Although the president won’t be speaking about space policy until this afternoon, several members of Congress are getting in the two cents in advance of the speech, based in part on the details of the slightly-revised plan released late Tuesday by the White House.
In an op-ed in the Orlando Sentinel today, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison makes the case for extending the shuttle and developing “a NASA-owned shuttle replacement”, with commercial systems as only a “supplement” to NASA capabilities. The decision to end the shuttle in 2010 was based on also ending the station in 2015, thus an extension of the ISS’s lifetime means that “flying the remaining shuttles scheduled for this year before completing an analysis of the station’s needs based on the new service date is a mistake.” Hutchison also made similar comments in a speech on the Senate floor on Monday.
In the Houston Chronicle, Reps. Gene Green (D-TX) and John Culberson (R-TX) argue that US human spaceflight “lies in deep peril” and that if Congress goes along with plans to cancel Constellation it will be “effectively ending the era of American leadership in space.” “The arguments for maintaining the Constellation program are simple”, they claim, noting the shutdown costs if Constellation is canceled and the costs and risks of paying the Russians to fly astronauts on Soyuz spacecraft. (They state that “there will be nothing to stop the Russians from raising our costs” once they have a monopoly on crew access, but when NASA extended its existing contract with Russia earlier this month the cost increase was rather modest, and attributed to inflation.) “Constellation is our only hope to close the current five-year gap in U.S. access to space,” they add, a conclusion that would appear to be in conflict with the final report of the Augustine Committee.
Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) issued a press release yesterday calling for the president to “fully revive” all of Constellation, including the Ares launch vehicles. “The president is wasting billions of taxpayer dollars to simply reinvent the wheel and develop another rocket after canceling the safe, cost-efficient and tested Ares rocket booster,” he said, referring to plans to select a design for a new heavy-lift vehicle by 2015.
And as you might expect, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) isn’t particularly keen on the tweaked NASA plan. “While the Administration may have finally realized that its initial budget request was a complete disaster, the new plan, from the same team, still ends human space flight,” he stated. “It is clear that the Administration does not believe that American leadership in human space flight is a priority worth fighting for.” Ironically, he issued a press release the same day titled “Time to Bury ‘Too Big to Fail'”, about government bailouts of financial firms and automakers. That sentiment does not appear to extend to human spaceflight.
Lori Garver and some of the people who like to leave comments here have been claiming that “support is growing” for Obamaspace. That appears not to be the case.
Mark
No indeed. Opposition is (rightly) entrenched. I don’t see Obama talking his way out of this today. What you will see is another raw exercise of power cramming down a misguided and damaging policy. 15,000 NASA employees will be caught in the crossfire.
Oh noes, people whose congressional districts were being given huge amounts of pork, that now get slightly smaller amounts of pork, for some reason disagree! Well, if personally conflicted Congresspeople don’t support the plan, we better throw it out and find something that doesn’t rock the boat. Who cares about innovation or actually getting a reasonable ROI from our ~$20B/yr NASA investment–helping out the voters and campaign contributors in a few states is so much more important…
Sorry, but some of us would like a space program for that money, not just a jobs program. There was a time when conservatives/republicans would take the complaints of pork recipients as an indication that they were on the right track…
~Jon
As an aside, I did some quick research and found an article listing Presidents who have visited KSC:
http://www.startribune.com/nation/90917564.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiacyKUUr
The last Republican President to visit KSC was Richard Nixon. Every Democratic President has visited KSC since it opened.
This is my first post here and most of what I post will be my opinion. I am not making stuff up, I am stating my opinion based on my understanding and exposure to the subject.
I am not an areospace engineer and I do not fully understand the capabilities of the different vehicles, motors, etc…but I will state my opinions just the same.
I grew up on Merritt Island in the ’60s…my Father worked at KSC and my younger brother still works there. I was 12 years old when we landed on the moon, I watched every Saturn V launch from my front yard.
I now work for a contractor at Marshall…so I am admittedly a little biased in my opinion for the “new direction” for NASA. It is likely that I will continue my employment even if the President’s plan is implimented fully.
While I do believe that manned spaceflight will eventually become a commercial venture, I don’t think it is anywhere near that point. Initially, and in my opinion for the foreseeable future, the only “customer” will be NASA…I don’t believe there is a “market” for commercial manned space flight. Taking wealthy individuals on a joy ride to space is not going to fund the development of the vehicles needed for safe, consistant manned spaceflight. I believe NASA will end up fully funding the development of the proposed “commercial” vehicles. If the Constellation program was funded at the levels that the commercial venture will be funded, I believe the gap would be much smaller. Funding has always been the real issue with getting Constellation done in a timely manner.
I generally agree with Senator Hutchison’s position.
In my opinion NASA is woefully under funded and the budget should be doubled.
I also think the Moon is the correct desintation for NASA.
IMHO FWIW
Some of you might get a chuckle out of this commentary in today’s Orlando Sentinel:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-mike-thomas-nasa-barack-obama041510-20100414,0,5577168.column
Makes the point I’ve made about Republican hypocrisy screaming that Obama is a socialist while they fight his effort to private routine access to Low Earth Orbit.
Constellation was “misguided and damaging”.
Jim Neckbone wrote:
In my opinion NASA is woefully under funded and the budget should be doubled.
I also think the Moon is the correct desintation for NASA.
Jim, welcome to the site.
I don’t work in aerospace, but my wife and I chose to move to Merritt Island last year because we want to spend our golden years revelling in our space geekiness.
I think we would all like to see NASA get as much money as it wants, to have programs going to the Moon, Mars, the next solar system, infinity and beyond.
But in the real world, that’s not going to happen.
The political support is not there. Outside of the Congresscritters representing space center districts, there’s no one who supports more money for space exploration. Take for example this January 2010 Rasmussen Reports poll:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2010/50_favor_cutting_back_on_space_exploration
50% of Americans want less spending on space exploration, and more want private sector spending than government spending.
In an era of trillion-dollar annual deficits, with more worse annual deficits to come, there’s simply no political will to substantially increase spending for NASA.
Obama’s budget proposal is rooted in the recommendations of the non-partisan Augustine Panel, which found that Constellation is years behind and over budget because it’s been underfunded. Ares I might not fly until 2020, and Ares 5 might not go to the Moon until 2030 if ever.
There simply won’t be more money for a Moon mission. We have to accept that.
Given the budget constraints, Obama has proposed a five-year budget proposal that gives NASA a slight budget increase but also tries to free up more money by privatizing routine access to Low Earth Orbit.
Let’s face reality. The last time astronauts walked on the Moon was 1972. If it was so important, how come no other nation has gone in the last 38 years, and no nation has any immediate plans to go? China might go by 2030, but by then they’ll have probably joined our international partnership to share costs.
Going to the Moon is simply not a global priority. We invested $100 billion in the ISS. Under the Bush plan, ISS would be splashed in the ocean in 2016. Why build it if we’re not going to use it? Obama proposes extending it to 2020 and we’re already negotiating with our partners to extend it to 2028. The ISS will be used for commercial, medical, and biological research which could lead to a technology boom similar to what happened from the space race in the 1960s.
Waiting 20 years for Constellation is unlikely to do that.
That’s why I support Obama’s proposal. It’s rooted in reality. In the real world, there won’t be any Moon missions for decades, by us or any other nation. Once we liberate ourselves from that fantasy, there are a lot of other things we can do with that many that will benefit humanity. Bringing back more Moon rocks won’t do that.
Hutchison’s op-ed doesn’t match her (or her staff’s) action in NASA’s draft Senate authorization bill. If she really wants Shuttle extension and/or a NASA-owned and -operated LEO crew transport, then she should demand such in her bill. The bill only asks NASA to fly out the manifest, determine that Shuttle shutdown won’t degrade ISS operations, and review Shuttle-derived concepts for space transportation. Doesn’t Hutchison or someone on her staff think before they send out op-eds?
It’s ironic that Bennett uses the term “reinventing the wheel” to defend Ares since that’s exactly what Ares I did (and very poorly) with respect to Atlas V, Delta IV, and Falcon 9. And it’s just plain stupid to claim that the “Ares rocket booster” is “safe, cost-efficient and tested” when “referring to plans to select a design for a new heavy-lift vehicle by 2015″ because Ares V was still at the PowerPoint stage. Doesn’t Bennett or someone on his staff think before they release statements to the press?
And Shelby is just being idiotic. Unlike Bennett, whose constituents are almost certainly going to lose jobs, Alabama stands to gain a lot over what Constellation would have delivered to the state. Instead of one upper-stage engine development and management oversight for one rocket development under Constellation, Alabama will get one large first-stage engine development, one or two upper-stage engine developments, a complete robotic precursor program consisting of multiple missions, management oversight for exploration technology demonstration program consisting of multiple missions, and additional EELV flights and work. It’s hard to imagine a worse way for Shelby to represent the interests of his constituents than to continue whining about NASA’s FY 2011 budget request.
Stupid, stupid, stupid…
Jim, welcome aboard. It’s good to see some new blood. I’ve been reading this blog for years (relevant to my mil-space job), but I very rarely post (work firewall is a pain in the !@#) [although I’ve been posting several times in the past few days].
Totally agree that NASA’s budget should be increased.
The Moon should be A destination for NASA, but it should not be THE destination for NASA. We need to get off this blue marble and get out amongst the stars (Mars by 2025, Ceres by 2035, Europa by 2050 and Proxima Centauri by 6000 (LOL)). We need a mix of locations to prove different technologies and human resiliancy (or lack thereof without technology).
As for Constellation vs. Commercial, I don’t think commercial industry is getting anywhere near the funding levels of Constellation.
I just don’t see the Return on Investment being there for commercial development, unless NASA funds most, if not all of it.
Watch today as…. president Obama speaks…. in carefully scripted…. three word blocks…. looking side to…. side, chin held…. somewhat too high…. using billowing terms…. buzz words and…. catch phrases that…. are designed to….. disguise the fact…. he is not…. really saying anything…. new or of…. great substance, yet….. makes him appear…. not to be…. a cardboard cutout.
That’s what you will see today at KSC- just like every other Obama speech. He’ll then be off to the fund raiser before the brakes are even cool on Air Force One.
He does not care about NASA HSF- it is nothing but a distraction for him.
“Taking wealthy individuals on a joy ride to space is not going to fund the development of the vehicles needed for safe, consistant manned spaceflight.”
You may turn out to be right, but historically, that’s not how new transportation systems have developed. Air transport was initially about joy rides for the rich and adventurous. Until the Model T, automobiles weren’t built for the common man. The first steam trains were curiousities for the idle rich in Britain.
This even holds true in other areas of technology. For example, the first, big, bulky microwaves and cell phones were largely bought as novelties by wealthy households. It may not be consistent with our egalitarian ideals, but the reality is that the upper economic classes are often key to the introduction and dissemination of new technologies because they have the spare change necessary to take risks on new products and services that the rest of us don’t.
Given this history in other sectors and the fact that a half-century of government-owned and -operated human space transportation hasn’t resulted in particularly affordable or safe systems, I’d argue that another half-century of the same is the wrong way to go.
“IMHO FWIW”
Nothing wrong with that.
FWIW…
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ April 15th, 2010 at 9:40 am
Ha! Thanks for that, Stephen. He really nails some skinned congresshides to the wall.
Taka, many well writ comments, thanks!
taka wrote:
The Moon should be A destination for NASA, but it should not be THE destination for NASA. We need to get off this blue marble and get out amongst the stars (Mars by 2025, Ceres by 2035, Europa by 2050 and Proxima Centauri by 6000 (LOL)). We need a mix of locations to prove different technologies and human resiliancy (or lack thereof without technology).
Why?
I don’t ask that question to be a smartass. I ask that question because there is no other nation on this Earth that gives a fig about going to the Moon. As Jeff Foust wrote earlier today, the Chinese are focused on maybe doing their own Space Station. As for the Moon, they’re only studying it.
The fact that no one else has bothered to go in the 38 years since we left should be the first clue it’s not that big a deal.
Just what are the technologies that you claim can’t be proven? And I’m sorry, but proving “human resiliency” simply isn’t a credible argument. Human beings have proven they’re resilient since they learned to walk upright.
I wrote an article a couple months ago on JFK’s famous Moon speeches:
http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-frontier-and-final-frontier.html
It turns out his sole justification was to demonstrate to the world that our technology was better than the Soviets’. It was one big expensive publicity stunt that cost $145 billion in current dollars.
In an era of trillion-dollar annual deficits, it would be extremely irresponsible to spend that kind of money on a national ego stroke.
So, again, I ask why.
If and when we do go, we should go as a species, as Russian President Medvedev suggested the other day. That’s also the direction Obama is going. Take the ISS international partnership model and use it to go to the Moon and Mars, spreading the costs. One nation should go it alone, nor should they.
Last sentence should be, “No one nation should go it alone, nor should they.”
Major Tom
“It’s ironic that Bennett uses the term “reinventing the wheel†to defend Ares since that’s exactly what Ares I did (and very poorly) with respect to Atlas V, Delta IV, and Falcon 9.”
You carp about the payload capacity of the Ares I. An Atlas V (even with 5 SRMs) cannot loft an Orion. An Atlas V Heavy does not exist. The current Delta IV heavy can’t do it either. The Falcon 9 isn’t in the same league. Ares I has flown successfully. Poorly? Why?
Smith
“Last sentence should be, “No one nation should go it alone, nor should they.â€
There is no reason to give despotic regimes (Russia, China) or minor contributors (Europe) more standing in spaceflight then they merit. The American electorate despises Obama’s appeasing policies.
so do amightywind and whittington actually believe in what they post or are they just very consistent trolls?
Christopher wrote:
so do amightywind and whittington actually believe in what they post or are they just very consistent trolls?
Who knows? Who cares?
People like that post nonsense because they’re trying to distract us from the matter at hand. If they say something worth a response, then respond. I don’t because that gives them what they want, namely to derail intelligent discourse.
“You carp about the payload capacity of the Ares I.”
I “carp” about Ares I underperformance relative to its intended (and only) payload — Orion. I don’t care what the specific payload capacity number is, but it’s boneheaded to violate the number one rule of launch vehicle development — have enough performance to lift your intended payload with substantial margin to spare.
“The current Delta IV heavy can’t do it either.”
Not according to the ULA presentation to the Augustine Committee. In fact, Delta IV has 20% payload margin when lofting Orion.
nasa.gov/pdf/361835main_08%20-%20ULA%20%201.0_Augustine_Public_6_17_09_final_R1.pdf
Don’t make stuff up.
“An Atlas V (even with 5 SRMs) cannot loft an Orion… The Falcon 9 isn’t in the same league.”
Both of these launchers can put capsules at ISS with greater crew capacity than Orion. Ares I/Orion duplicate their capabilities (and poorly).
“Ares I has flown successfully.”
Ares I has never flown, successfully or otherwise.
Stop making stuff up…
“Poorly? Why?”
Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to develop an Ares I launcher that duplicates EELV capabilities that are already in the nation’s launch stable and that cost the taxpayer a fraction of that amount of money to develop — and with all the engine changes, underperformance, and safety issues that plagued Ares I in multiple independent reviews — are obvious indicators of a poorly conceived and executed development program.
FWIW…
Senator Hutchison is the only one of the lot of President, Senators, Congresspeople or Astronauts who is making any sense at all.
If there was one lesson we should have learned from Apollo and the Constellation debacle, its that instead of trying to throw things away and start over with something new and better, we should be using where we are as the starting point for new, better and more efficient things. Take Shuttle, minimize the costs, and develop the system into a ore robust efficient system. That might mean doing away with the large Orbiter and going to a heavy lift carrier, but keep the expertise and the infrastructure and as many of the systems we already have operating.
Same thing applies to Station. Make it more efficient. Streamline processes. Use what we have already invested in systems and expertise to develop the follow on capabilities, which could easily and inexpensively be a spacecraft like Buzz Aldrin and others have suggested, which could take us out of LEO, to GEO< the Lagrangian points, circum-lunar flights, to the planets and the asteroids. Then the only wholly new system we need to invest in are specialized landers, and later, the surface infrastructure.
It seems the American way to build up a capability and throw it away and try to start over. The Russians did not do that. The old R-7 has been a steady workhorse.
Its time to learn something and make some changes in how we do business, and not throw everything the American people invested in away, which is the Obama plan.
“Take Shuttle, minimize the costs, and develop the system into a ore robust efficient system. That might mean doing away with the large Orbiter and going to a heavy lift carrier, but keep the expertise and the infrastructure and as many of the systems we already have operating.”
This statement is contradictory. In the first sentence, you want to “minimize the costs” and create an “efficient system”. In the second sentence, you want to “keep the expertise and the infrastructure and as many of the systems we already have operating”.
We can’t have it both ways. Whether the resulting system is Shuttle-derived or not, a lot of Shuttle workforce, infrastructure, and systems have to be shed if costs are going to be minimized and an efficient, sustainable system for civil human space exploration created.
“The Russians did not do that. The old R-7 has been a steady workhorse.”
The Soviets/Russians kept Soyuz precisely because it was a steady (and highly affordable) workhorse. In contrast, the Soviets/Russians shed their Space Shuttle clone (Energia) because it wasn’t affordable.
Shuttle is not steady or highly affordable, and from the Constellation experience, it’s not clear that a derivative launch infrastructure would be any less expensive.
“and not throw everything the American people invested in away”
Read up on “sunk cost fallacy”.
FWIW…
Europe a minor player in spaceflight? Do you mean HSF? Europe, Russia and Japan have the ability to send cargo to ISS. Also Harmony, Tranquility and Cupola were all built by Thales Alenia Space. The US is far from leading space once Shuttle is retired. Congress should have spent the money to keep Shuttle when they had the chance to minimize the gap.
Augustine Committee was the one to emphasize commercial crew which going into it they were not convinced but after they did their due diligence, they determined commercial was the right way to go.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ April 15th, 2010 at 8:50 am
Lori Garver and some of the people who like to leave comments here have been claiming that “support is growing†for Obamaspace. That appears not to be the case…
LOL it is the same people every time that complain about the plan…no new faces just the pork pie folks.
you will love this plan Mark…you can gripe about it for the next 2 and 1/2 or 6 and 1/2 years…(the later if one believes the latest round of polls showing BHO V various GOP contenders)
Robert G. Oler
Brian M wrote:
“Senator Hutchison is the only one of the lot of President, Senators, Congresspeople or Astronauts who is making any sense at all.”
Damned right !
Unfortunately, the astronauts this week bringing up the idea of reviving or not killing Constellation was really a disaster for all space supporters.
We need to get behind one plan. Constellation was never affordable or supportable, and NASA and Griffin did a great job of showing just how unsupportable and unaffordable it was was over the last 5 years. And if that was not enough, Mr. Augustine clarified it for everyone.
The idea of Orion-lite for a crew rescue vehicle is just plain stupid. Who even dreamed up that idea ? If astronauts are going up in a Soyuz, they can come down in a Soyuz. No new rescue vehicle required.
We have great systems and people today with Shuttle and ISS. Use them. Make use of them, expand upon them., Extend them.
Don’t throw them away.
Obama and Buzz have started the flight to FL…dont worry all you Constellation huggers…it wont take to much time to “shoot the wounded”.
Robert G. Oler
Take Shuttle, minimize the costs, and develop the system into a ore robust efficient system. That might mean doing away with the large Orbiter and going to a heavy lift carrier, but keep the expertise and the infrastructure and as many of the systems we already have operating.
This statement is contradictory.”
No its not.
A lot of the existing Shuttle system is reasonably inexpensive and a lot of it could be made a lot less expensive. It all exist and is functioning today.
The Orbiter is what has sucked up most of the dollars.
Why do you think that any rocket of the lifting class of an ET/SRBs and some main engines (not necessarily SSMEs) is going to be any less expensive ?
So move away from the existing Orbiter. Use the expertise that is available from Orbiter to develop a new crew carrier that uses the lessons of Orbiter and is less expensive to operate.
Make crew and cost the prime design drivers.
The real test will be how many Senators and Representatives are willing to state their support for the new plan following today’s speech.
Yes, many plan opponents are “entrenched” but where are the plan supporters?
[I hope the html tags work…]
Stephen C. Smith wrote:
For the past 38 years there has really not been much of a reason to go back to the Moon. I’d argue that in the next ten years, there won’t been much of a reason to go, except in preparation to go to other locations. However, given the amount of potential water that has recently been discovered, there is more of a reason to go there, if only as a source of fuel for depots. In the next 20-30 years, there will likely be commercially viable reasons for going and staying on the Moon. Pete Worden even advocated going to the Moon to do stuff that was too dangerous to do on Earth, such as advanced AI, self-replicating robots, some nanotechnology.
As for human resiliency, I’m primarily talking about susceptiblity to radiation. Without technology to protect us, deep space travel would be a non-starter beyond the Moon. We are rather resilient in other ways.
There are several technologies (e.g. closed-loop life support) that we should test and evaluate in areas that are closer to safety (i.e. Earth / ISS) before using them on deep space missions.
I agree, no nation should go it alone. It would do far more to unit humanity as a group effort than one nation going alone. These days, one nation, such as China could go to the Moon (and not to stay) alone as a national ego stroke, but beyond that it would be too expensive.
ISS model of multinational cooperation is okay, but we need long term budget outlays that each nation can count on. ISS was delayed for a variety of reasons (lack of flying Space Shuttle, being the primary), but budgetary inconsistencies (a big problem in the US), is also a problem for multi-national programs.
If you look at the F35, it’s an oft delayed and over budget somewhat multi-national program. Personally, I blame unrealistic requirements, oversold contractor capabilities of doing it on-time and on-budget, and ITAR torpedoing any reasonable cooperation.
IMHO, if we want to go beyond LEO in any reasonable fashion, we need to do it as equal (or near equal) partners; throwing some small subsystem at an “also ran” nation only goes so far (and assumes you have some good systems engineering, integrating different subsystems. Perhaps we’d be better off encouraging different nations to specialize in different areas (eg. landers vs. habitats vs launchers…etc.) A few nations might be able to do more than one thing, but none will be able to do all (or at least on budget and for any sustainable period).
anyway…
Well Jay the old B. on MSNBC just acussed Buzz Aldrin of believing what he does to “help his son” (thats pretty close)…Barbee is old
He almost imploded on the show with Alex Witt saying (close again) “I am very upset”
Robert G. Oler
What is the rough cost breakdown for Extending Shuttle+Keeping Constellation+Extending ISS to 2020 vs Commercial Crew+Commercial Cargo+Extending ISS to 2020+Russian Rides+Flexible Path?
I don’t think congress will approve an increase of more than 1 to 1.5 billion so I think Commercial Crew is the only affordable path.
BrianM wrote @ April 15th, 2010 at 11:53 am
A lot of the existing Shuttle system is reasonably inexpensive and a lot of it could be made a lot less expensive. It all exist and is functioning today…
that is the theory but it has never proven to be the fact. One of the more useful “hard” numbers to come out of this debate has been the “200 million a month to keep the shuttles even when we dont fly the shuttles” number. That is mostly people.
The problem with the shuttle system is that they never got around (or really cared) to figure out a way to cut people and process that were unneeded, automate systems and cut people, and find cost savings by simply cutting people who were never really useful.
Things which would have reduced cost (for instance Autoland would have cut down on the enormous amount of cost to train the pilots) are just simply shunned.
sorry there is no “fixing” the shuttle system or even the station…with the current process and there is no way to fix the process without changing who is in charge
Robert G. Oler
If you look at the F35, it’s an oft delayed and over budget somewhat multi-national program…
nope the problems with the F35 have almost nothing to do with international…the problems are “interservice”.
Go look at the F-111…nothing should be a surprise
Robert G. Oler
“No indeed. Opposition is (rightly) entrenched.”
Yeah, Sen. Udall and Colorado are really entrenched in their opposition:
Udall Hails News That NASA Capsule Will Be Built
cbs4denver.com/business/Udall.NASA.capsule.2.1630971.html
Sen. Brown and Ohio are equally entrenched in their opposition:
NASA Glenn Would Gain Jobs, Grow in Stature Under Obama plan, Sen. Sherrod Brown Says
cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2010/04/nasa_glenn_would_gain_jobs_gro.html
Sen. Nelson twitters nothing but entrenched opposition:
twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/11845144836
I mean, the opposition is so entrenched that Senator LeMieux’s attempt to insert Senator Shelby’s Constellation language from last year’s omnibus appropriations into this year’s FAA bill has failed.
The opposition is so entrenched that the chair of the House Appopriations Committee opened his NASA hearing with a statement supportive of the President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA.
The opposition is so entrenched that both the House and Senate draft authorization bills provide all of the funding in every NASA account requested by the White House and incorporate all the major human space flight elements of the President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA.
[rolls eyes]
“15,000 NASA employees will be caught in the crossfire.”
Yes, that’s why the White House is pursuing the a plan to create “more than 2,500 additional jobs in Florida’s Kennedy Space Center area by 2012, as compared to the prior path” and has put together a “high-level team of senior officials from the Departments of Defense, Commerce, and Labor; NASA; and the White House to develop a plan for regional economic growth and retraining dislocated workers” — just so they can catch NASA employees “in the crossfire”.
floridatoday.com/assets/pdf/A9155578413.PDF
[rolls eyes]
Oy vey…
BruceL wrote @ April 15th, 2010 at 11:43 am
The idea of Orion-lite for a crew rescue vehicle is just plain stupid. Who even dreamed up that idea ? If astronauts are going up in a Soyuz, they can come down in a Soyuz. No new rescue vehicle required….
see in the future I dont think that this is going to be the case Robert G. Oler
Welcome to the site Jim, you wrote:
“I don’t believe there is a “market†for commercial manned space flight. Taking wealthy individuals on a joy ride to space is not going to fund the development of the vehicles needed for safe, consistant manned spaceflight.”
If there wasn’t a market, then Russia wouldn’t have a list of around 300 people willing to put that much money on a ride to space. In the history of manned spaceflight around 500 people have had that opportunity in 50 years.
You have to understand the economics of inovative technologies when they come to market. These are usually represented by small, manually produced “in the garage” type products. They are not mass produced and do not have economies of scale.
When a product like that is released they are at a price point where the producer is gaining EXTRA NORMAL profits. Capital automatically flows to extra normal profits.
Do you remember the movie “Wall Street” with Michael Douglas and he is holding that mobile phone that looked like a WW II walkie talkie? It cost around five grand and cost about six grand a month to operate. It was considered nothing but a toy for millionaires.
When a company charges extra normal profits to regain developement costs outside capital comes flowing in to try and capture some of them bringing with it competition. Something NASA has never had to deal with.
All of this excess capital creates over production and prices generally plummet bringing the product within range of the masses. Weak and inefficent players are bought up and merged with the best producers increasing their production and gives to them economies of scale.
NASA can NEVER give us that … EVER. It is only with the industrialization and commercialization of Low Earth Orbit will we see this happen.
Can you imagine if a today’s 20 million dollar rocket engine were produced at a rate 10,000 a year versus 10 per year? NASA can never achieve that kind of demand.
“Why do you think that any rocket of the lifting class of an ET/SRBs and some main engines (not necessarily SSMEs) is going to be any less expensive ?”
Because NASA has to bear all the costs of an HLV built from ETs and SRBs (and maybe SSMEs). No one else uses those systems and the workforce and infrastructure that supports them.
An HLV that leverages EELV or other military/commercial launchers can share workforce, infrastructure, and subsystem costs with other users.
It’s not enough for a Shuttle-derived HLV to be competitive with alternatives. It has to be substantially less costly than alternatives because NASA won’t have to foot the entire bill for the workforce and infrastructure supporting the alternatives.
FWIW…
300 people on a list? How many of those people have already put “that much money” on the ride to space…if the price tag is $20M per trip, that adds up to $6B…that’s if everyone on the list actually goes.
If there is competetition then that $6B get split up amoung several providers. So, when does the return on investment start. I don’t believe the commercial folks are willing to invest the ammount of money for the ammount of time it will take to see the return.
While the future may bring the costs down…I don’t see how we get there from here unless “we” subsidize the developement. And when I say subsidize I mean foot virtually the whole bill.
IMHO FWIW
The list of names opposed to the new NASA direction is as predictable as the health insurance companies being opposed to health care reform (of any kind). It’s equally predictable their suggestions to replace the plan, ie the prior program of record or extending the shuttle. They are the plans that most effectively retain their subsidies. That every single one of the people listed thus far in this post and elsewhere has been from TX, UT, AL, and FL with occasional cameos from FL and CO is pretty telling. If it were a supreme court case, every last one of these folks would have to recuse themselves.
The only congress people from non-space districts I’ve seen make anything more than a canned response in the negative to this plan have been Mikulski and Grayson.
And what’s more, each and every one of the opponents has their own idea of an alternative. In almost every case those alternatives are completely at odd with eachother. It doesn’t sound like any unanimous opposition to me.
aremisasling wrote:
“The only congress people from non-space districts I’ve seen make anything more than a canned response in the negative to this plan have been Mikulski and Grayson.”
Mikulski has Johns Hopkins APL, Goddard SFC, and STSCI in her state. She is mostly interested in space science. But Goddard does have a role in MSF as well as earth sciences. She squealed like a stuck pig at the proposal to deorbit Hubble, so she is not above local concerns. Why should she be? That is what a senator/congressman does.
Miles O’Brien comments on today’s Space Summit:
http://trueslant.com/milesobrien/2010/04/15/obamas-space-summit/
My head is spinning as I sit here waiting for President Obama to do what should have been done when the White House rolled out its budget for NASA: do the vision thing.
I have faith in POTUS to deliver the goods and explain his revolutionary approach to space exploration.
“300 people on a list? How many of those people have already put “that much money†on the ride to space”
The destination, controled by NASA, does not ALLOW those people to go. Russia is then in the position to pick and choose who goes picking only those individuals willing to devote a year of their life training.
You can see what I am talking about literally being played out in front of our eyes with the suborbital market.
The “garage” manufacturer, scaled composites and the space ship company. Virgin is going to charge first time flyers $200,000.00 dollars a seat, even though Burt Rutan has said that price can move to 25,000 a seat and still give a profit. Virgin Galatic is going to be making extra normal profits. After they have flown a few hundred people they are dropping it to 100,000. That is a defensive move to try and keep new players out of the market so they will not beable to recover their development costs making it harder for new players to enter.
Take a clip board and goto the mall and conduct a survey and randomly ask people what is White Knight 1 .. or 2 .. what is space ship 1 .. or 2 .. you would be lucky to see 1 out of 10 knowing what you are talking about. 99.9% of space junkies could answer but that is about it.
It is the same for wall street. The reason the symbol is a bull is because investors move with a herd mentality. Right now suborbital is still under the radar but once Virgin starts commercial operations and capital sees those extra normal profits rolling in .. watch out!
You are already seeing angel investors positioning themselves and you are starting to see mergers and acquisitions taking place.
http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/100414-analysts-see-rise-mergers.html
It will be the same thing with orbital once there is a commercial destination.
Vladislaw wrote:
“Right now suborbital is still under the radar but once Virgin starts commercial operations and capital sees those extra normal profits rolling in .. watch out!”
Maybe. Similarly, the damage don’t to Virgin and the industry when 10 passengers are incinerated is incalculable. If you watched Space Ship 1 corkscrew into the upper atmosphere 5 years ago you will recognize the possibility. I am a big fan of Rutan’s vision, but it is not without great risk, so large capital will be slow to arrive.
The first time someone is killed in one of those new fangled auto mobiles it will be the death of the car …
The first time someone is killed in one of those new fangled aero planes it will be death of planes …
Ya .. I have heard that before.
Buzz Aldrin in USA Today (today)
Broadly supportive of Obama’s plan, with differences, such as:
I also differ with the president’s plan in a few critical ways, one being that we should keep the space shuttle in flight while we develop a heavy-lift launch vehicle. This should be a national priority. These investments will give us a solid basis for the civil space program for decades to come.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-04-15-column15_ST2_N.htm
Buzz was on Air Force One with Obama when they landed at KSC a few minutes ago.
“Similarly, the damage don’t to Virgin and the industry when 10 passengers are incinerated is incalculable. If you watched Space Ship 1 corkscrew into the upper atmosphere 5 years ago you will recognize the possibility. I am a big fan of Rutan’s vision, but it is not without great risk, so large capital will be slow to arrive.”
That is the beauty of extra normal profits and capital flows. It brings in multiple players. If NASA has a mishap the Nation’s ENTIRE human space flight operations grinds to a halt.
With multiple service providers if one provider has a mishap it only spells out greater profits for the competitors as consumers just move to another one and the entire industry does grind to a halt.
That should read ‘the entire industry doesn’t grind to a halt’
Also their will only be 6 passengers with Virgin and 2 pilots not 10 passengers.
Get rid of cost plus contracts. Nuff said.
Cost plus is good for high risk contracts; you go to fixed price once risks have been lowered.
The impressive thing about “Buzz” is that well all the other Apollo era guys look old…Buzz still looks like he is good for a bar fight. Must be all that clean living!
Robert G. Oler
“Mikulski has Johns Hopkins APL, Goddard SFC, and STSCI in her state. She is mostly interested in space science. But Goddard does have a role in MSF as well as earth sciences. She squealed like a stuck pig at the proposal to deorbit Hubble, so she is not above local concerns. Why should she be? That is what a senator/congressman does.”
Agreed. I’m glad my senators and representative are concerned with local issues. They should be, and so should those of all the states I mentioned. But you would think ‘vocal opposition’ would amount to more than the select few with a dog in the hunt if it was anything other than a regional opinion.
Elon Musk has released a satement on his website:
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20100415
I want my son to grow up just like Elon.
Bennett wrote @ April 15th, 2010 at 2:17 pm ..
most Republicans use to be for free enterprise, before they were rabid anti Obama
Robert G. Oler
Bennett, thanks for the link, I really like what he had to say but take a small exception to one part of it.
“In 2003, following the Columbia accident, President Bush began development of a system to replace the Shuttle, called the Ares I rocket and Orion spacecraft. It is important to note that this too would only have been able to reach low Earth orbit. Many in the media mistakenly assumed it was capable of reaching the Moon. As is not unusual with large government programs, the schedule slipped by several years and costs ballooned by tens of billions.”
After the 2003 accident the Bush administration commissioned a group to study it and then released the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) in Feb. of 2004. This document became the offical space policy for the Nation and was started to be executed by then NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe.
It wasn’t until Griffin came in and rewrote the VSE with the ESAS with the 90 day study that the Nation was given the Constellation program.
When looking at sunk costs you disregard all the money already spent. So is the cost of completing the Ares I going to be less than the cost of developing man rated rockets in the private sector?
Even with the high development costs of Ares I, would the operational costs also be high?
If the goal is to focus on deep space missions and channel funding to those, is there any guarantee that those missions will cost less than what we spend now?
At some point we will want to use these game changing technologies outlined for research in Obama’s budget. The goal is to be doing more than what we are now in space. We can’t do more without spending more.
If we can’t fund the ISS and a Constellation program how will we be able to fund several simultaneous deep space missions while spending the same amount of money we do today?
In the future, even if we increase the cost sharing with the private sector, we will need to spend more money. If we can’t get more money for NASA now, how can we later?
Robert G. Oler wrote @ April 15th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
“before they were rabid anti Obama”
~sigh~ Once the dust settles and folks at NASA (and SpaceX et al) can get on with the work of implementing our country’s new POR, I hope that the majority of those who advocate a strong exploration program can leave the politics at the door.
Vladislaw wrote @ April 15th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Noted. Also, I enjoyed your “new fangled” comment.
Wodun wrote:
“Even with the high development costs of Ares I, would the operational costs also be high?
If the goal is to focus on deep space missions and channel funding to those, is there any guarantee that those missions will cost less than what we spend now”
Yes operational costs would be high because you have to factor in the 200 million a month costs for the standing army whether Ares I flys or not. So it will be pushing 1 billion plus per launch to put 4 people into leo.
We are not doing any deep space missions now so those costs on future missions do not have a baseline to be compared with.
If NASA spends less of their budget on just getting personal 200 miles above earth, it frees up a higher percentage of their budget for other human spaceflight operations.
Apparently Obama went out to see Falcon 9. I’ll be curious to see if any photos surface. If Falcon 9 fails, even worse if it blows up, he may find that politically embarrassing (although those of us who remember Mercury’s many blowups understand that’s part of the game).
Vlad,
I agree with you that lowering the cost of getting people into orbit will allow NASA to spend more money on other things. However, there is no guarantee that those other things will be achievable with the money that NASA now receives.
Don’t take my comment to mean that we can’t get a lot done by spending NASA’s current budget in different ways.
If the goal is to have more than one footprint in space, at some point we will need to increase funding.
Bennett wrote @ April 15th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
ah just finished the speech, one can recognize the cd of the USMC Band anywhere…
The sad thing about the GOP is that as DAvid Frum pointed out before he got involved with the Bush administration, they really dont believe their own rhetoric.
There is a lot of talk of cutting government of getting rid of this or that agency, but when it comes to actually doing it…well you see the results. SAVE OUR JOBS or save our benefit…and the talk morphs into almost nothing. Indeed the GOP loves government particularly when it can be used as a wealth transfer mechanism to the parts of the country that they like (DoD contractors, Banks etc).
Frum is also correct in that having decided to be the party of “we dont like Obama” the GOP has removed itself from the debate.
I am struck as I watched the speech (which I thought was good) how all the anti Obama space people are just old. And their theory is “lets do what we did again”.
One reason Obama has residual appeal past his policies is that a large number of Americans (who decide Presidential elections) are like me. They might not agree with him on specific things (I would do a very different health care plan) but they do agree that something needs to be done, and that something is not “bring back Bush”.
Mark Whittington illustrates this. HE use to be for exactly what Obama is proposing in terms of lift to the station. I dont know if The Weekly Standard is on line from that era but the piece I wrote and Kolker edited is in no real respect different from what Obama is proposing to do. Now he is just rabid not only against the plan, but on his web site he even adopts the notion that “this isnt really private enterprise” (a close approximation).
I voted for the other person in 08, but I am pleased to see that in a sort of systematic way we are starting to grapple with the UXB’s left behind from the last administration. It is hard to turn a supercarrier even when she has a lot of rudder authority without doing her some damage. I would handle things a tad different.
But all in all Obama is doing what no President since clinton has done…put the program on a sustainable path.
Robert G. Oler
“If the goal is to have more than one footprint in space, at some point we will need to increase funding.”
I agree, the disagreement is on where does the funding come from. I prefer we make it easier for private funding to enter the overall space funding stream. That is why I advocate so much for NASA to be proactive to make it easier for commercial firms to succeed. And that means NASA taking a backseat on certain elements that traditionally has been their responsiblity.
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ April 15th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Apparently Obama went out to see Falcon 9. I’ll be curious to see if any photos surface. If Falcon 9 fails, even worse if it blows up, he may find that politically embarrassing ..
I knew he would…If the 9 fails it wont be any skin off the POTUS nose…they will suceed eventually and that is what matters. I give Musk about a 60 percent chance.
Robert G. Oler
Stephen C. Smith wrote:
Correct, he met with Elon Musk at SLC 40. There were two photos planned (though I’m sure there were more shutter clicks). One was supposed to be with the Falcon 9 as a backdrop. They erected the booster just for this occasion. There were several USAF reps on the pad also, but I don’t know if they were in the pictures.
I guess I have joined GW Bush in Oler’s group of hates.
A question about the commercial space effort. How is something “commercial” is the government is the sole customer and the service is heavily subsidized by the government? That doesn’t sound like commercialism to me.
The Obama speech was singularly unimpressive. He’s embraced “Look But Don’t Touch” and has eschewed actually settling and developing space, Under Obamaspace it will be Apollo to an asteroid, Apollo to Mars orbit, and Apollo to Mars.
Very pitiful.
Robert Oler wrote:
“I am struck as I watched the speech (which I thought was good) how all the anti Obama space people are just old”
I did like the speech but only give it a C- because of a couple things I really thought it should have included.
1. Some line like “after 50 years NASA still doesn’t have a gas station in space and that is why have included funding for fuel stations”
2. Some line like “these commercial firms will be able to send any American into space that has the drive to save enough for a ticket”
3. Some line like “because we want to spur investment in space I will push for a Zero-G tax for space firms for the next decade”
Stephen C. Smith wrote
“If Falcon 9 fails, even worse if it blows up, he may find that politically embarrassing (although those of us who remember Mercury’s many blowups understand that’s part of the game).”
I’ve been saying this for a while, and not intending to troll. The Falcon 9 launch will have huge political repercussions.
I admire SpaceX for finally getting Falcon 1 into orbit after 3 failures. The chances of Falcon 9 making it on the first try are very low. Obama fanboys need to prepare some spin if they are making Falcon 9/Dragon the centerpiece of the manned effort.
I also notice that Obama has now set some goals, destinations, and time tables, albeit ill chosen ones, for Deep Space Apollo. I wonder how all the people who have argued that those sorts of things just tie one down are going to react.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ April 15th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
I guess I have joined GW Bush in Oler’s group of hates. ..
actually the only group that really “hates” a politician is the far right and the GOP…I never saw a Democratic fund raiser that had Bush in black face…to paraphrase Steele “have to keep the base excited”.
Where you are Mark is in the category of people whose politics color their vision of reality. You easily buy into notions (the WMD went into Syria) that are essentially fantasy but which meet your view of justifying some effort.
hence you have come to embrace well “goofy” things like on your web site “True it has a commercial space initiative with the government (at least at first) as sole customer and with heavy government subsidies.
”
as if the later characteristics make any difference. It is a start, it is the only way after decades of government run programs that a commercial space industry could start…and it is consistent with our history (see Syncom). But somehow you (and Shelby and all the other folks who use to be for Free Enterprise) somehow try and demean the effort as being less then free enterprise..just like folks on the right try and insinuate that somehow Obama is not an American or does do things as other Presidents have (“he only got the health care bill because he cheated”) …nuts
OK you want a “plan” for some flags and footprints effort a few decades away. Sorry not many others do.
Robert G. Oler
Oler, I know of at least one Democrat who hung Sarah Palin in effigy. Do not lecture me about hate. Democrats like you smear Americans who oppose the current regime as racists and worse.
“OK you want a “plan†for some flags and footprints effort a few decades away. Sorry not many others do.”
Oler, as usual, is lying about my position and about much else. My goal is a settlement on the Moon. Obamaspace is a flags and footprints scheme, though without the flags and no footprints until we land on Mars in 2040 or whenever.
Mark R. Whittington wrote:
“I also notice that Obama has now set some goals, destinations, and time tables, albeit ill chosen ones, for Deep Space Apollo. I wonder how all the people who have argued that those sorts of things just tie one down are going to react”
I am glad he didn’t highlight a “landing” theme in his speech. The landing comments seemed placed as almost an after thought. For me a destination in SPACE doesn’t tie you down. It is landing in a gravity (money pit) well is what ties you down and stops you from exploring other destinations in space.
“A question about the commercial space effort. How is something “commercial†is the government is the sole customer and the service is heavily subsidized by the government?”
When one of government’s suppliers spends twice what the government puts into developing a system.
“Interesting data point from Gwynne Shotwell: SpaceX has invested at least double the $278M NASA provided for COTS for F9/Dragon”
twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/12188349254
Duh…
“He’s embraced ‘Look But Don’t Touch'”
After all these months, you still havn’t figured out that astronauts will touch asteroids on asteroid missions?
Really?
“and has eschewed actually settling and developing space”
Are you deaf?
The President specifically singled out use of resources in space.
At the end of the speech, he specifically articulated the long-term goal of many people going to space to work and live, eventually indefinitely.
Duh…
“The Obama speech was singularly unimpressive.”
You’re never going understand anything, nontheless find it impressive, if you don’t at least get your facts straight.
Lawdy…
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ April 15th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Oler, I know of at least one Democrat who hung Sarah Palin in effigy. Do not lecture me about hate. Democrats like you smear Americans who oppose the current regime as racists and worse. ..
OK there is probably a nutty (or even a bunch) of nutty Dems who do nutty things, but the only Party I know that as an official action sanctioned with Party funds that has put a President in various “faces” (Hitler, white face etc) is the GOP.
There were some people after Bush V Gore who cried fowl (I liked the ruling because of Olsen’s brilliant demolition of the 10th Amendment in terms of rights) but there were few Democrats of national stature who made remarks equivelent to those of Shelby and others on Obama’s birth certificate.
As for the makeup of the groups, the argument you have is with “Bill O” who at a recent conference admitted that the tea party folks were “mostly white”.
As for space. If you really want a settlement on the Moon it is a stretch for me to imagine how one gets there from a 100 plus billion dollar effort over two or three decades to sortie a few NASA astronauts back to the Moon for short periods of time.
But in your world the WMD went to Syria so I guess anything is possible.
Robert G. Oler
“Obamaspace is a flags and footprints scheme, though without the flags and no footprints”
You still havn’t learned that flags can be planted and footprints made on the surfaces of asteroids?
Really?
Oy vey…
Vladislaw wrote:
“It is landing in a gravity (money pit) well is what ties you down and stops you from exploring other destinations in space.”
Even if you only obsess about visiting Lagrangian points, gravity wells are the only destinations there are. Near earth asteroids are great targets. There is lots to explore and resources to exploit and the gravity wells are very manageable for modern spacecraft. The mission could be readily accomplished by dual Orion/Ares IV vehicles.
http://near.jhuapl.edu/
“Even if you only obsess about visiting Lagrangian points, gravity wells are the only destinations there are. ”
For me it is a question of do we build a vehicle and do road trips to every spot in space and wring it out, or do we stop at the first water hole and start building a well.
If we are going to design, develope and build a space based, reusable, gas and go vehicle do we drive around or do we drive it 3 days away and then park it.
There are roughly 20+ plus lagrange points to visit.
There are two other planets that can be orbited and teleoperate landers in realtime.
There are 3 moons that can be orbited and teleoperate landers in realtime
There are roughly 750 NEO’s that can be visited.
There are roughly 40 plus good comets/asteroids that could be landed at for sample returns and resource extraction tests.
ALL without having to deal with an expensive gravity well.
The greatest thing we could do is discover life on the surface of mars or other celestrial body, the worse thing we could do is discover life on another celestrial body.
I just do not see the looney left and radical right preaching for human landings and sample return of life. I can just hear the ranting about how a space virus will kill off earth life forms (peta) and or the devil is behind it.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ April 15th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
“the GOP has removed itself from the debate.”
For the most part, yes. So much of the Rovian Method depends on twisted facts and outright lies. There are few opportunities for our country to really come together in consensus, so I feel it is criminal to manipulate emotional issues in order to divide us further into partisan hate groups, just to see temporary gains from one election to the next.
Even though I disliked our last President, I had to give him credit for VSE when it was announced. It gave me great hope that the long drought at NASA was coming to an end. My enthusiasm for space exploration trumped my political leanings. You understand this.
I wish more people on this board felt the same way.
As the President’s entourage pulled away from Air Force One I had a thought, I wonder if he’s saying “Let’s go see the Falcon 9!” (I would have).
Knowing that Elon was waiting at the pad for his personal visit speaks volumes about both men, and of their excitement at what the weeks ahead will bring.
——————————-
Having worked out the Merlin engine’s “excess residual thrust” issue on F1-Flight 3, I give the first F9 flight a better than 80% chance. (OK, I lie. I give it 100%)
“You still havn’t learned that flags can be planted and footprints made on the surfaces of asteroids?”
Actually, it’s pretty hard to put a footprint on an asteroid, at least a low mass NEO-type. You’d have to launch an astronaut on an impact trajectory with some substantial velocity, and grab the spacesuit as he or she bounces off. That’s all for one set of prints.
So much for NEOs. But maybe just launch a boot at it? I suppose that could even be done robotically!
Well, flags are easy, though one should probably tie them down.
Mark R. Whittington wrote:
hmmm… it’s going to be more than Apollo to an asteroid… the current draft National Space Policy states, “”
Sounds like they want to do more than just plant a flag and leave footprints.
Doug Lassiter wrote @ April 15th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
“that is one tough impact for a person, one giant leap for the rest of the crew”:?
Robert G. Oler
Bennett wrote @ April 15th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
I give Elon about 60 percent all based on the first stage. If they get that burn behind them, they in my view have a pretty easy ride to orbit.
From a systems standpoint what would raise flags for me (and I am sure that they have looked at pretty hard)
are
1. the thermal environment in the engine area
2. the guidance equations including thrust vectoring
3. getting off the pad.
I’m conservative by nature…
Robert G. Oler
““that is one tough impact for a person, one giant leap for the rest of the crewâ€:?”
Good on ya.
That’s one very shallow footprint for a man, and one giant leap when you sneeze.
Rocks with no gravity. Gotta love it.
Bennett wrote
“Having worked out the Merlin engine’s “excess residual thrust†issue on F1-Flight 3, I give the first F9 flight a better than 80% chance. (OK, I lie. I give it 100%)”
The F3 issue was not a proud engineering moment. Residual thrust is an obvious staging issue if you had done a hazard analysis. From the video it looks like you may have 2nd stage nozzle heating issues as well.
Personally, I think 9 pump fed engines that the base of F9 is insane. It will be an interesting flight.
How is something “commercial†is the government is the sole customer and the service is heavily subsidized by the government? That doesn’t sound like commercialism to me.
Get with the program, Mark. Fixed price government contracts are “commercial” and taxpayers are “customers” of the IRS. Government works just like the private sector, as long as it uses the right buzzwords.
“I think 9 pump fed engines that the base of F9 is insane.”
The Saturn I and IB used eight pump fed engines at its base and had 19 successful flights out of 19. The extrapolation from eight engines to nine is not that great.
I suspect that if F9 has a problem it will be during staging.
America is on the decline, just like Great Britain in the 20th century.
Good luck doing anything in the future “not because they are easy, but because they are hard”. You are just not going to do it. Most Americans would rather numb their brains watching too much TV and suck off the gov’t teat, while getting way too fat in the process.
Space in the 60’s compelled a generation of engineers who latched onto a goal of epic proportions into accomplishing the unimaginable. Now you’re in the process of blowing the global advantages in every area of American dominance. All of the things that America did to make itself prosperous it is now doing less and less, while the things that will bankrupt them it is doing more and more. Where’s the vision? People don’t give a darn about space because there’s no vision and there’s no vision because there’s no leadership. Instead of funding research into energy, america’s giving money to people who don’t pay taxes or who bought a bigger house then they could afford. I suppose it’s important to support the habit of being stupid, and let’s be honest, when you fund something, you get more of it. Trust me, you’re going to need good engineers, not more stupid people. Meanwhile, Nasa’s share of the federal budget is less than it was at any time previous, except when the program was just in its infancy.
Bottom line is, Nasa will get cut, America won’t go to the moon, nor to mars, and America will be lucky just to keep the space station a viable enterprise. You may think this is all harsh, but Nasa went to the moon-something never done before- in 8 years. Today, even with all the advanced technology and knowledge gained from experience, I would be shocked if America could do the same today. Some people are so blinded by their political leanings that they give a pass to a policy that they’d curse the other party for doing.