“Mr. Valyin you have a point: a system should be in place where politicians should have less access to alter long term programs such as the space exploration projects. And perhaps a system where adjustments to such programs are better shielded from politics.”

With the amount of pork in NASA and the good buddy network of legislators in the space states, then toss in the cost plus contracting I could not imagine a better recipe for disaster for the American space program.
———————

“With regards to Mr. Bush: he fired his decision for reasons I failed to understand – I do not believe space was high in his priorities – ”

When President Bush took office there was 238 billion in the bank in the form of a budget surplus. The 10 year projection was a 4 trillion dollar surplus. If Bush would have been serious about space he could have did an “apollo on steriods” and fully funded it and no one would have batted an eye at that time.

Mr. Valyin you have a point: a system should be in place where politicians should have less access to alter long term programs such as the space exploration projects. And perhaps a system where adjustments to such programs are better shielded from politics. With regards to Mr. Bush: he fired his decision for reasons I failed to understand – I do not believe space was high in his priorities – without a review of the funding needed and without making any provisions for such funding. It is interesting to note that the first initiatives after Mr. Bush’s decision, led my R. Admiral Steidle, also tried the “new technolgies” approach, through a BAA published by NASA at the end of 2004 or 2005, can’t remember exactly. I remember working on very interetsing proposals. The bottom line is that NASA soon realized there is not enough money for that approach, and in time the program reversed to an Apollo like venue.

Anyway, I digressed. Personally, I believe the Obama plan is trying to introduce a reasonable approach – and the discussions here are very interesting in capturing various ideas and interpretations – however, in a bit of an academic style, whereas the field is tensed with issues such as job losses and billions already spent. The arguments in the exchange I referred to in my previous posting seemed a bit too personal rather than touching on the substance of the argument.

seems more relevant.. unfortunately, longer.

1. the wording of the act does not provide an exclusion for human launch vehicles.
2. the exceptions that are provided (shuttle unique capability, cost effective commercial availability, unacceptable risk of loss of a unique scientific opportunity, national security/foreign policy) clearly do not apply anymore.

see http://www.cwo.com/~davida/lspalaw.txt

One early figure for the basic Constellation “astronaut to the lunar surface” capability was $105B. If you’re suggesting that Constellation will have cost growth similar to what you’re claiming for ISS (and the $100B figure could be debated), that would put Constellation over $1 trillion – not counting operations, etc. Is initial Constellation development worth that much?

richardb: “Both programs barely won approval from Congress despite their unrealistically low price tags. Yet both programs are very successful.”

Some would debate that, based on cost, safety, opportunity costs, and other factors. In fact, if Constellation is kept, the ISS in particular is sure to be a failure, because we won’t be able to afford it nearly long enough to justify its expense.

richardb: “Which leads to Hubble. Another program with blown costs and schedules.”

Hubble has had its ups and downs, but it’s important to note that a large portion of its costs over the years have been for adding capabilities. Shuttle and ISS, on the other hand, suffered Constellation-like loss of capabilities even as they suffered Constellation-like increases in costs. Interestingly, with the cancellation of Constellation, the ISS now suddenly has an opportunity (specified in the 2011 NASA budget) to have added capabilities.

rchardb: “It’s no different than the other three programs in having ballooning costs.”

There is a difference. Constellation’s cost increases are so severe that they’ve already devestated NASA technology innovation, science, ISS, aeronautics, and other areas. Future prospects for non-Constellation areas of NASA are extremely grim for decades to come, even with completely unrealistic budget boosts for NASA overall, if Constellation is kept.

richardb: “Its also no different in the blown schedules for coming online.”

The ESAS form of Constellation isn’t even 5 years old, and it’s already blown its 15 year goal of astronauts to the lunar surface by 15 or so years. Schedule problems are common in space work, but the Constellation schedule problems are in a league of their own.

richardb: “Obama and Nasa critics says it costs too much.”

I wouldn’t count Constellation critics as NASA critics. Many Constellation critics have supported NASA science, aeronautics, technology, ISS, Shuttle, and other programs. Many Constellation critics support NASA’s current plans and management. Many Constellation critics are tough on NASA whenever they think it’s making mistakes, and support NASA whenever they think it’s making good decisions.

“Where do you think the revenue will come from to support the infrastructure costs? OH yeah.. NASA + Overhead and Profit on top of that. Not cheaper for taxpayers. If it was supplemented by a thriving market, then maybe it would lower costs but, not realistically.”

So what is it you actually want? To preserve the NASA/contractor workforce or not?

Where do you think the revenue will come from to support the infrastructure costs? OH yeah.. NASA + Overhead and Profit on top of that. Not cheaper for taxpayers. If it was supplemented by a thriving market, then maybe it would lower costs but, not realistically.

Both programs were results of the1991 ended Cold War. This is why they came to be and were sustained.

Wow talk about babbling…