursuing until now. For example, using rockets specially made for astronauts that no other space users can afford to use. For example, gold-plated safety in what is an inherently life-threatening business. For example, pursuing “visions” that depend on substantial increases in future budgets when we are entering an era of sovereign debt troubles. The taxpayers and creditors are tired of funding your useless fantasies to such extravagant degrees. Real users of space are tired of seeing their budgets cut in order to fund these lame attempts to reify old science fiction. Learn to live within a reasonable budget like the rest of humanity or forget about seeing your precious astronauts fly. Machines are doing the useful work in space anyway, so practical people will not miss your “real-life” pulp heroes.
CharlesTheSpaceGuy wrote @ March 23rd, 2010 at 12:02 pm
interesting post and a thoughtful one.
I would respond in two ways.
First…it doesnt surprise me that the NASA leadership was bypassed in this decision. If “I” were doing it, I would not have told them until the very last minute. NASA leadership; Shannon, Coats, the entire lot of them is the most dysfunctional group of people who I have ever seen run a federal agency.
They have no sense of mission, no sense of anything other then human spaceflight as “an entitlement” that they alone are the keepers of the flame of. This sense exist in other place in the federal government…for instance it is in the military (people were dying in Iraq riding in vehicles ill suited for urban warfare and folks in The Pentagon were willing to wait for Lockmarts stupid urban combat vehicle…which still hasnt come)…but this sense of project entitlement permeates NASA and human spaceflight…and is fed by its managers.
As evidence of that I cite Ares 1. Ignore Griffins bad choices…but NASA management (of which people like Shannon and Coats are illustrative even if outside of specific loops) acted about the urgency of building Ares before the shuttle stopped flying…about like Linda H acted on the urgency of reviewing the data of the foam coming off.
These people are just useless if ones goal is greater then more tax dollars every year.
and to the second point, no I dont think as a rule our astronauts have done much more then blow soap bubbles in space…particularly for the dollars spent on the program. It is really not their fault they are part of this program mentality…but in the end at somepoint they should have been pushing to do more and to do it less expensively…because what they have done so far has almost no value for cost…
Human spaceflight is expensive, because NASA has made it that way. And 14 people have died in human spaceflight; because NASA let that happen for reasons which have nothing to do with rocket science; but instead basic competence.
When called on it they all retreat behind “space is hard”.
I dont know what Charlie is going to do after he gets his space program; but in my view a prudent step would be to form the “directorate of failed managers” take all the modules that use to be going to the space station(s) and are now playground equipment… and put all the folks who are now maanging programs in charge of that.
Robert G. Oler
MoonExploration wrote @ March 23rd, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Just because a person is in aeroengineering or have a long career in science does not mean that the person is a competent decision maker or a skilled leader…
As Griffin and a lot of current NASA management illustrate
Robert G. Oler
Funny what is going on. In my case I usually agree with Major Tom and Robert Oler. I usually disagree most notably with Rand Simberg (on everything but space) and googaw (on everything?). But when Rand produces first hand knowledge of space and googaw displays common sense so to speak I have to agree with them both. I love HSF but HSF has been a blood sucking monster to other NASA activities for the past 6 years, at least. This is an attempt to fix it, market or no market, robotics or not.
I am dismayed at the personal attacks of the lunatics (could not help sorry, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunatic) against the WH and administration competences and in particular Lori Garver. Yet the same people expect the WH to deliver what they want. Ridiculous. Even worse, the same people cannot even see that the new plan essentially is the VSE without the dates and immediate destinations. Dates and destinations that could not be achieve with the VSE, let alone Constellation.
Good luck living in your bubbles!
Keith at NASAWatch once asked “can’t we live together?” or something like that. I guess not. Too bad because if we want HSF to be successful we’ll need everyone to help.
My daily moment of naivete.
Charles: “Major Tom challenges me on – did the normal funding process get bypassed?… Certainly the JSC Center Director has clearly stated that he was surprised by the Friday heads up that Orion was being cancelled. The Center Director is deeply involved in the old “POP Call†process and this shows that Mike Coats was not.”
The POP call is a just that — it’s a call from NASA HQ to the programs and field centers for what they think their funding priorities and needs should be. NASA HQ uses the POP call to construct its budget request to the White House (OMB specifically). The White House budget process is embargoed. When the NASA POP is over at the end of the summer, the center directors don’t necessarily know what budget HQ sent to OMB in September. And they certainly don’t know what the OMB passback is around Thanksgiving or are part of the subsequent negotiations over the holidays (which apparently went all the way to the POTUS this year).
“No clearer evidence is needed that the implementing organizations were not consulted and not informed.”
Coats was consulted during the POP process. But he and his predecessors are not necessarily involved in final construction of the NASA HQ budget request and they’re certainly not involved in embargoed White House budget discussions.
Coats was informed when he and everyone else was suppossed to be — when the budget embargo was lifted in early February.
“Now they are handed a budget and have to figure out how it fits.”
No duh… that’s what happens as a result of the annual budget process in any organization. It’s part and parcel of being a program or institutional manager in any organization.
“This is wasteful and amateur way to run an organization.”
There’s nothing wasteful or amaterish about terminating a capsule that the Augustine Committee itself warned was wrongly sized and operationally too expensive. That’s responsible management and leadership.
There’s nothing wasteful or amaterish about telling Coats or any other center director about a program termination in the President’s budget the day that the budget embargo is lifted. That embargo has stood for decades to preserve integrity in the White House decision process and keep it as free of political influences as possible.
Shelby’s clumsy attempt to tie the executive branch’s hands in last year’s omnibus appropriations act is wasteful. Based on the Augustine report last fall, Constellation stood a good chance of termination and instead of letting that process go forward, Shelby instead chose to ensure that more taxpayer dollars would be spent in Alabama by forcing NASA to continue spending money on contracts for a terminated program.
“So many of his flimsy statements should be hooted down similarly.”
Where are my other statements “flimsy”? Specifically?
“This shows that he has never managed a program”
You’d lose that bet.
And besides, the “POP Call” is a NASA process and term. How do you know that I don’t manage programs for a military space organization or in the private sector?
Don’t talk about things you know nothing about.
“and has no idea of a large funding organization.”
No, it shows that you don’t know what you’re talking about when you use the term “POP Call”.
Don’t make things up.
“People that want to see the people of the world proceed smoothly into becoming a true spacefaring civilization should be loudly criticizing this manner of making a change.”
If you didn’t like the Orion termination, then you need to argue Orion’s continuation on its merits, specifically addressing the Augustine Committee’s criticism of Orion. Don’t take an unrelated term like the POP call that you know little about and make up statements about it that aren’t true and have nothing to do with the Orion termination decision.
“The person who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania implements the budget as passed by the Congress.”
Historically, on every major change in NASA’s human space flight programs — from Apollo to Shuttle to Freedom to ISS — the White House leads and Congress follows.
“all of these smart folks who have done it for decades are just blowing soap bubbles????”
Those folks, some of whom are very smart, have run Shuttle for decades. But even they couldn’t overcome its fundatmental flaws — STS has been run at incredibly high cost and no inconsiderable loss of life. Moreover, despite multiple attempts with X-33, SLI, OSP, and now Constellation, these folks havn’t succeeded in getting a new, viable human space transport system fielded, or even to the launch pad. The are both positive _and_ negative lessons to be learned from this history and experience. Moreover, given the comparatively high efficiency with which the EELVs were fielded and Falcon/Dragon and Taurus II/Cygnus are being fielded, it’s not apparent that this team is the right or cost-effective one to go to anymore for ETO transport. They’re skills are probably better spent developing the types of deep space systems that industry (or anyone else) has never built before.
MoonExploration: “Just because a person is in aeroengineering or have a long career in science does not mean that the person is a competent decision maker or a skilled leader.”
The other poster called these individuals “high ranked appointed amateurs.” They’re clearly professionals, not amateurs.
The other poster didn’t reference decisionmaking or leadership. Don’t make things up.
FWIW…
common sense wrote @ March 23rd, 2010 at 1:50 pm
I dont think we all can get along…there are just basic fundamental differences.
Look, there is probably no one here whose politics diverge more in terms of national issues then Rand Simberg and I. We probably (I guess) have even some personal issues as well (or at least it seems that way to me)…
but when it comes to space politics and policy Simberg at least (and I think he does more then this) has policies that are consistent and logical in their thought train…and exist on the plane of technological reality. When this effort (the AC) started I disagreed with Simberg on the concept and importance of fuel depots…but reading his stuff he makes the case logically and with a technical coherence that has the stuff of making policy.
(he has actually brought me around on that).
Where the disconnect comes to me, is when people make arguments that are incoherent on almost all realms. The argument that “the Chinese are going to check our passports when they control the moon” is simply nuts. The only thing that this can justify is actions based on our fears, not some sortable reality.
The DIRECT people have a neat idea (at one point I supported something like it myself) but to make it credible they engage in all sorts of handwaving. How can a program “support workforce retention” and then on the flip side say “we are going to cut a lot of cost” when the cost are in the people…then you find others with the DIRECT team saying (paraphrase) not all jobs are kept about “1/3″ (that is a real number) are kept.
Then there are the “we love private industry but not in human spaceflight because of the jobs in my district” people…
no we all cannot get along (grin).
What should not be tolerated in the debate (or at least not engaged) are arguments that lack coherence. Otherwise we do stupid things.
Robert G. Oler
“What should not be tolerated in the debate (or at least not engaged) are arguments that lack coherence. Otherwise we do stupid things.”
Agreed. And it is why I used “lunatics”. I am sure we can all disagree on something BUT we need to spell the facts the way they actually are not the way we would like them to be. There is always room for interpretation not matter what it is human nature but some people are so over the top I cannot see how something as complex as Space can be worked out with them! Not to mention the political maneuvering of those who actually knoww and could be a lot more constructive to the debate. And I am not talking politicians but rather managers and engineers and scientists that make all sorts of false claims to dereail the whole program. This is totally nutty. In the end we will have what we all deserve and so far if this plan is not successful one way or another it will be the end of HSF. Some will surely rejoyce at that fact but it would be plain stupid that the community causes its own end for… huh… stupidity’s sake.
Yesterday there was a plan full of good stuff for HSF, those who implemented it failed for a reason or another. Such is life. Today there is a nwe plan with extra cash mind you! These people will either get on the train or be left at the station, their choice. But they are still making damages where they couldd actually help. Shuttle huggers, Constellation huggers, DIRECT huggers (sorry but it is exactly what you people look like to me now).
Again, get onboard and provide help where you can! Get on with reality and not what could have been and all this nonsense.
Oh well…
The dynamic of an appropriations committee, any committee, is an interesting place to start in trying to think through likely outcomes for NASA amidst all the debate. Consider the following starting point in thinking this through – “the committee and its moneyâ€. Think of the committee as a dynamic of a “committee and its moneyâ€, not as NASA’s money. Consider that in a way all such committees are actually debating “their money†in the sense that the more money your committee has, the more influence and importance is bestowed on the members of that committee. Assume this is a personal matter for the committee members.
Now take that train of thought (“a committee and its moneyâ€) one step further. If every congressional committee wants to get more money (meaning influence, importance, etc) then the overall ability of any one committee to get more money rests in competition with other committees.
Deficit spending can be interpreted with this thought in mind, a way in which everyone gives themselves more budget in each committee, unchecked by other members of congress, who would not want you interfering in their committees and budgets. i.e., let me be, and I’ll let you be.
At other times, when the political urge is generalized around cutting spending, when talk of deficits is high on the agenda, a budget cutting pain will spread to all committees. Yet naturally this pressure to cut is less so on mandatory spending portions of the fed budget (because these grow automatically, and changes there require more difficult legislation).
In either case, in a total federal budget that hovers historically near 20% of GDP, the 20% is a form of a top-line, causing a zero-sum game behavior. You are usually competing against other committees even in good times, relatively speaking, or being hit by mandatory spending and generalized cuts at other times.
So back to the NASA committees.
There are a handful of scenarios following the line of thought of “a committee and its moneyâ€.
(1) Scenario 1 – An uprising on NASA content (but at the same budget) to re-instate Constellation.
That would leave democratic committee members marginalized from the White House, but also from their own party leadership, which has to explain these types of actions to a White House they have to work with, a leadership that wants to show the White House that it’s in control of its members. This strategy may succeed in getting floor votes from members that are simply un-interested in being interfered with on content in their own committees. (I’ll vote not to mess with your content and expect you to do the same for mine).
Specific committee members would have a belief that the electorate at the local level would reward them through re-election. In either case, for a content shift back to Constellation, it’s difficult to imagine the content shift without (A) still increasing R&D, to get the votes of those states/NASA centers and (B) drawing out the ISS life to at least 2020. By definition then, the “re-instated Constellationâ€, shifts the dates of major outcomes. After all some R&D money now (2011+) and lots of ISS dollars later (2015+) that were being counted on by Constellation will not be appearing per plan. The dates of major outcomes were already a 2017 Orion Ares I crew capability and an early 2020’s Moon shot even with larger Constellation budgets. Now, with the R&D and the ISS factors accounted for these dates shift further to the right. In this scenario the committee members, rather than defend a line of having defied the White House in exchange for a 2032 Moon Shot or an Orion Ares I just before the next date of the ISS demise may think about Scenario 2.
(2) Scenario 2 – An uprising on BOTH NASA content AND Budget to re-instate Constellation, one that keeps Constellation dates closer in.
Again, this would leave democratic committee members marginalized from the White House, but also from their own party leadership, which has to explain these types of actions to a White House they have to work with, a leadership that wants to show the White House that it’s in control of its members. This strategy has the difficulty of getting through reconciliation and getting floor votes from members that did not have their own committee’s budget’s go up. (My committee had cuts, and you want me to vote for a plus-up for yours?) Assuming getting past these hurdles (defying the White House, and getting the floor votes) the magic number we’re dealing with here involves at least an extra Billion a year now, to get the votes of the R&D center/states, and a plus up in 2016+, to make up the funds for Constellation that would then go to continuing the ISS. This is assuming the Shuttle is still canceled and commercial or any new competitors are eliminated from participating in any major way in the plan going forward as regards crew to the ISS.
A belief in Scenario 2 then requires a budget increase for a specific committee amidst mostly budget declines for the other members of congress in their own committees. A belief in Scenario 2 also requires a firm confidence that the funds to “plus-up†the NASA budget in 2016 by $3B a year are something that anyone can be firm about. The alternative is to once again push dates of major outcomes far to the right, even further than their current points.
Then perhaps the committee will think of Scenario 3?
(3) Scenario 3 – (this ones simple) A verbal uprising with no follow-on altering the White House NASA proposal as regards content and budget.
In this scenario the “blame the White House†motif is used as political cover for committee members. This scenario pretty much ends there at the political level until, each year, and at every hearing, NASA has to justify its progress. The reality of how this affects election races bears out any relation to subsequent events, or not. (The actual NASA accomplishments in this scenario are a whole other set of scenarios.)
My, my, we live in interesting times…
@ CharlesTheSpaceGuy: Thank you for the professionalism of your comments. I agree with your opinion that the new policy seems to have been crafted by executives without extensive experience in running large budget space programs.
@ Robert G. Oler: I believe that the initiative of supporting commercial development for the space programs is a good idea to explore the ability of this business model to provide space service. Supplying the ISS is a great temporary opportunity as it offers a need for a recurrent service. Following postings from a different thread, I would argue that establishing a Lunar outpost which would need be re-supplied may offer an extension of this business model and a rationale for the government (because it would still be the government) to create further incentive for private technology development. With regards to your statement about the astronaut’s missions, perhaps you may want to examine the details involved in the Hubble’s repair work, in my opinion an outstanding job.
@googoaw: whereas the robotic exploration has returned an extraordinary wealth of information, the human space exploration has the objective of developing technologies and training for human survivability in the deep space environment. Are you making the argument against this specific objective?
We probably (I guess) have even some personal issues as well (or at least it seems that way to me)…
My only “personal” issue with you is that it is annoying to read your posts, and you make s**t up about me.
‘NASAEngineer’ What seems to be happening is a scenario that will siphon off some of the commercial money, along with some other parts of the budget, to get some kind of heavy lifter on tract. Unfortunately this may mean an under funded commercial space initiative and an underfunded space exploration program.
Obama will have to step in and exercise a little leadership, forging a compromise.
“the human space exploration has the objective of developing technologies and training for human survivability in the deep space environment.”
Where is that actually spelled out in NASA Space Act?
@ That NASA Engineer@KSC wrote @ March 23rd, 2010 at 3:33 pm
My suspiscion: Scenario 3.
BUT hey get this! I almost agree with Mark R. Whittington in that there is at least the danger of this HLV nonsense. This is why I am saying DIRECT still has a chance. Again it is not about technology, science or even space exploration! It’s all about politics as you aptly showed. This would be a major step backward for HSF but what’s new? Then others like googaw will feel free to “attack” HSF and rightfully so. This is so pathetic as a whole what our politician friends are doing here such as http://www.spacenews.com/civil/031910nelson-nasa-commercial.html
“Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) is questioning whether $6 billion the U.S. space agency is seeking for developing a commercial crew taxis might be better spent on a heavy-lift rocket that could take humans beyond low Earth orbit” We all know the answer to this: NO ! Go read the Augustine report! Darn!
“What seems to be happening is a scenario that will siphon off some of the commercial money, along with some other parts of the budget, to get some kind of heavy lifter on tract.”
That’s not what’s happening. Bolden repeatedly rejected any “Plan B” deviations to to NASA’s FY 2011 budget request in today’s appropriations hearing.
And there is heavy lift development in the FY 2011 budget request that get started at least four years sooner than the POR.
FWIW…
@Major Tom:
“That’s not what’s happening. Bolden repeatedly rejected any “Plan B†deviations to to NASA’s FY 2011 budget request in today’s appropriations hearing.”
Agreed. But in your view if you don’t mind, what is Sen. Nelson’s influence here? After all he was Charles Bolden’s sponsor. I understand that at this level people must have autonomy in order to accomplish anything but is it possible, beyond the showmanship, that Sen. Nelson gets his wishes one way or another?
@common sense: Where is that actually spelled out in NASA Space Act?
Are you referring to the amended 1958 document?
the human space exploration has the objective of developing technologies and training for human survivability in the deep space environment.
In other words, astronauts for the sake of astronauts. Just as navel-gazing and even less useful then a self-referencing goal of “developing technologies and training for robot survivability in the deep space environment” would be as the basis for an entire NASA Directorate. The robots and the directorates and agencies that use them need no such infininitely recursive goal since they are actually doing useful things. These useful things are their goals and motivate whatever survivability etc. R&D the robots need to achieve them.
Astronauts for the sake of astronauts. Not for any genuine government function, such as national security or technology research to improve our economic competitiveness. Just astronauts for the sake of astronauts. Don’t you see why this “blowing soap bubbles” mentality is a hard sell to anybody but die-hard astronaut fans?
@mark vaalah:
We can look here for example (excerpt below): http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#FUNCTIONS
(1) plan, direct, and conduct aeronautical and space activities;
(2) arrange for participation by the scientific community in planning scientific measurements and observations to be made through use of aeronautical and space vehicles, and conduct or arrange for the conduct of such measurements and observations;
(3) provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof;
(4) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space; and
(5) encourage and provide for Federal Government use of commercially provided space services and hardware, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Government.
In other words, astronauts for the sake of astronauts.
Those technologies are required for space settlers as well.
@ common sense: you quote from the amended 1958 document
In your opinion, what is the objective of human space exploration?
The paragraph 1) in your extcerpt is left vague and general. I recomend a more recent document studying the exact objective I mentioned.
http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/Docs/EIC006.html
@googaw wrote @ March 23rd, 2010 at 6:51 pm:
“Don’t you see why this “blowing soap bubbles†mentality is a hard sell to anybody but die-hard astronaut fans?”
I see myself as a “die-hard” astronaut fan BUT some of us, the fans, have come to the realization that this discourse is no longer sustainable. Especially when it implies starving other directorates/missions/etc that are not related to HSF at NASA and possibly outside NASA. It is very difficult to instill change anywhere let alone in a domain that has been ruled by Cold War mentality for so long. The Cold War ended more or less in 1990 and you can still see those who claim the Russians are the ennemy (the commies!) or worse see the Chinese as the next ennemy and all that because they may land on the Moon some day in the future (not necessarily because they hold our finances mind you but it’s a slightly different story!).
The difficulty facing this NASA Administration and rightfully acknowledged at least by Charles Bolden and Lori Garver is to make NASA and in particular HSF relevant to the US public. To make it so that it somehow betters their lives. It is hard for some to grasp this concept as it is engrained that HSF is an entitlement. Always been there cannot be removed etc. Even bankrupting NASA is okay for them since we can spend so much cash on banks and bridges. They fail to understand that whether we like it or not banks are the foundation of our capitalistic system and therefore a necessary unavoidable “evil”. That bridges allow most people to cross from one side of a river to the other without any particular qualification, unlike today’s and yesterday’s astronauts.
We may disagree on whether there is a market or not BUT COTS today is the only way to go, the only way that makes sense. Is there better idea somewhere? Maybe so BUT this one is, seems to be, working. It will allow access to space to more people. If NASA through COTS and its future derivatives help make people’s lives better then it is self justified, no need for a grand plan and hyperboles, no need for Blue Ribbon panels.
This is my hope so that I can remain a die-hard astronaut fan and yet accomplish something in return for our society.
Those technologies are required for space settlers as well.
No, they will be no more useful to the real space settlers of the distant future than rafts were to Columbus. Space settlement is a very long-term goal and will use technologies that are very far in advance of ours. These are problems that our children or grandchildren will solve far more easily than we. Flying an astronaut today will not bring about the real self-sufficient space settlement of the centuries to come a nanosecond sooner.
@ mark valah wrote @ March 23rd, 2010 at 7:06 pm
“I recomend a more recent document studying the exact objective I mentioned.
http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/Docs/EIC006.html”
But this is an analysis, it is not the law, now is it?
And “The document contains preliminary information on the Space Exploration Initiative but it does not represent an official definition of any part of that program. “
@googaw: Here, I agree with you, it makes no economic sense to send astronauts into deep space, at least not at the present. There is no direct effect on economic competitivity or improved national security, perhaps only indirect effect by diffusion of technology.
Human space exploration is a matter of i) prestige (at the present) and ii) future capability – for reasons that deal more with the human spirit than the economics.
@commonsense: what is your opinion, then?
“Agreed. But in your view if you don’t mind, what is Sen. Nelson’s influence here? After all he was Charles Bolden’s sponsor.”
I think before we get to the question of influence, we have to ask how serious or strongly held Nelson’s position is. Based on the draft authorization bills, which he should have a lot of influence over as the Senate subcommittee chair, I’d say he’s not very serious. The bills don’t cut commercial crew, they don’t require Constellation-derived vehicles, and they don’t require further HLV acceleration. They only ask NASA to study the latter. If Nelson felt really strongly about this, those bills (or at least the Senate version) would be drafted differently. Same goes for his last NASA hearing, where, instead of pounding his fist for HLV acceleration or Constellation-derived vehicles during his opening statement, Nelson just asked a couple questions along those lines. I don’t pretend to know what anyone is thinking, but between the bills, the hearings, and his maybe/maybe not statements in the press coming from his last visit to the White House, it doesn’t appear that Nelson is pressing hard at all (versus a hard-charging congressman on this issue like Shelby).
That said, even if Nelson was pressing hard, he’s wouldn’t have much influence if neither the White House (through Bolden or directly) or appropriations leadership don’t listen to him. Between Mollohan’s opening statements and Bolden’s “no Plan B” answers in today’s hearing, Nelson’s statements about further HLV acceleration or Constellation-derived vehicles don’t appear to have traction with either. That’s not necessarily a knock against Nelson. Even if he was charging hard on this issue, it’s the nature of authorization committees that they’re easily ignored unless someone with a real power of the purse agrees with them.
“I understand that at this level people must have autonomy in order to accomplish anything but is it possible, beyond the showmanship, that Sen. Nelson gets his wishes one way or another?”
Again, not unless the White House (through Bolden or directly) or the appropriations leadership agree. Even if an authorization bill passes this year and even if it was changed to dictate further HLV acceleration or Constellation-derived vehicles, the appropriators don’t have to fund either and OMB can always threaten a veto on either bill (authorization or appropriations) as the Bush II White House did over the first year of Constellation funding.
FWIW…
@mark valah wrote @ March 23rd, 2010 at 7:33 pm:
If what you said ought to be the goal then we need to ammend the Space Act. However I think that the current plan by the WH makes a lot of sense and in the end may lead to what you’re looking for. As a by product if you wish. Not by design. There is a lot of issues with HSF, suffice to read googaw’s comments here to convince yourself. So I say first things first. In the Space Act it says:
(4) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space; and
(5) encourage and provide for Federal Government use of commercially provided space services and hardware, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Government.
Therefore if you get the private sector to eventually make profits on HSF theen they will have to do all you want them to do. If say for example NASA develops ISRU technology that can be used by the commercials to turn some profit then there will be bases on the Moon, asteroids, whatever. It is in part because we’ve kept at forcing our ideals and ideas down the throat of others regardless of their own desires that we are here today. We need to fix this. Or we’ll keep having those endless nonsensical conversations about HSF purpose and the like. Today we need commercials in to take over and hopefully it will work out fine. If it does not work then it may mean there is no real use of HSF, a tough pill to swallow but sometime reality is a tough.. huh… companion.
@ Major Tom wrote @ March 23rd, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Okay then. I have issues with Sen. Nelson’s dance he’s performed so far. I can see why he’s trying to speak to his constituents to say that at least he tried but it also puts (some) oil on the fire. And somehow gives credence to Sen. Shelby. But I guess all the political gesticulation is inevitable.
Oh well…
@commonsense: I believe we are playing devil’s advocate, sometimes, on this list. I wish there was a clear and feasible commercial business model for human space exploration, but at the present I cannot see one. Space X and Orbital Sciences will perform ISS resupply missions (indirectly related to human missions therefore) on government dime . Nevertheless, their success (and I wish both ventures success) will change the game. Side contracts, such as Space X – Loral will help as well to lower the costs. On a previous message I argued that some form or a ressuply need to a Moon outpost could generate the same model as the ISS resupply, encouraging commercial development, and perhaps side contracts generating additional revenue. Perhaps such a staggered progress makes more sense, with the gov. creating a ladder for commercial to step higher.
On the other hand, Planetary Society executive director Lou Friedman endorses NASA’s new direction in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times on Monday. “Declaring a destination is not enough. We have to prepare our way into the solar system, and the flexible path defined in 2009 by the Augustine Committee… will do just that,†he writes. As for the agency’s new direction: “Let’s give it a chance.â€
This no suprise as they are basically interested in unmanned missions. Obama’s minions are clearly out to destroy the space program. They just may just pull it off. So we’ll have to restart things after 2013. Anyway with the economy in the state it’s in now nothing is going to be accomplished anyway.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ March 23rd, 2010 at 5:04 pm
‘NASAEngineer’ What seems to be happening is a scenario that will siphon off some of the commercial money, along with some other parts of the budget, to get some kind of heavy lifter on tract. ..
not for the first time you are confusing what you want to happen or what Nelson is babbling about a to what is actually going to happen.
The funny thing is that your plans for American domination of the Moon (grin) are going to be hosed by the various corporate interest that is the bread and butter of the GOP.
Lockmart/BOeing and (maybe) SpaceX (I am not for sure of them, but I am sure of the first two) want some help developing a HLV version of their launch vehicles…That is their “line in the sand”…and that is where things are going to head.
What is going to be joyful for me to watch is that Obama gets his spacepolicy and as free enterprise flourishes you can explain how you opposed it.
Robert G. Oler
Rand Simberg wrote @ March 23rd, 2010 at 4:38 pm
maybe we can have a “man hug” one day and everything will be fine (just a little levity….in a good mood last ultrasound …gratitous actually all is well).
we disagree on a lot I guess but you are a smart guy.
Robert G. Oler
Side contracts, such as Space X – Loral will help as well to lower the costs.
If real commerce will be only “side contracts”, SpaceX is doomed to join Orbital Sciences et. al. in the ranks of government contractor zombies. The same would be true of any NASA-led lunar effort. Indeed, our political system is not much interested in anything other than flags & footprints adventures. And given NASA’s adominable record in developing futuristic “infrastructure”, that is just as well.
OTOH once we have shaken off the economic delusions of yesteryear and the supposed authority of NASA as leading us into the space future, it’s very plausible that we will see real commercial architectures of a radically different nature arise within the next few decades. It’s not possible to predict in detail exactly what will happen when — I’m not proposing an alternative religious calendar — but the key aspects of these architectures will probably be:
(1) real commerce is the main market, and government contracts are the “side contracts”. With far less government politics involved the whole business will be less expensive;
(2) they get the job done without astronauts, and thus much more cheaply;
(3) they do the job on a far smaller scale than previously envisioned, and thus far more cheaply.
(1) will give us probably a factor of 2-5 cost reduction over COTS/CRS type government contracting, which in turn gives us about a factor of 2-5 reduction over traditional government contracting. (2) usually saves at least an order of magnitude off the costs, sometimes much more, and (3) can save at least another order of magnitude once we realize that we are no longer limited to human scale. As Richard Feynman said, “there’s plenty of room at the bottom.” Today a 1 kilogram CubeSat can be built for $50,000 and they are going to continue getting cheaper and smaller and more functional at a fair clip. As will more sophisticated spacecraft and robots. That will mean far more valuable uses of space for communications, navigation, GIS, weather forecasting, and much more.
Once the robots crack open the space frontier, especially developing space industry based on ISRU, the luxury of flying astronauts and other space tourists will have become orders of magnitude cheaper. To fly the astronauts before we’ve actually made space affordable with robotic industry is to put the cart before the horse.
For example, this paradigm could be readily applied to lunar ice: extract it with small robots, process it into several different kinds of propellants with small chemical reactors, then sell it off a small tanker that travels around GEO. The next step is to design a whole new generation of satellites that take advantage of abundant propellant and shielding and structure. Within two or three decades, and possibly quite a bit sooner, we may be able to field an entire system of ice mining microrobots, micro-lunar landers, chemical microreactors, and microtankers, a system of about 50 robots and spacecraft with dry masses of 10 to 1,000 kg each, all of which could be launched by a handful of Falcon 9s or EELVs (or whatever we are using then) to their various orbits or lunar positions. An end-to-end icecap-to-customer infrastructure, a real commercial infrastructure designed by commerce for commerce, will be launched to space for less than $500 million even at today’s launch costs.
To all those who learned their aerospace engineering in the pages of Collier’s this vision is rank heresy, to be sure. But it’s far more likely to resemble the future than the astronaut-centric economic fantasies of the last century.
“I can see why he’s trying to speak to his constituents to say that at least he tried… I guess all the political gesticulation is inevitable.”
This is par for the course in Congress, and probably most legislatures and parliaments. As long as a representative can convince enough voters back home that they’re fighting for them to get re-elected, actual legislative or lobbying accomplishments come secondary.
“but it also puts (some) oil on the fire.”
Only to the extent people read more into a couple hearing questions than what’s actually in the draft legislation (and a couple reporters did do this).
“And somehow gives credence to Sen. Shelby.”
Despite all of Shelby’s huffing and puffing, LeMieux’s amendment to this year’s FAA bill to repeat Shelby’s language from last year’s omnibus appropriations bill got shot down today (or yesterday — I don’t recall which). Even in the endgame with Shelby, it’s hard to imagine the Democratic leadership on the appropriations committees allowing one of their bills (which fund a lot more than NASA) to become veto bait for a White House occupied by their party because of measures sponsored by a congressman from the opposing party. (Not a knock against Republicans — I’d say the same thing if the parties in power in Congress and the White House were flipped.)
FWIW…
“This no suprise as they are basically interested in unmanned missions.”
Then why did the Planetary Society sponsor a study on human space exploration options that Griffin himself co-chaired before he became NASA Administrator?
Don’t make stuff up.
“Obama’s minions are clearly out to destroy the space program.”
Yes, that’s why the White House decided to add $6 billion to the NASA budget over five years, is proposing extending ISS to 2020, is undertaking steps to put in place two providers of crew transport for the first time in the 50-year history of the civil human space flight program, and is pouring billions into HLV and exploration technology development.
Stop making stuff up.
“As Richard Feynman said, “there’s plenty of room at the bottom.†Today a 1 kilogram CubeSat can be built for $50,000 and they are going to continue getting cheaper and smaller and more functional at a fair clip. As will more sophisticated spacecraft and robots. That will mean far more valuable uses of space for communications, navigation, GIS, weather forecasting, and much more.
Once the robots crack open the space frontier, especially developing space industry based on ISRU, the luxury of flying astronauts and other space tourists will have become orders of magnitude cheaper. To fly the astronauts before we’ve actually made space affordable with robotic industry is to put the cart before the horse.
For example, this paradigm could be readily applied to lunar ice: extract it with small robots, process it into several different kinds of propellants with small chemical reactors, then sell it off a small tanker that travels around GEO. The next step is to design a whole new generation of satellites that take advantage of abundant propellant and shielding and structure. Within two or three decades, and possibly quite a bit sooner, we may be able to field an entire system of ice mining microrobots, micro-lunar landers, chemical microreactors, and microtankers, a system of about 50 robots and spacecraft with dry masses of 10 to 1,000 kg each, all of which could be launched by a handful of Falcon 9s or EELVs (or whatever we are using then) to their various orbits or lunar positions. An end-to-end icecap-to-customer infrastructure, a real commercial infrastructure designed by commerce for commerce, will be launched to space for less than $500 million even at today’s launch costs.
To all those who learned their aerospace engineering in the pages of Collier’s this vision is rank heresy, to be sure. But it’s far more likely to resemble the future than the astronaut-centric economic fantasies of the last century.”
Good stuff. I do worry that useful physical/chemical processes at mini/microsat scales (i.e.. processing lots of material efficiently in very small batches) may require technologies (e.g., nanotech) that may or may not come to fruition. That’s very different from comm/GPS/remote sensing apps that move bits and photons around. But the general points about scaling, efficiency, repetition, and automation are well-taken.
You’ve repeatedly argued that “real commerce” lies elsewhere. Maybe I missed something, but this is the first time I’ve seen some substance put behind that statement. If you’ve got more, more ideas/discussion like this (in this forum or elsewhere) would be great.
My 2 cents… FWIW…
Major Tom, (and the rest of the cheerleaders here) PLEASE check out the OMB site and the NASA page of “The Presidents Budget.” Outlays go from 19 B last year to 18 B this year to 17 B next year. Either the flowery words that SAY they are adding 5 b are lying or the hard numbers of dollars actually spent (or to be spent) are lying. Or have I missed something? I dont give a rip WHO developes, builds and launches stuff (sats, probes, astronauts, tourists, fuel depots, robotic ISRU pilot plants, or Von Newmann machines to turn the moon into a Dyson Sphere) to LEO and beyond, but without an HLV of SOME KIND (relatively soon for a “reasonable” price) we will never go ANYWHERE ANYTIME (soon). Based on its own logic the admin’s new “plan” should be improved even further and rewritten to first develope anti-gravity, transporters and warp drive which will “bring down costs in the long run.” (read “budget out years”)
“Major Tom, (and the rest of the cheerleaders here)”
Where I have been a cheerleader for anyone? How is correcting blatantly false statements cheerleading?
“PLEASE check out the OMB site and the NASA page of ‘The Presidents Budget.'”
Instead of repeatedly making up false claims over the past handful of weeks, some of us spent the time to “check out” that document and read through the rest of the OMB and NASA FY11 budget documents when they were released a month and a half ago.
“Outlays go from 19 B last year to 18 B this year to 17 B next year. Either the flowery words that SAY they are adding 5 b are lying or the hard numbers of dollars actually spent (or to be spent) are lying. Or have I missed something?”
Yes, you’ve “missed something”. Repeating myself from the latest thread (you shouldn’t post multiple places under different screennames):
You need to learn the difference between budget authority and outlays. Budget authority — the amount of money that is in an agency’s appropriations bill in any particular fiscal year — is spent over 1, 2, 3, or more years. The outlays in any particular fiscal year are largely or substantially composed of the projected spending from prior years’ budgets. For example, the FY 2011 outlays are composed of FY 2011 one-year budget authority that gets spent in FY 2011, FY 2010 two-year budget authority that gets spent in FY 2011, FY 2009 three-year budget authority that gets spent in FY 2011, etc. We really can’t blame a White House or congress for outlays in any particular year when they’re largely or substantially composed of spending from prior congresses or White Houses. You can certainly pin budget authority on the current White House or Congress, but not outlays.
“I dont give a rip WHO developes, builds and launches stuff (sats, probes, astronauts, tourists, fuel depots, robotic ISRU pilot plants, or Von Newmann machines to turn the moon into a Dyson Sphere) to LEO and beyond, but without an HLV of SOME KIND (relatively soon for a ‘reasonable’ price) we will never go ANYWHERE ANYTIME (soon).”
I disagree that an HLV is necessarily on the critical path to deep space exploration. We’ve never pursued other, likely less costly, methods of getting large amounts of propellant into space. I would try some of those before spending much bigger bucks on another, potentially unsustainable like Saturn V, HLV.
That said, NASA’s FY 2011 budget request accelerates the start of HLV development by four years over the POR. And both the Flexible Path options in the Augustine report and the roadmaps associated with the budget request shows HLV operations before 2025, versus 2028 at best with the POR.
That still may not be fast enough for you, but it’s certainly faster than the path NASA was on previously. If you want an HLV sooner rather than later, then you should want this budget.
“Based on its own logic the admin’s new ‘plan’ should be improved even further and rewritten to first develope anti-gravity, transporters and warp drive which will ‘bring down costs in the long run.’ (read ‘budget out years’)”
This is an idiotic statement about science fiction concepts that have no basis in known physics. Stop watching the SciFi channel and take a science class.
Lawdy…
Good stuff.
Thanks.
I do worry that useful physical/chemical processes at mini/microsat scales (i.e.. processing lots of material efficiently in very small batches) may require technologies (e.g., nanotech) that may or may not come to fruition.
No worries, micro process engineering is sufficient. These are basically channel networks laid down similar to the lithography by which computer chips are made. This allows microreactors, micro heat exchangers, etc. In addition to making very small yet efficient reactors possible they can greatly increase heat and mass transfer rates so they are starting to be used even here on earth. There are also neat tricks like reactions that would be explosions on a macro scale basically propagate in only two dimensions so they are intrinsically much safer in a microreactor. Dealing with lunar ice in microreactors would make a great NASA research project once we can get it back to NACA-type research.
BTW, “real commerce lies elsewhere” is no big mystery. It lies for example in Sirius and XM satellite radio, DISH network, Direct TV, OnStar, and many other space commerce innovations of the last few decades that seem to have passed the Collier’s-heads right by.
Here, for example, is a very important political space commerce issue that I’ve never seen discussed in these parts: what should we do with GPS? GPS is clearly a wonderful spinoff of the DoD space program — a great example of how putting space to practical use leads to even more practical uses. But having the USAF running an increasingly crucial civil infrastructure seems awkward. And having the U.S. taxpayer pay for services enjoyed by GPS consumers all over the world seems suboptimal. If GPS is a public good (in the economic sense of that phrase — Wikipedia it if you don’t know what I mean), shouldn’t we tax GPS receivers instead of the U.S. taxpayer in order to fund it? Or can it be privatized, for example by having high-end GPS receivers run on a subscription system like OnStar?
Very important stuff but one will never think about it if one thinks it’s all about the astronauts. It’s really about the people on earth who (usually without knowing it) increasingly use space every day. That is where real space commerce lies.
Major Tom. Not sure about the screen names comment, I always use this. To what “less costly other methods” of positioning fuel do you refer? Part of Costellallion WAS an HLV and now it’s toast. Can you REALLY have missed the sarcasm of the “better plan” comment? Think about it again.
OK, maybe its a bit of a mystery because “real commerce lies elsewhere” means multiple things. Besides the above, it’s also about true privatization — about having primarily private customers rather than just a more “commercial” kind of government contract. More concretely, “real commerce lies elsewhere” is also about orbits: about GEO and other commercial orbits that serve to connect to users or subjects rather than the astronaut fans’ obsession with LEO. It’s about thinking of customers first and machines second and leaving behind the astronauts. Back to the abstract, it’s about a different paradigm, a 21st century way of looking at space development as I have been laying out here: real space commerce lies in a different part of the mind than is occupied by the astronaut-centric NASA propaganda and sci-fi we’ve been raised with since childhood.
disagree that an HLV is necessarily on the critical path to deep space exploration.
What we need is a two-stage reusable rocket with about 50 ton capacity to LEO. The first-stage would be RP-1/LOX and the second LH2/LOX. Rocketplane-Kistler has the concept for recovery first stage. A inflatable heatshield would be added for the second stage. In addition we could develop a spaceplane orbiter that this vehicle could launch for shuttle-like manned missions. The launcher in unmanned mode could send up lots propellant for fuel depots.
Another interesting though would be that the second stage could be refueled in orbit and use to launch mission to the moon. It would if fuel refueling be able to send larger payloads to the moon than the Ares V could. Also, the booster would be on a fly around the moon and return to Earth course so that its could possible use its inflatable heatshield to aerobrake into Earth orbit on the return path and then use some remaining propellant to rendezvous with depot for futher use.
No, they will be no more useful to the real space settlers of the distant future than rafts were to Columbus.
You can’t know that. And we have to start somewhere, in order to keep building toward what’s needed.
“To what ‘less costly other methods’ of positioning fuel do you refer?”
This:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquarius_Launch_Vehicle
Or this:
http://www.physorg.com/news183023838.html
Among others.
FWIW…
What we need is a two-stage reusable rocket with about 50 ton capacity to LEO. The first-stage would be RP-1/LOX and the second LH2/LOX. Rocketplane-Kistler has the concept for recovery first stage.
No, what we need is fewer people telling us what we need, and putting out generic requirements for payloads to orbit, and letting the market sort out the best way to do it.
Rand Simberg:
You are just wrong about this. I would suggest that you turn off your stupid attitude and think for a while about what I suggesting here. It is both a fully capable replacement for the shuttle and Cx.
Rand:
You can’t know that.
The future is uncertain, but the guesses of my 21st century mind make for a far better predictions than stuff based on 1950s Collier’s phantasmagoria. However I am not trying to fund my vision of space settlement with taxpayer money so that guess is immaterial here. The burden of proof when making claims about the future lies squarely on the people who want to spend the taxpayer’s money on their particular vision. If you can’t show that real space settlement will be greatly benefited by flying astronauts today than don’t try to make claims to taxpayer funding for astronauts based on such a dubious claim. If you are just seeking private charity that is another matter.
No, what we need is fewer people telling us what we need, [instead] putting out generic requirements for payloads to orbit, and letting the market sort out the best way to do it.
This OTOH is well said. If John is serious he should propose this as a method of launching satellites, of doing COTS/CRS, and/or Commercial Crew and convince investors that it is superior to the other options for these purposes. Otherwise he is just blowing smoke, dreaming up economic fantasies to suit a distorted rocket design. Ditto for the SDLV folks and the Ares-1 folks. Play on the same level playing field or shut up. Money talks and BS walks.
My point was simply that you do not have to go as large on an HLV as a Saturn V or an Ares V to do big orbital and deep space missions. That new technologies to recover and reuse rocket boosters plus propellant depots can turn rocket in a 50 ton class into a very powerful vehicle. This what I think NASA should be doing while the commerical project continue. I would think that NASA should avoid their traditional over management of the project. This would make good use of the U.S. RD-180 class engine Bolden advocates.
Although frequently Oler’s comments are a bit over the top, I have to agree with him on many of his comments on this post:
“NASA leadership…the entire lot of them is the most dysfunctional group of people who I have ever seen run a federal agency.
They have no sense of mission….As evidence of that I cite Ares 1. Ignore Griffins bad choices…but NASA management … acted about the urgency of building Ares before the shuttle stopped flying…about like Linda H acted on the urgency of reviewing the data of the foam coming off.
….Human spaceflight is expensive, because NASA has made it that way. And 14 people have died in human spaceflight; because NASA let that happen for reasons which have nothing to do with rocket science; but instead basic competence.
When called on it they all retreat behind “space is hardâ€.
And one comment from MoonExploration:
“Just because a person is in aeroengineering or have a long career in science does not mean that the person is a competent decision maker or a skilled leader…”
I have to agree fully with these comments. We see it clearly now with the tragic debacle that Constellation has become, but it was not just Constellation. ISS has been poorly, ineffectively and inefficiently run for the same reasons. And, as stated, there was never an excuse for Associate Administrators, Program Managers or Center Directors, not speaking up when decisions were being made to end Shuttle while the Constellation, Orion and Ares situation clearly was not being resolved, year after year.
So don’t blame the current disaster on the Congress, President or current Administrator. This was the making of the NASA program management that is in place today.
And its not just R&D. The operations and integration people haven’t a clue how to set up a functional and efficient program. We’ve witnessed the destruction of human space flight in the US. We are recognizing it today but its been in work for more than a decade.
You are just wrong about this.
Well, if you say so, it must be true.
I would suggest that you turn off your stupid attitude and think for a while about what I suggesting here.
Physician, heal thyself.
It is both a fully capable replacement for the shuttle and Cx.
We don’t need a single “replacement” for Shuttle. That’s how we got in trouble in the first place. And Cx is much more than a launch system, so it’s nonsensical to say that a launch system can replace it.
“a system of about 50 robots and spacecraft with dry masses of 10 to 1,000 kg each, all of which could be launched by a handful of Falcon 9s or EELVs (or whatever we are using then) to their various orbits or lunar positions. An end-to-end icecap-to-customer infrastructure, a real commercial infrastructure designed by commerce for commerce, will be launched to space for less than $500 million even at today’s launch costs. ”
50 robots and launch vehicles for under 500 mil? 10 million a pop for both the robot and launch vehicle? I think you would be hard pressed to come in under those numbers. I believe the last estimate I saw was 20,000 dollars a pound to the lunar surface, this didnt account for pin point landing either.
We don’t need a single “replacement†for Shuttle.
It would be the cheapest way. I was orginally just thinking about how to make a shuttle that would not have the serious issues the shuttle has that makes it less safe that most are will to accept. Then I discovered all of the uses the reusable booster would have in an unmanned version. One would be the ability to lift massive quantities of propellant to the orbiting depots. Then we can affort to refuel one of the upper-stages of these booster and I discovered that it could send massive payload beyond LEO. I can’t see a reason to pay for two or more systems like this.
My point was simply that you do not have to go as large on an HLV as a Saturn V or an Ares V to do big orbital and deep space missions.
We agree on this. But (1) several existing ELVs are sufficient to illustrate this point, and (2) the best way for NASA to help here is to do sub-scale research on reusable stages (e.g. flyback stages) but leave the actual development and operation to the companies who want to invest in it. NASA should not be developing rockets that compete with the existing ones except through the standard mechanisms of COTS/CRS and Commercial Crew. Companies like ATK, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc. that want to build rockets with the help of NASA money should do so through these mechanisms or completely with their own money or not at all. I’m tired of the special pleading for special contracts. BTW, yes I do think the COTS/CRS kind of contract can be improved upon, Google for my previous “SCOTS” proposal.
It would be the cheapest way.
Sometimes the cheapest way can get very expensive.
I can’t see a reason to pay for two or more systems like this.
So you don’t have to shut down your entire program for years when you have a problem with it, as happened twice with the Shuttle…?
@googaw: sorry for the late reply to your posting, but thank you for outlying your vision, it is a very interesting approach. It would still be initiated as a government investment nevertheless, but I understand and appreciate your thinking.
It would still be initiated as a government investment nevertheless
Constellation is what government was (is?) investing in wrt the moon. It bears no resemblance to and is of no help whatsoever to what I am talking about.
Robert: “The DIRECT people have a neat idea (at one point I supported something like it myself) but to make it credible they engage in all sorts of handwaving. How can a program “support workforce retention†and then on the flip side say “we are going to cut a lot of cost†when the cost are in the people…then you find others with the DIRECT team saying (paraphrase) not all jobs are kept about “1/3″ (that is a real number) are kept.â€
Robert we have never said that, all we have claimed is that the loss of experience and industrial base would be ‘less’ under our plan than the Program of Record. We fully understand that there will still be a very difficult transition period under our plan at this late stage of the game precisely because for the last five years Mike Griffin and Company have fighting us every step of the way by putting pressure on NASA engineers, outright lying behind the scenes to policy makers at the Whitehouse and even full view of the public at Congressional Hearings (ie “defying the Laws of Physics” while in full possession of ESAS appendix 6a showing that our numbers were actually conservative). I also still have all the presentations I gave at NASA HQ 2002,2003, 2004, and three times in 2005 (before, during and after ESAS) advocating the very same thing we are advocating right now in good old 2010. BTW, the last one in 2005 got our contracts canceled and the boot out of NASA for our troubles.
Back in 2005 the transition from STS to the Jupiter/Orion systems would have been fairly pain free but in the end the Jupiter/Orion systems would still be operating at about 80% the cost of the Space Shuttle at the same flight right. Not a massive savings or reduction in workforce but a step in the right direction. The big savings comes in the form of significant improvement and payload Volume, Diameter and Mass over STS. As a result the $/kg to orbit for the Space Shuttle (already a better deal than COTS-CRS at only two flights per year I might add and whose extended operations is absolute essential or three of the five years of the ISS extension now, one thing the Congress and Whitehouse actually agree upon, will be squandered due to an operational stand down due to serious ISS logistics shortfalls facing us right now) gets even better, in fact four times better.
The Jupiter/Orion systems also increases the crew safety by a factor of 10 over the demonstrated STS reliability placing the statistical probability of a crew loss to about 1/1,000 based on over a hundred flights performed over thirty years. No other man-rated system, existing or proposed, comes close to this track record of delivering this much mass or these many astronauts safely into Space. The Jupiter fixes the STS primary flaw which is the lack of rapid launch abort capability throughout its ascent.
In five years America will have the biggest rocket on the block and even a beyond LEO capable spacecraft for the first time in forty years. Even you would admit that this is serious reversal of fortunes of what we had in store for us under the PoR, a very expensive rocket (ie the Ares-1) that overlaps existing capabilities here and worldwide that effectively traps what ever beyond LEO capabilities Orion would have had after multiple weight reductions in LEO?
The capabilities achieved by the DIRECT plan within the next five years are also completely absent in the current plan as well. In fact, the same level of capability possible under the DIRECT plan will not be reached by the current plan until two decades from now assuming the budget even supports it which given the demographics before us is highly questionable absent a serious national strategic objective bordering on survival of the republic.
Speaking of which, the House representatives yesterday that advocated for a ‘near term’ HLV (i.e. within five years) all have connections to the DOD but you will most likely not draw the right reason for that support (i.e. ATK SRB industrial base). Trust me the advantages of a near term HLV are far more important to national security than you obviously know. For if you or even Major Tom for that matter were in this loop you would switch your positions over night.
?Trust me the advantages of a near term HLV are far more important to national security than you obviously know.
If so, then let the Pentagon pay for it. NASA can’t afford it.
Who says the DOD won’t kick in some of the money? You obviously didn’t catch that hint by one of the Representatives.
Who says the DOD won’t kick in some of the money? You obviously didn’t catch that hint by one of the Representatives.
Show us the money, not the rumors.
Who says the DOD won’t kick in some of the money?
DoD isn’t so stupid as to kick money into a NASA program. If they learned nothing else from the Shuttle, they learned that. If they need a heavy lifter, they’ll develop it themselves.
“Who says the DOD won’t kick in some of the money?”
Not a chance in a billion years, trillion years, ever, never! Show me a DoD requirement, just one, for a SD-HLV, let alone Jupiter or Ares.
Stephen Metschan wrote @ March 24th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Who says the DOD won’t kick in some of the money? You obviously didn’t catch that hint by one of the Representatives…
not so long as Secretary Gates has the big office in the E ring.
A SD HLV is everything that Gates is fighting against…it is not wanted by any agency of The Federal Government…except well maybe the holdovers at NASA.
What the DoD wants…is a HLV version of Delta/Atlas and a new American engine for Atlas.
Robert G. Oler
Stephen Metschan wrote @ March 24th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
I saw this after responding to the DoD post…to make a few points in a little different order
“Back in 2005 the transition from STS to the Jupiter/Orion systems would have been fairly pain free”
that I agree with mostly. Indeed the presentation can be made that a “transition” from STS to a SDHLV Shuttle C (OK Jupiter) could have been made “Pain free” in terms of infrastructure IF it could have been afforded. What in “my” view made the Jupiter concept ” thoughtful” in the era until 2005 (or 2006) was that not only did it translate the “cargo” to uncrewed vehicles but eventually took the crewed component with it gradually sidelining the orbiter.
What I have never been convinced of is that the transition is as easy to do as is stated. I dont think that the Jupiter groups have accurately estimated a few things. The first is the cost to almost completely redesign the ET. I dont support Ares V but there is a reason that the Agency went from the current tank to a slightly larger one as they redesigned it from side mount to a bottom burner. Even if the current size were to be maintained and the only thing that was transitioned was the engine and “load path” …at one point it would be impossible to have “both” ET’s on the line at Michoud nor would the manufactoring process be “seamless”.
I have also never been convinced that the cost savings are there. Yes there is more mass that can actually be used as payload…but that has to be taken against a very old infrastructure and system…the same things that were going to drive Ares Cost up were going to be in play in the “Jupiter”.
But in my view two things made this discussion completly theoretical. The first is that the entire notion of an exploration program for NASA has little or no public support and even if the booster situation could get in hand the “other” parts were not. IE the cost of exploration were just going to get higher…
Second. The concept of “large massive structures” launched in one single toss has suffered a blow due to the success of ISS. The entire notion of HLV’s and exploration is “expend along the way”…and I dont think that is how we go back to the Moon. Plus I think that we have learned to build things in bites, test them in space…then fly them for long periods of time.
so your statement “The capabilities achieved by the DIRECT plan within the next five years are also completely absent in the current plan as well.” while accurate is in fact suggesting a capability that is not needed.
The DoD doesnt want it. They dont want anything to do with the cost of the shuttle…and if they go to “larger blocks” of vehicles it will be in bites that a Delta/Atlas/Falcon “Heavier” can handle…and if it gets larger then that…they will go to assembly in orbit…which ISS has proven.
“Trust me the advantages of a near term HLV are far more important to national security than you obviously know. ”
since I doubt you have secret or other clearance…and are “in the know” what do you think that they are?
Robert G. Oler
Stephen Metschan wrote @ March 24th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Robert we have never said that, all we have claimed is that the loss of experience and industrial base would be ‘less’ under our plan than the Program of Record…
sorry the other post got long, not gang banging here…but just this comment…we obviously disagree on what promises are being made and not being made.
But workforce loss is a lot like being Pregnant. If you have a job then the workforce loss while tragic and large was not massive. If you had a job but lost it in the layoffs then even if the total numbers were small, it was pretty massive.
what the folks who are losing their job hear in “shuttle derived vehicle” is “I keep my job”.
Robert G. Oler
Robert: “since I doubt you have secret or other clearance…and are “in the know†what do you think that they are?â€
Seriously? Do you think I would post them here or use any electronic means email, telephone etc. transmit them?
Common Sense,
Maybe you will be able to read all about them in book written thirty years from now or whenever they become declassified. I’m not going to say or hint at anything beyond what Congress has shown interest in public concerning vague notions of other uses of a HLV.
Until then let your imagination run wild. If you don’t have a good imagination then just go on believing that everything that can be discovered has been discovered and its impossible that their can be anything new under the Sun that may just happen to require a HLV along the lines of the Jupiter.
Ironic in that Jupiter was believed by the Romans to be the god of Commerce, Knowledge, and Security whose son just so happens to Mars. What a fitting name for what I sincerely hope become key missions enabled by America’s next rocket. Carrying forward the name the Von Braun team used internally for the rocket that put America in space for the first time, that was later officially named Juno (i.e. the name confusion you see in the write-ups routinely concerning this period), is also a nice touch since they too were inspired by human missions to Mars just like Robert Goddard before them.
Ironically as well, Ares is the name of the Greek god of ‘unnecessary’ war, arrogance and bloodlust. Athena, his sister and patron god of Athens was the Greek goddess of ‘necessary’ war or war of last resort for self-defense.
Stephen Metschan wrote @ March 24th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Robert: “since I doubt you have secret or other clearance…and are “in the know†what do you think that they are?â€
Seriously? Do you think I would post them here or use any electronic means email, telephone etc. transmit them?..
why not? Without a security clearance you are free to post whatever musings you have heard or been told (even if you got it from someone who had a security clearance, they violate the oath not you)…and anything else is just speculation.
Jim Oberg pushes his theories on military and secret ops all the time…they are stuff he derives from “what he hears” and “what he reads” and no people in black helicopters fly over to his house and carry him away.
II dont get it.
Robert G. Oler
Until then let your imagination run wild.
The lamest attempt to start a false rumor I’ve seen in quite a while.
Stephen Metschan wrote @ March 24th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
…
Stephen.
I asked you in a respectful way a serious question on a claim that you made.
the answer you gave me is one reason I stopped taking the DIRECT people in any form seriously. It is one reason that the project is not making any political headway.
Robert G. Oler
Robert: “why not? Without a security clearance you are free to post whatever musings you have heard or been told (even if you got it from someone who had a security clearance, they violate the oath not you)…and anything else is just speculation.â€
Robert, I’m also a citizen of the United States of America and would never do something intentionally that would compromise the safety and security of my fellow citizen’s, which includes you I assume? If you are a US citizen you might want to get a little more familiar with Article 3 Section 3 of the US Constitution. While many US citizens, like me, don’t need the punishment of law in order to compel us to do the right thing on behalf or our nation, it sure sounds like you do.
Just for what it’s worth. If some one has a security clearance and has access to classified information it is illegal to mention that anywhere. It is illegal to say that whatever you say is based on classified information you may have access to. Classified information means jut that: Classified!
So what is it now? This is either illegal or just plain false. It does not matter what is said because in the end you may just kill your entire plan by divulging or making claims that a SD-HLV is needed based on classified information you have access to!
U.N.B.E.L.I.E.V.A.B.L.E.
Common Sense, if you listen to House Appropriations Hearings of March 23, 2010 you will hear the same statement concerning HLV. They even made reference to the concept of the DOD pitching in some of the money for a HLV. This discussion was made in the context of the question of ‘did you consult with the DOD prior to making this shift in HLV policy?’ The answer of course being no, not really. Hence the need for NASA to talk to the DOD and get the civilian space policy back into alignment with the complete range of national interests.
I just don’t understand what is so confusing to you about this or where this irrational position against America having a more capable launch system than widely available world wide is coming from? Especially sense it’s already 80% paid for. The new science missions that can now be done should support a SDHLV even if there a zero commercial or military applications ‘real’ or ‘imaginary’.
Speaking on non-imaginary widely publicly known missions, When Charlie Bolden was asked about the mission to Europa (I can’t recall if it was this hearing or the one that followed on Wednesday) he didn’t really give the correct answer as to why it’s on the top of the list but keeps getting passed over for funding year after year. The answer is we lack the throw mass capability to pull it off. A capability the Jupiter-130 will enable for the first time. Ditto, for Mars sample return only its limitations are in the heat shield diameter (using scaled up Viking approaches to Mars EDL) that in turn limits how much mass we can land and therefore return to Earth. Speaking of Earth, how about resolving other Earths around other Suns in our Galaxy, yep your right volume, diameter and mass limitations again, how did you guess so quickly.
Look eventually using existing launch systems the new science missions are going to be minor variations/improvements of mission we have already flown, without, a serious upgrade in the launch system. Since the Jupiter will likely be joint effort between Lockheed/Martin and Boeing, you know just like ULA is, we don’t even have to upset any of the iron rice bowls, what a deal. Hey even the engineers that work for ULA at the Cape won’t even need to move when the are simply reassigned to support the Jupiter.
Perhaps, you should put your energies into explain to everyone here why America shouldn’t have a launch system more capable than what all other space fairing nations have? After all we spend more than all other nations combinded on our Space program. Doesn’t it then make sense that we should have slightly better launch system? Then again I’m sure you are just going to produce another rant lacking the ability to form a supportable argument on behalf of your position.
Look Stephen I have no problem with you trying to get cash for DIRECT, it is a fact of life. When there are claims of understanding based on classified information then I have problems. It kills all your credibility.
Now I would appreciate a link that explicitly shows DoD was not consulted because last I remember only the USAF was not consulted. And DoD is not equal to USAF.
As for national priorities they were spelled out explicitle by at least Lori Garver here http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/433361main_Goddard_keynote_final.pdf I see nothing about HLV or DoD concerns related to NASA save for “world peace” which is a given.
“irrational position against America having a more capable launch system than widely available world wide is coming from?”
More capable to launch what? To launch what DoD payload? Where does it say anywhere that DoD needs something that big and even so then sorry but DoD would have to pay for it. Furthermore they would not even be able to classify such a LV since wherever it launches from anyone with a modest satellite system would be able to catch it. So no I don’t believe your claim that DoD needs this thing. As to “irrational” position I believe it is yours. Read what I wrote about classified info. If you’d have access to such info and you mention it then you are committing a crime against the US. So in effect *you* would have a position against America. Sorry.
As to the potential missions you refer to you have to have a business case. Even if, even if there’d be only one LV in the whole world to launch them how would you justify its cost? You just cannot. That’s one of your problems.
“Perhaps, you should put your energies into explain to everyone here why America shouldn’t have a launch system more capable than what all other space fairing nations have? ”
Sorry but this is a totally false argument. YOU have to justify why we need this LV. I don’t want it and as a taxpayer you’re asking me to pay for it. So far the justification is tenuous at best and the DoD story is very very lousy.
“Then again I’m sure you are just going to produce another rant lacking the ability to form a supportable argument on behalf of your position.”
Believe what you want. We shall see soon right? And make sure you tell NASA how delirious they are not to take your project based on your claims. So far they have not. You’re mixing things. Again YOU have to prove to the government and NASA in particular that your project is worth anything.
Let me repeat: U.N.B.E.L.I.E.V.A.B.L.E.