Lobbying

Lobbying and rallying – and opting out – in Florida

Space advocates on Florida’s Space Coast are gearing up for Sunday’s “Save Space” rally in Cocoa, Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) the latest politician to agree to participate in the event. Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL), and Lt. Governor Jeff Kottkamp, along with other state and local politicians, are participating in the event. Organizers are hoping to attract 5,000 for the late afternoon event.

It’s not the only effort art rallying and lobbying in the region, though. On Sunday a group of Embry-Riddle students organized their own “Roadside Awareness Rally” about the new plan, holding signs along a Daytona Beach road with slogans like “Let Us Go To The Moon” and, bizarrely, “Constellation will REVIVE our WORLD’S ECONOMY!” (um, points for enthusiasm, at least.) The students are affiliated with a group at ERAU called Save NASA”, which appears to be separate from the “#saveNASA” meme that swept through Twitter in November but has since appeared to die out.

Meanwhile, about two dozen Space Coast residents have signed up to participate in the annual lobbying effort by Citizens for Space Exploration in May in Washington. They’ll be going, according to the Florida Today article, “to plead with lawmakers to support the space industry before it evaporates.” Interestingly, if you go to the Citizens for Space Exploration web site, you’ll see a large illustration of an Ares 1 launching with the words, “Our mission is to promote awareness of and support for NASA and the US Space Exploration Policy”. Somehow, though, it sounds like they won’t be in total lockstep with the new policy, as illustrated in the FY2011 NASA budget proposal.

Not everyone, though, is rallying against the agency’s new direction. The Orlando Sentinel reports that Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne will no longer support lobbying efforts for Constellation. “Instead,” the Sentinel reports, “sources say that the company really wants Obama’s proposed 2011 budget to include a new rocket development program, a clear destination and a development time-line which are currently conspicuous by their absence from the White House’s financial plan that still has to be approved by Congress.” The report adds, anecdotally, that Boeing is also preparing for a future without Constellation: it omitted a section about the program in the latest version of its shuttle “Reporters Notebooks” handed out at the STS-131 launch earlier this week.

55 comments to Lobbying and rallying – and opting out – in Florida

  • Robert G. Oler

    As I noted sometime ago, the mainline companies have read the handwritting on the wall for sometime…and except for ATK their “real” position for sometime has not been “save Constellation”.

    From the moment Obama announced his change, the status quo was doomed. This is just how this works in government. But what has been somewhat pathetic is to watch the various “no to Obama’ groups and the really sorry rhetoric that they have ratched up.

    Whales drive themselves on the beach to not drown and humans going under grab irrationally at almost everything…and so do those supporting federal programs which long ago ceased to have any real relevance to todays world. And it is the fact that “the Chinese are going” or “save our jobs” is the best that can be argued is the reason that the thing is going under.

    It is metaphoric for our times.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    I am not sure why this would come as a surprise. Let’s look at the Boeing/ULA team. ULA has PWR engines on their rockets and Boeing may be able to come up with a capsule design really quickly. So don’t you think that if the CCDev/COTS-D/successor-program come to be, don’t you think that they are bound to make a lot more money than on the good ol’ POR? Remember that the idea is to have multiple LVs and RVs. And that there is cash for an HLV development. The POR would have secured some cash for some time because it was cost-plus. But if the cost go down then there may be a lot more lauches than on POR and therefore a lot more cash AND the opportunity to finally do some significant private R&D that will be promoted by the competition. Unlike LMT say BA knows a lot about “commercial” right?

  • Major Tom

    “Not everyone, though, is rallying against the agency’s new direction. The Orlando Sentinel reports that Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne will no longer support lobbying efforts for Constellation. “Instead,” the Sentinel reports, “sources say that the company really wants Obama’s proposed 2011 budget to include a new rocket development program, a clear destination and a development time-line which are currently conspicuous by their absence from the White House’s financial plan…”

    P&W isn’t getting their money’s worth from whatever lobbyists and advisors they’re paying to tell them what’s in the President’s budget for NASA. Any idiot can read NASA’s FY 2011 budget request and see that it includes:

    An Exploration section that explicitly calls out in the very first paragraph “the Moon, asteroids, Lagrange points, and Mars and its environs” as destinations.

    Numerous development program dates and deadlines, such as “In FY 2011, NASA will initiate several Flagship Technology Demonstrators, each with an expected lifecycle cost in the $400 million to $1 billion range, over a lifetime of five years or less, with the first flying no later than 2014.”

    A “Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology” development program containing two to three three new rocket engine projects, including:

    “First-Stage Launch Propulsion” — “A hydrocarbon (liquid oxygen/kerosene) engine, capable of generating high levels of thrust approximately equal to or exceeding the performance of the Russian-built RD-180 engine.”

    “In-Space Engine Demonstration” — “A liquid oxygen/methane engine and potentially also low-cost liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen engines… that would be restartable and capable of high acceleration and reliability.”

    It’s great that contractors quickly came to their senses on Constellation, but they (or at least P&W) need to put a couple people on the payroll who can actually read a budget document.

    Lawdy…

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ April 7th, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    yeah good point(s)

    I am going to be fascinated by the thing on the 15th if for no other reason then to try and see who got what right and who got what wrong in terms of predicting if Obama is going to do something he has never done…an about face in public.

    Look I could be as wrong as rain…but everything I have seen from the AC to what I have heard from my lobbiest friend that the launcher companies (other then ATK) are telling the folks on the hill…is that they are petrified that the launcher industry is going the way of a lot of other industries in The Republic (ie under) because of what is happening overseas with the Russians/Europeans and the Indians.

    One company representative (I wont say which) told my Friend (Whittington has met him) that another NASA oriented project is the equivalent to the US launcher industry of what the US did to the Soviets with Star Wars. I also think Gates believes something along those lines.

    This could all be wrong and someone has pulled off the greatest lobbying feat since killing Clinton’s health care ….ie changed the tide of Presidential momentum but I dont think so.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mark R. Whittington

    One should note that P&W is not supporting Obamaspace either but is demanding some kind of Plan B that will include a viable exploration program with a timetable and a destination. Boeing one suspects is pushing for that sort of thing too.

    “Major Tom” is confusing vague blather in a budget document for a plan. There is currently no exploration plan. Maybe something will change at the Space Summit. In fact it must because Obamaspace is a nonstarter in the Congress.

  • common sense

    @Mark R. Whittington wrote @ April 7th, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    “In fact it must because Obamaspace is a nonstarter in the Congress.”

    All right let’s think about this for a minute. Assume that Congress is responding to the lobby of the various contractors as they usually do. Said contractors are now dumping the support of the POR in favor of the current plan. Who’s left supporting the POR? ATK? Okay, how much influence will they have in that matter? LMT? I haven’t heard anything save for the Coats memo thing.

    Also as a rule of thumb, usually contractors don’t try to embarass/p-off the customer because it may mean hard time for new future contracts. So?

    Oh yeah I forgot the timeline…

    Oh well…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ April 7th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
    In fact it must because Obamaspace is a nonstarter in the Congress…

    it is like the WMD going to Syria…you keep saying things as if saying them over and over again will make them accurate. You should start “drinking heavily” Obama is going to win this as he has won just about everything else.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “One should note that P&W is not supporting Obamaspace either but is demanding some kind of Plan B that will include a viable exploration program with a timetable and a destination.”

    How are “the Moon, asteroids, Lagrange points, and Mars and its environs” not destinations?

    How are multiple deadlines like “first flying no later than 2014″ not a timetable?

    How is Option 5B from the Augustine report, which Augustine himself has stated in writing that NASA’s FY 2011 budget request most closely resembles, not a “viable exploration program”?

    Don’t make stuff up.

    “Maybe something will change at the Space Summit. In fact it must because Obamaspace”

    It’s not “Obamaspace”. NASA’s FY 2011 budget plan didn’t spring fullborn from the President’s head. Augustine himself has written Congressman Wolf stating that NASA’s FY 2011 budget request resembles Option 5B from the Augustine committee’s final report. That’s where the plan originates.

    Don’t make stuff up.

    “is a nonstarter in the Congress.”

    If NASA’s FY 2011 budget request is such a “nonstarter in the Congress”, then why do both draft authorization bills provide every dollar in every NASA account requested by the Administration and adopt all the major program elements contained in the Administration’s request?

    If NASA’s FY 2011 budget request is such a “nonstarter in the Congress”, then why was the statement of the chair at NASA’s House appropriations hearing supportive of the request?

    Don’t make stuff up.

    ““Major Tom” is confusing vague blather”

    Specific destinations, dates, products, and the budgets to support them are not “vague blather”.

    Ignoring (or still not comprehending) pages of key budget and policy documents so one can generalize with goofy, misleading labels like “Obamaspace” is “vague blather”

    Stop making stuff up.

    Ugh…

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Oler keeps bring up the non sequitur of Iraqi WMDs in Syria as if they mean anything. His argument in that regard is with Gen. James Clapper, during Bush 43 the Director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, not with me.

    As for Obama “winning”, all of his “victories” have been of the Pyrrhic variety. The stimulus bill and health care reform are wrecking the American economy and the Democrat Party.

    Now Oler may be right that Obama may decide to try to ram through Obamaspace, but almost zero support in the Congress I;m not sure how that happens. The more plausible outcome is something akin to what Cowing is reporting, though without a budget boost there are serious problems with the “Plan B that doesn’t exist.” It’s also shaping up to be a version of “look but don’t touch” exploration, bypassing the Moon and Mars, as well as a public option on the cheap that might well wreck the commercial initiative which is one of the bright spots of Obamaspace.

    Perhaps the next President–whomever she or he is–will be able to fix things.

  • I am going to be fascinated by the thing on the 15th if for no other reason then to try and see who got what right and who got what wrong in terms of predicting if Obama is going to do something he has never done…an about face in public.

    He does it all the time. He just pretends that he hasn’t. Just off the top of my head: taking public campaign finance funds before he didn’t, closing Gitmo within a year and then not, not trying KSM in New York, being against an individual mandate before he was for it, etc. Every Obama proclamation has an expiration date. It’s just a matter of when.

  • common sense

    @ Rand Simberg wrote @ April 7th, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    “Every Obama proclamation has an expiration date. It’s just a matter of when.”

    So what? It’s called “Flex-Path”. He adapts the path according to circumstances, unlike others who go full steam ahead into walls… Such as Katrina, Iraq, Afghanistan, VSE/Constellation, tax-cuts, housing bubble, etc.

    Oh well…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ April 7th, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    Oler keeps bring up the non sequitur of Iraqi WMDs in Syria as if they mean anything. His argument in that regard is with Gen. James Clapper..

    No, the argument is with people like you who take a few words from a guy who was never in country and then form a reality based on that. That is what you are doing with space policy. David P. called people who believed in the WMD to Syria “Wishful thinkers”. (at least that is the kindest thing that he said).

    As Major Tom has pointed out the draft bills working their way in the Congress provide dollar for dollar the Obama plan.

    Worse you cannot point to anything other then some goofy statements by space district political representatives to show that there is no support.

    How goofy the analysis gets is that you then look at victories (Obama is winning everyone) and try and label them as “less” This after the GOP stood toes in the sand trying to defeat them threw everything it had at them, including one false statement after another, LOST.

    What is really bad about all this, is that when people like you spread disinformation and outright lies; it harms our political debate in this country. There is room for informed political discussion and there is a need for extensive debate on how to solve the issues of our time.

    But what you do is make stuff up and then label them as fact. Years ago when Bush came out with his vision; you stated all the commercial aspects of the plan, how this or that was going to happen…and you were wrong. Nothing you have predicted came true. Again it is like the Bush people who told one lie after another about the WMD in Iraq.

    Want solid debate fine….we need that in human spaceflight things are in bad shape after the Bush years. But to make stuff up and paint it as fact is something that we should all be tired of.

    See what happens on April 15th with the meeting in FL…my guess is that nothing substantial will change.

    Robert G. Oler

  • So what? It’s called “Flex-Path”.

    I was just pointing out that Robert (as is often the case), doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I’m happy that the president has changed his mind on some of his crazier positions. I just think that it’s living in an alternate reality to deny that he has.

  • Missed tag. The second graf in the previous comment was mine.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ April 7th, 2010 at 2:51 pm..

    this is like defending Lori Garver…somewhat annoying…I voted for the other guy in 08.

    the points you make have some validity the question that each American has to figure out is how much.

    To paraphrase Charlie Cook …the issue is did Obama sell the nation that he was going to drive us from Dallas to Houston and ended up in Oklahoma City…or did he go from Dallas to Houston but instead of going direct on I 45 did a sort of jig and came into town on Highway 6?

    I wish Obama had gone a few places he has not. I would have left Afland as fast as one could, drove right to single payer…but for the most part while there are arguments on “how” and how fast we are going in the direction he has talked about…we are going.

    I wish Gitmo was as a prison, closed already but clearly instead of more people being put there, it is being wound down. Health care has dramatically changed in the US, with little or no prospect for another serious change for a bit.

    Obama has suceeded in making his administration an inflection point in American history (nothing special there Bush did as well)…but so far nothing he has done surprised me…I paid attention in the campaign.

    I dont see him in his space policy doing much different from his health care, or his plans in Afland or whatever…ie standing up in a public meeting and announcing a new plan…he didnt do that with the health care meeting and I dont see him doing anything different in FL.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Rand has a good point. So far Obama has been in favor of delaying Constellation, supporting Constellation, and canceling Constellation. Another pivot is inevitable.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    “What is really bad about all this, is that when people like you spread disinformation and outright lies; it harms our political debate in this country. There is room for informed political discussion and there is a need for extensive debate on how to solve the issues of our time. ”

    Being called a liar by Oler is sort of like being accused of adultery by Bill Clinton, annoying but of really no great import.

    The fact is that Oler is so consumed by Bush Derangement Syndrome and apparently also with Obama Worship that his judgment is, as usual, faulty.

    Obamaspace was trotted out at the last minute, with no warning and no consultation. Unlike Obamacare, it has close to zero support in the Congress.

    If one supposes that Obama wants to fight for his program (though I suspect that the stories that it was Holdren and Garver who conceived of this train wreck are true), then one has to ask oneself, what is he prepared to do? Remember he has expended just about all of his political capital ramming through Obamacare. He has hopes that–maybe–he can do cap and trade and some kind of illegal immigrant amnesty before this November’s thrashing that is in store for him and his. Next to that, I imagine Obamaspace is rather low on the list of priorities.

  • MrEarl

    All this back and forth is just silly.
    The draft bills in congress right now are just that, drafts. Considering that the budget is only 2 months out of the gate with at least 6 more to go before a real vote, a lot can happen. Congress has been focused on health care ever since the budget was announced and is just now getting down to the real essence of what is in it.
    Many in congress who have focused on the budget proposal don’t like it for reasons that range from reasonable to bazaar.
    Keith Cowling outlined a compromise in the works yesterday that seems to me would be a good plan going forward. He has good sources but has been wrong in the past.
    I know Oler has a hot line to the Almighty but I can’t remember a time that ANYONE in Washington has had a conversation with him lately. (the Almighty, not Robert)

    April 15th will be when we know how this thing is going, how much support the budget proposal has, how much and how effective the opposition is and was there any deals cut to support on health care. Until then anything that any of us say is purely speculation. Except for Major Tom who can quote chapter and verse. :-)

    Anecdotaly, the opinion of people I have talked to is that Obama has killed NASA, specifically human space flight and going back to the moon. You can quote facts and figures from the Augustine report and anything else you want but that perception is out there. What dose that mean politically since NASA support is about a mile wide and paper thick I’m not sure.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ April 7th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
    Unlike Obamacare, it has close to zero support in the Congress. ..

    you keep saying these things, and yet how things are going in Congress, the actions by Senator Hutchinson seem to indicate otherwise.

    it is starting to sound like Rumsfeld…he knew where the WMD was but couldnt tell anyone…but he knew it.

    what evidence, other then the babbling of space district porkers…that Obama’s space plans have no support in Congress?

    Robert G. Oler

  • mark valah

    Does anyone know the current status of the Kutchinson bill in the Senate and the companion legislation in the House? I cannot find any recent news on that. Thanks.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ April 7th, 2010 at 3:50 p

    Anecdotaly, the opinion of people I have talked to is that Obama has killed NASA, specifically human space flight and going back to the moon. ..

    change is hard on everyone.

    As you (and I ) have pointed out April the 15th is close.

    Robert G. Oler

  • MrEarl

    It’s not aversion to change that I’m hearing, it’s more like, “What the h–l is he doing?!” People still see space flight as a prestige thing. “The US is a great nation and great nations have manned space programs.” To say that “change is hard on everyone” is like Jimmy Carter saying that the US is in a “malaise”. May be true but it sure doesn’t win elections.

  • Bennett

    Let’s face it. People who use terms like “Obamacare” and “Obamaspace” have lost all capacity for rational debate. They have bought into the Fox News mindset and believe that lies=truth and name calling=debate.

    It’s never was amusing, and is the antithesis of intellectualism.

  • Jeff Foust –

    This link could be worth its own post. There are two BBBC video clips embedded here, including what looks like a new interview with Administrator Bolden.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/04/charlie.shtml

    I acknowledge libs0n who posted this link in a comment at nasaspaceflight dot com.

  • common sense

    @MrEarl wrote @ April 7th, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    ” I can’t remember a time that ANYONE in Washington has had a conversation with him lately. (the Almighty, not Robert)”

    Short memory? http://www.democracynow.org/2004/10/20/god_the_presidency_an_in_depth

    “Anecdotaly, the opinion of people I have talked to is that Obama has killed NASA, specifically human space flight and going back to the moon. You can quote facts and figures from the Augustine report and anything else you want but that perception is out there.”

    Opinion of which people? Any one interesting? Reference?

    “What dose that mean politically since NASA support is about a mile wide and paper thick I’m not sure.”

    If NASA support is about a mile wide and paper thick then you already know what this does politically. Don’t you? really?

  • Vladislaw

    Mark R. Whittington wrote:

    “As for Obama “winning”, all of his “victories” have been of the Pyrrhic variety. The stimulus bill and health care reform are wrecking the American economy and the Democrat Party. ”

    The stimulas bill is wrecking the american economy?

    1/3 of the stimulus was tax cuts, why have you not been advocating for a repeal of the tax cuts because they are wrecking the economy?

    Roughy 1/3 of the stimulus was infrastructure investment, according to the Engineers report card on American infrastructure we received D grades across the board, the nation is falling apart and needs over 2 trillion in investments, something the republicans have repeatedly voted against since reagan. How does investing in modern infrastructure make the economy worse off?

    Since falling off the cliff unemployment if at least stablizing may be on the rise finally. The stock market has went from 8000 to 11000 since coming into office, how is that a sign of the economy being wrecked?

    The health care bill, which just passed congress and got signed is ALREADY wrecking the economy? My that was fas

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bill White wrote @ April 7th, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    fine link…nice post

    Looking at the date on the story if there is a change coming then Charlie is 1) out of the loop or 2) he is a very good liar. “I dont think so” is a Marine phrase, they learn it at PLC (for USNA officer’s) and it means “it isnt going to happen”.

    Then to go on and talk about what the POTUS is going to say. anything is possible but a significant change is highly unlikely.

    In my theory the one they will look back on when my youngest daughter is 50ish is not only this one but Goldin with the ISS…these are two big game changers. They had changed the course of how things are done in civilian space

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Vladislaw wrote @ April 7th, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    a joy of having a young daughter is that late at night as we are trying to let Momie sleep …and one is desperate for something to watch on TV as the bottle flows …one eventually gets desperate enough to check out folks like Glenn Beck…just to see what the lunatics are really listening to.

    In Mark’s world Saddam was really going to come to the US and kill us. Really

    Robert G. Oler

  • Doug Lassiter

    “How are “the Moon, asteroids, Lagrange points, and Mars and its environs” not destinations?”

    I am actually encouraged by the new direction for human space flight, and to whatever extent the FY11 budget proposal tries to look like a flexible path strategy. It’s true, these words are in the first paragraph of the Exploration Systems section of the budget proposal. But one can’t help notice that these words are to be found just here and in precisely one other place — the robotic precursor section. Two places in a five hundred and seventeen page budget proposal.

    This budget may point out that these are candidate destinations for human space flight, but it sure doesn’t offer any rationale or explanation for them. These destinations therefore come across as somewhat of an afterthought.

    I’m not looking for a single target destination, nor am I looking for a schedule to get to any one of them. But I am looking for even a halfway compelling case that makes me believe that the administration is really energized about these destinations. You know, maybe a paragraph about what each candidate destination offers the nation as a a target for human space flight. Yep, that might be one more page to add to those 517. Not that hard. Congress might like to see such enthusiasm from the administration. Formally, candidate destinations are indeed listed, but nowhere are those destinations really featured as major goals of this nation.

  • Rocketdyne stands to benefit if they restart the development of the RS-84 or even a new(ly named) engine.

  • Living here in Merritt Island, five miles from KSC, I’m at Ground Zero for all the loony grandstanding and hysteria from the “Save Space!” crowd.

    Space is doing just fine, of course, it’s the people living in denial for the last six years who are demanding they be saved from their failure to plan for the Shuttle’s retirement in 2010 as announced by President Bush in 2004.

    It’s a noise machine, nothing more. There is no widespread opposition in Congress to the Obama Administration’s FY 2011 NASA budget proposal. The opposition is coming from Congresscritters whose districts stand to lose fat government contracts. They’re only interested in saving voter jobs, not in the best choice for America’s space future.

    The site for the “Save Space!” rally is Cocoa Expo Stadium, an old, dilapidated, dirty ballpark. I was over there last October for a winter baseball league that quickly folded due to lack of support. The place was filthy, covered with pigeon poop. Some of the benches — not seats, but benches — were broken.

    The fact that they’re holding this in Cocoa Expo tells me a lot.

    Frankly, I think Obama is doing these people a courtesy by even coming here. There is no nationwide groundswell to save Constellation or spend zillions more on human space exploration.

    A January 2010 Rasmussen Reports poll found that 50% of Americans want to cut back on funding for manned space exploration. Only 35% want the government to pay for space research, while 38% think the private sector should pay for it.

    The locals will probably boo Obama, and I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the Tea Party crackpots throws something at him, instead of making a reasoned argument to continue the status quo because they know it’s indefensible. The cold truth is they want to keep their government-funded jobs. If that means sitting around polishing the chrome for two years waiting for another external tank to be built, that’s fine with them.

    But in the end, I don’t see any reason for Obama to “compromise” or “capitulate.” It’s a very small noisy group complaining, but outside their small circle the silence is deafening.

  • What I see as the biggest problem with the space interest community, nowadays, is the wholesale lack of unity in the quest for America to reach deep space. The worse divide, is the uncompromising rift being brought on by the zealously pro-Mars people, the ones who are dead-set against the proposed Lunar Return, and want to hijack this quest into becoming an “anywhere-but-the-Moon” thing. All these people who believe that Dr. Zubrin’s Mars mission plan will work, flawlessly on its maiden voyage, without the need for a Lunar test-run—“so hence, let’s just kill Constellation….” Just what is going on in their heads, now, really?? Rob Zubrin’s plan involves the unmanned, automated landing of huge landing craft, on the Red Planet’s surface. (On some “semi-direct” variant of the mission plan, there might be an orbiting earth-return spacecraft left unattended in low mars orbit, parked up there for about two-thirds of the entire expedition’s flight.) Has ANYTHING the size & mass of this proposed surface-to-orbit (or surface-to-interplanetary space, in a more stricter version of the plan) earth-return-vehicle EVER been successfully landed on another world?? Without the Constellation heavy-payload rocket—the Aries 5, that Mr. Obama has been talked into cancelling—HOW do you all intend to launch your automated Mars landers?? Piece by little piece on board the Venture Star,—or some other mini shuttle?? I thought that it was the Mars Direct plan to specifically AVOID all that load of LEO assembly work, wasn’t it?? How do you all now propose getting those ERV’s off the ground? Seriously folks, this move to finish off with the Aries 5 rocket & the rest of Constellation, is pure madness, even from a Mars enthusiast point of view. Aries 5 will have clear interplanetary transport applications. Indeed if the Lunar mission is allowed to go forward—as well it should—large automated Moon landing craft will have been proven viable first. This real-life technology demonstration, on an enterprise taking NASA beyond LEO, is exactly the kind of thing that we should be doing. This, instead of cantankerous in-fighting over avoiding this-or-that destination; because it might “get in the way” of things. WHY…why would an asteroid be a superior proving ground for landing systems?? To go to the Red Planet you would still need to deal with a deep & strong gravity well. And in the case of a really small asteroid, you CAN’T even actually land on one! You’d have to sort-of “dock” with it. A lot of these assumptions by the Mars fanatic crowd, really don’t hold water, on closer check. How about other issues: like dust management, and solar flare protection? Do you all really think that 50 or 60 years in LEO is going to be adequate preparation & training for our astronauts and engineers in solving all those issues? That based on NASA’s space station experience alone, we are fully ready to set sail for the interplanetary void?—for six months travel time both ways? We need to have a reality check, boys! The Moon BEFORE Mars—it is the only prudent way to go.

  • Jeff Greason

    A little disappointed in the debate above.

    I’m going to try, one more time, to explain flexible path. It isn’t hard. You just have to read what we said rather than try to do Kreminology on what you think we must have meant.

    I’ll boil it down the same way that I explained it to policy makers.

    * We want to go to Mars.
    * We can’t reasonably go to Mars without more experience with long-duration missions.
    * Long-duration missions can be done to Lagrange points, NEO’s, and Phobos/Deimos and they are all worthwhile missions in their own right.
    * We can’t reasonably go to Mars without updating our experience doing manned planetary exploration.
    * Manned planetary exploration would be done on the Moon, which is a worthwhile mission in its own right, and could be a source of propellant for exploration.
    * The Moon vs. Mars vs. NEO’s is therefore a FALSE CHOICE; the only choice we have is what sequence we do them in.
    * Therefore, the only reasonable way to proceed is to accept that we MUST plan to do all of these things and plan accordingly.
    * Since the spacecraft, lander, and boosters/EDS’s are the expensive part, constrained budget says develop 1 or at most 2 of them first.

    Now, the version of this in the Augustine report was:
    * Do the boosters/EDS’s and spacecraft first
    * Do buildup flights in LEO, Lagrange, Cislunar, NEO’s
    * Do Lunar landings
    * Do Mars
    (whether Phobos came before or after Lunar landings really wasn’t clear, it depends on how the technologies shake out).

    Look at the mission timeline in the report, under flexible path, and you see Lunar landings, NEO visits, and Phobos visits before Mars. Construing that as “abandoning the moon” or “don’t touch” requires one to either refuse to read the report, to assume we only meant part of what we said, or to be dishonest.

    Today, as it seems the NASA budget may not support doing 2 elements at once, I would suggest we do one at a time:
    * spacecraft
    * then boosters
    * then landers

    Because that way we can begin the exploration sequence with spacecraft on existing boosters and build the (relatively modest) upgraded boosters we need for more agressive missions as we go.

  • I think that between lunar landings and Mars has to come a lunar colony.

    Going to Mars and back is going to be a long trip. The crew will need to spend an extended period of time on the surface. They will need to live off the land, as well as all the stuff they have to haul with them.

    We can get experience simulating that with a lunar colony, which should be the next logical step after the ISS.

    The Moon is three days away. Mars is six months away. I don’t think people realize just how big a difference that is, especially with all that go wrong.

  • Bennett

    Jeff Greason wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 9:57 am

    Thank you!

    “…requires one to either refuse to read the report, to assume we only meant part of what we said, or to be dishonest.”

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 10:37 am

    I think that between lunar landings and Mars has to come a lunar colony…

    before any of those comes a space industrial complex/industry that can make human spaceflight profitable. The era of human exploration of space just to “explore” is more or less over…it has been for about 30 years but like Terry Schiavo it was kept alive by machines.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 10:37 am

    I see the point but would say that one can die as quick in a T-38 driving around the pattern at Ellington as one can in a Dreamliner on the way to Tokyo.

    For political and other reasons I dont see a Mars or Lunar “colony” happening in the next 20 years or so…but when we start deep space voyages the time enroute (other then the sheer time for the crew) wont make any real difference either one is reasonably safe for 1 day or one is not reasonably safe for any period of time.

    Deep space travel is a lot like submarines…once one left the period when Submarines were really defined as surface ships that could go for limited periods not to deep underwater…to the point where they were underwater vessels that came to the surface to come into and leave port…it didnt matter if Nautilus was on patrol for six days or six weeks.

    The problem is is that we are sometime away from such vehicles. ISS is the first of its kind, ie a vehicle which we fix not rebuild…but there is some distance to go.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    @Jeff Greason wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 9:57 am

    “A little disappointed in the debate above.”

    Only a little??? ;)

    “I’m going to try, one more time, to explain flexible path. It isn’t hard. You just have to read what we said rather than try to do Kreminology on what you think we must have meant.”

    Hmm sure but do you realy write what you mean? Or is it a big plan to kill HSF? Come on! Please say it! YOU JUST WANT TO KILL HSF! ;)

    Just kidding of course but could not help, sorry.

    Oh well…

  • googaw

    What a great way to develop space: centrally plan the most ludicrous economic fantasies and then squabble like pigs over the resulting pork which, surprise surprise, ends up accomplishing nothing.

  • common sense

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    I think that a lunar colony may come “early” but I cannot tell when for sure and here is why. But it will not be a NASA colony, not really. If the current plan is successful they will have developed some ISRU technology, they will have developed commercial access to space as well. Now you add the two together and someone may come up with a plan to extract resources (TBD) on the Moon. This will require some human presence, mostly automated but nonetheless (maintenance at the very least). This crew of course will be very different from the usual NASA crew. Think Armageddon, the movie, not the real thing ;) The trip to the Moon does not require a huge leap in technology from a trip to LEO. A departure stage and some upgraded thermal protection system and maybe a more “reliable” avionics/GN&C. Radiation protection may be mitigated by date of launch and exploration of the Sun activity, nothing like going to Mars anyway. You may think of Alien and/or Outland redux maybe, a blend of government and commercial crew and a surgeon (now that we have good coverage, does that include people on the Moon?). And this colony may be limited to what 6 people? With crew rotation etc you may have the start of an industrial infrastructure. Sci-Fi? Maybe. But if theere is cash to make out there, some one will eventually find a way. We just need to start: That is NASA’s role, enabling the whole thing.

    Now of course if this fails then we can possibly take a long vacation in the Caribbeans… Can someone say Mai Tai?

  • googaw

    a plan to extract resources (TBD) on the Moon. This will require some human presence

    Nonsense. The economically optimal scale for real markets is two to three orders of magnitude smaller than the form factor required for a manned presence. The money required to do something on the scale of a manned lunar base makes it an economic hallucination, not to mention the extraordinary safety bureaucracy that the Senator Mikulskis of the world will demand. Until it can be fully automated with small machines (assuming it can’t already be today) the real market won’t do it and it will be just another NASA make-work “infrastructure” project, the ultimate bridge to nowhere.

  • common sense

    @googaw wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    Ah googaw, still don’t get it do you? It does not matter what you say. The nonsense is that you don’t seem to understand that HSF is a fact of life. At least until today and for the foreseeable future. I cannot care less if you think it must all be automated. The fact is that there is a plan for HSF, that we will send people places. And since we do that then they might as well do somethiing “useful”. Better be jumping on the train, it’s leaving the station today with a stop on April 15th then there will be no more stops for a while…

    Not sure who is hallucinating…

    Oh well…

  • common sense wrote:

    “But it will not be a NASA colony, not really. If the current plan is successful they will have developed some ISRU technology, they will have developed commercial access to space as well.”

    Actually, it will be a consortium of nations as well as the private sector, much as what is happening now with ISS.

    Obama has made it very clear no one nation can afford to unilaterally fly a robust human space program any more. The ISS is a demonstration of that. I suspect the cost will eventually convince the Chinese to join in, rather than trying to do their own Moon program separately. India, of course, will opt in too.

    The private sector might go just to make money off of it, but we also need to learn how humans survive on another world for extended periods of time. That knowledge is essential for humans pushing out further into the solar system.

  • googaw

    The nonsense is that you don’t seem to understand that HSF is a fact of life.

    HSF beyond LEO hasn’t been a fact of life for more than 30 years. Only a “fact” of science fiction.

    Better be jumping on the train, it’s leaving the station today with a stop on April 15th

    Considering that it’s April 15th, there may at least for one day be more said in favor of the taxpayer than of the astronaut fan. In any case, the most probable destinations for any trip beyond LEO are long-duration missions such as to Phobos/Deimos or an NEA. It seems that, once we move beyond the noisy but tiny minority who have sung out of the same hymnal of “next logical steps” of “infrastructure” since the 1950s, many more astronaut fans think “exploration” is about heroics and “going where no man has gone before” than about building bridges to nowhere.

  • “I think that between lunar landings and Mars has to come a lunar colony.

    Going to Mars and back is going to be a long trip. The crew will need to spend an extended period of time on the surface. They will need to live off the land, as well as all the stuff they have to haul with them.

    We can get experience simulating that with a lunar colony, which should be the next logical step after the ISS.

    The Moon is three days away. Mars is six months away. I don’t think people realize just how big a difference that is, especially with all that go wrong.”

    Exactly! And if we had made that next logical step back the 1970’s using our heavy lift architecture, we’d probably already have permanent bases on Mars and space stations in Mars orbit. Resisting the next logical step ( a moon base) continues to set our manned space program backwards. A permanent Moon base will change everything!

  • common sense

    @ Stephen C. Smith wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 1:41 pm :

    I would tend to agree with you but I was only addressing the US part of the plan which is in the proposed budget.

  • common sense

    @googaw wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    “HSF beyond LEO hasn’t been a fact of life for more than 30 years. Only a “fact” of science fiction.”

    I said HSF I did not say HSF BEO. Read what I write. The current Flex-Path budget plan calls for exploration though. Look at what Jeff posted here “Jeff Greason wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 9:57 am “.

    Don’t you ever get tired of your anti-astronaut rant? Lost budget? Did not make it to the corps?

    There is no one more blind than the one who does not want to see… Or something like this.

    Oh well…

  • googaw

    “common sense”, what I never get tired of is pointing out utter stupidity. Which certainly describes the “next logical step” religion.

  • common sense

    @googaw wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 2:16 pm :

    Clearly you are becoming irrelevant like the Constellation and Shuttle huggers. That is sad because when you make an effort you can contribute.

    As far as stupidity is concerned you may want to think really hard about this one and how your attitude is being perceived and then how overall this is furthering your goals…

    The reality is here for you to contemplate: http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html

    Good luck.

  • googaw

    Already read it. There’s no money in there for building more bridges to nowhere like manned bases on the moon. Only a lame attempt to try to prove that the current preposterously overpriced white elephant, the ISS, is somehow worth more than a minuscule fraction of what we spent on it.

    The prime directive of the new plan as far as HSF is concerned seems to be economically useless but exciting missions to “where no no man has gone before”, like Phobos, NEAs, and “ultimately” (i.e. long after the current politicians are out of office and nobody cares what they thought) sending astronauts to Mars.

    I am more in sympathy with these than with economically useless “infrastructure” because at least they are not pretending to be useful, just exciting. They are not proposing to have the scarce lunar water squandered forever by a socialist boondoggle. If you want me to compromise, I’m much more likely to compromise with people who are enough in touch with reality that they admit that these proposed BEO astronaut adventures will be exciting but otherwise useless, than with central planner wannabes who pretend that they are designing useful “infrastructure” while designing astronaut-centric nonsense that is so grotesquely distorted that they throw potential entrepreneurs who might have actually figured out how to use space economically way off the economically sustainable paths of space development.

  • common sense

    @googaw wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    “If you want me to compromise, I’m much more likely to compromise with people who are enough in touch with reality ”

    See this is the problem. I don’t want you to compromise. I actually would rather you compromise but today I don’t really care. There is a budget, an enormous budget for HSF today and planned for the future in this reality, in this Galaxy. Your only good position would be to see where your ideas might fit, not insulting those who actually try to build the bridges between disciplines such as robotics precursors. See they don’t have to. Actually they might even have gone with the POR and not be that much impacted. BUT the “new” planners see that there is a need for change. And the change is not about going all robotics or all commercials like right now. It is a blend, it is a flexible path for flexible minds. You are either in or out and according to your statements so far you are out. Your own choice. Live with it.

  • googaw

    Actually “common sense”, I am quite “in” with real space development. As I have mentioned previously, I have several investments with real space commerce companies. Contrary to your fantasy that I am not some disgruntled laid-off robot engineer, I rather invest in space machines and more importantly in the wonderful humans who make and use them. I am very closely in touch with space commerce economics, far more closely than dilettante space activists or people who spend their time trolling for NASA HSF contracts.

    BTW, your faith in the sustainability of the NASA HSF budget in the face of the sovereign debt crisis and the looming entitlements crisis sounds like famous last words to me. We’ve just seen the two biggest HSF programs canceled, and all astronaut fans can seem to do is plan yet more preposterously oversized projects that will have to be canceled in the future. But I digress, you were talking about me so let’s get back to me. :-)

    I have no desire to be “in” with a grotesquely distorted and preposterously obsolete vision of the space future, regardless of how much government dole it brings down. Unlike many space activists I am not trying to preserve or invent make-work programs. Rather, I prefer to express the vision of real commerce and criticize the old socialist vision. That is my main goal and not, as you think, just to bash astronauts. Astronauts are simply the most visible and wasteful symptom of the old socialism. If my quest to explain space economics means revealing the central planner wannabes for the morons that they are, that’s what has to be done. Besides, pointing out other peoples’ stupidity is fun, why do you think there are so many flame wars around here if people didn’t think it was fun?

    I will admit to some naivete insofar as when I originally came upon a blog called “Space Politics” I thought it would indeed be about space politics, rather than what it is in fact about, namely astronaut fan politics. It didn’t take much reading to disabuse me of this error. If this blog is only about the government HSF budget, so be it. The government HSF budget is by its very nature going to be squandered one way or another. One of my objectives here, after expressing the reality and debunking the traditional mythologies about space development, and after having some fun at the expense of idiots, is to convince those who are at least halfway sane to stop mechanically endorsing wasting even more money on the Exploration Directorate. And believe it or not I have sympathy with astronaut fans despite their delusions and I want them to support things that actually have a chance of flying. Failing that I want to see that the government HSF budget gets squandered in a way that minimizes its negative impact — culturally as well as financially — on real space development. Thus my support for sending astronauts way out of the way to places like Phobos where they can entertain their fans with minimal economic distortion.

  • common sense

    @googaw wrote @ April 8th, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    “Actually “common sense”, I am quite “in” with real space development. As I have mentioned previously, I have several investments with real space commerce companies. Contrary to your fantasy that I am not some disgruntled laid-off robot engineer, I rather invest in space machines and more importantly in the wonderful humans who make and use them.”

    Good for you! I am sure you will see your investements grow quite nicely in the near future then. No worries.

    ” I am very closely in touch with space commerce economics, far more closely than dilettante space activists or people who spend their time trolling for NASA HSF contracts.”

    So why do you bother posting here, or do you see yourself as much better than us the “dilettante space activists or people who spend their time trolling for NASA HSF contracts”? Or do you feel an itch for trolling as well?

    “BTW, your faith in the sustainability of the NASA HSF budget in the face of the sovereign debt crisis and the looming entitlements crisis sounds like famous last words to me.”

    Hey, you did your investements and I do mine. It is quite clear that we are giving up at least short term any HSF in the US are we not? Right. As I said good luck with your investments.

    “Unlike many space activists I am not trying to preserve or invent make-work programs. Rather, I prefer to express the vision of real commerce and criticize the old socialist vision. That is my main goal and not, as you think, just to bash astronauts. ”

    Are you in a league all your own? Socialist vision? Boy you MUST have lived in a socialist country to really know the meaning of that term, right? And so far your goal has clearly been just to bash astronauts and those who support them. Now of course that has nothing to do with your investments right? You’re not one of those people trying to “influence” the market so to speak, right? I mean you don’t see yourself as trolling I suppose?

    ” Astronauts are simply the most visible and wasteful symptom of the old socialism”

    Are you saying that only soviet astronauts are flying these days? Maybe you ought to go say that to say Buzz Aldrin see how hee’d take that he’s part of a socialist system of astronauts.

    “my quest to explain space economics means revealing the central planner wannabes for the morons that they are, that’s what has to be done. ”

    You’re on quest now? Wow. Do you have a cult of followers as well?

    “Besides, pointing out other peoples’ stupidity is fun, why do you think there are so many flame wars around here if people didn’t think it was fun?”

    Save for you and a few others excited on this site there is no flame “wars”, none that insult others anyway. Considering the language you use I wonder how old you actually are.

    “I will admit to some naivete insofar as when I originally came upon a blog called “Space Politics” I thought it would indeed be about space politics, ”

    Well it is about space politics, the HSF budget is the largest there is so anything else tends to be insignificant and thanks to you will probably stay such. You think you’re doing a service to the robot fans here?

    Oh well…

  • googaw

    Hey, you did your investements and I do mine.

    You are equating lobbying to spend other peoples’ money with deciding how to spend ones’ own? Sheesh.

  • googaw

    Save for you and a few others excited on this site there is no flame “wars”, none that insult others anyway.

    I see you have once again departed our galaxy.

Leave a Reply to googaw Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>