NASA

Doc’s negative diagnosis of NASA’s new plan

Few people are more closely linked to Constellation than former astronaut Scott “Doc” Horowitz. He was supporting what was to become Ares 1/Orion as the “safe, simple, soon” option for human access to LEO first as a NASA astronaut, then as director of space transportation and exploration at ATK, and eventually associate administrator for exploration at NASA under Mike Griffin. It’s not surprising, then, that he’s critical of the administration’s decision to cancel Ares 1, a criticism that he outlined in detail today in an essay on the Mars Society web site.

Horowitz casts his essay as an effort to refute “myths” associated with Constellation, starting with the belief that the debate about Constellation is about “technical and programmatic issues”. Nonsense, he says: it is a “completely politically motivated” to “cancel the ‘Bush’ program and punish the states (Alabama, Texas) that ‘didn’t vote for us anyway'”. (He does not cite the source of that latter quote.) In particular he names NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver and officials at OSTP and OMB; he does not mention NASA administrator (and fellow former astronaut) Charles Bolden.

He also attacks claims that Constellation was “unsustainable”, criticizing the analysis last year by the Augustine Committee, which he described as “populated with as few people that know anything about real development programs as possible, and have agendas aligned with the desired outcome”. The problem with Constellation was not that it poorly run, he claims, but that it was underfunded. Moreover, he said, the administration “immediately reduce[d] the Constellation budget by 20% in the FY 2010 budget”. It’s not immediately clear what the basis is for that 20-percent cut: the FY10 budget proposal featured $3.5 billion for “Constellation Systems”; by comparison, the FY09 budget proposal, which contained just over $3 billion for Constellation, projected $3.25 billion for Constellation in FY10.

The third myth he addresses is that commercial is a superior option for transporting cargo to LEO. He argues that, in fact, Ares 1/Orion would be safer, could deliver cargo to ISS at a lower cost per kilogram (assuming six flights per year, a similar rate to planned CRS missions), and that commercial schedules have slipped. “While it is my hope that the ‘commercial’ providers will be able to reduce costs and stimulate the market place, to date there is no data to indicate that this is the case, and as I have learned over the years ‘hope is not a management tool,'” he states.

In conclusion, he says, “it has become obvious to me (and to Congress) that the leadership team at NASA has decided that they simply do not want to do Constellation, at any cost, and are willing to cede US leadership in space.” Constellation “is safer, more affordable, timelier, and making better progress towards our nation’s exploration goals, than this faith-based initiative ‘trajectory to nowhere’ the current administration is trying to sell us.”

38 comments to Doc’s negative diagnosis of NASA’s new plan

  • amightywind

    Constellation is an exciting project that enjoyed widespread support in congress for several years. Somehow the program management was lulled into complacency by Obama and his sweet talk. They were caught off guard by the partisan Augustine Commission and Obama’s henchmen announced their nefarious plans. Congressional opposition is now solid and defenders of Constellation and manned space flight are finding their voice. Obama is weakening and will continue to do so up until the midterm election. If the GOP makes significant gains (and it looks increasingly likely that they will), Obama will face even stiffer opposition to his plan next year. NASA will be funded by a continuing resolution this year, it is difficult to see Obama do any better next year. I predict that Obamaspace is dead.

  • Wow. That’s a really impressive exercise in mendacity, even for Dr Horowitz. Sounds like he could’ve solved all of CxP’s funding woes by selling a little bit of whatever it is he’s smoking.

    I’m also amused by the BS “cheaper per kilogram” bit that ignores the ~$40B that will have been sunk into developing Ares-I/Orion than COTS/CRS. Of course if you ignore the sunk costs (that haven’t been sunk yet) and the fixed costs, and only look at the marginal cost and compare it to a commercial price…

    ~Jon

  • Totally disconnected from reality. My favorite part is that he disses the Augustine committee and then goes to use their findings to make his argument….

  • Funny how he fails to mention the impartial GAO audit report in August 2009 which ripped on how badly NASA is running Constellation and how it lacks “a sound business case.”

  • Robert G. Oler

    “Doc” is living on some other planet. so many errors he has been making it up for sometime.

    The one I chose however is

    “The problem with Constellation was not that it poorly run, he claims, but that it was underfunded.”

    Ten billion dollars and nothing? Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    More evidence that Constellation lives.

    http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1005/05orionabort/

    Orion’s abort system is a game changer for safety.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Dismissing “Docs” comments out of hand as simply the ravings of an apostle of the Constellation program and a mouthpiece for ATK and NASA…

    I am curious how the Mars Society (or what is left of it) will react to the comments.

    From reading some of their statements AND reading Zubrin…most of the Mars Society must get it that Ares/Ares V and the go to the Moon as Apollo on Steroids…is sort of the death knell for any Mars efforts.

    anyway that really is the only unknown on this. Doc has been hailing on all frequencies trying to blow some life into Constellation/Ares and he is going nowhere.

    Robert G. Oler

  • “The original SpaceX manifest included six test flights of the Falcon 9 rocket to be completed by September 2009. Currently their first test flight is scheduled for May 2010 (this rocket stuff is more difficult than it looks).” — From Doc’s essay

    He’s right on target. Obamaspace is nothing more than another bailout, but this time to a campaign contributer. Every election cycle millionaires give to both parties — nothing new there. Many are rewarded with Ambassadorships and other political appointments. But how would you reward an individual that lent his expertise to drive a web based fundraising activity that resulted in the candidate raising more money than ever recorded in the history of U.S. presidential campaigns? I guess we now know the answer — you give him the U.S. space program as a thank you.

    Why do you think Obama is pursuing insourcing in the DoD and throughout government, yet he is embracing an effort to push NASA out of the way and write blank checks to industry when it comes to civil space activities? The answer is clear — it’s payola.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Horowitz’s defense of Constellation is well reasoned and deserves better consideration than some of the Internet Rocketeer Club people are giving it. I suspect that he will get a ready listen in the Congress, especially after November when the adults will have taken it back.

  • Mark, please do go troll elsewhere. (and there’s no point denying it, we have you on tape :)

  • Gary Church

    I voted for Obama. I was praying he would bring everyone back home, sink a couple or more billion in solar energy, and start some political reformation. Instead we are sending more over there, talking about new nuclear reactor construction, and the switch was turned on for total corruption with the law enabling corporate contributions. But I am most of all disappointed about canceling Constellation. I was a space enthusiast long before I was a democrat. It was probably an easy call for Obama though. What is the biggest taxpayer ripoff in history? The space shuttle without a doubt is the most pathetic and infamous waste of public funds ever perpetrated. The Ares I somewhat resembles what the space shuttle should have been and now even that poor cousin is gone. Oh, and all you Republicans who have not figured out your party has committed suicide; you were too stupid for space to start with.

  • red

    This is off-topic, in response to amightywind on the LAS test link:

    “NASA is planning a $220 million test Thursday”

    Wow, that’s a pretty expensive test. What did Orbital get for their entire commercial cargo COTS deal for a complete new rocket and spacecraft? $175M?

  • Bennett

    Gary Church wrote @ May 5th, 2010 at 10:45 pm

    I’m going to ignore the rest of your silly political rant, and just ask what the hell you mean by “The Ares I somewhat resembles what the space shuttle should have been”

    Are you mentally challenged?

  • red

    There is too much wrong with Doc’s article for me to comment in detail. Let’s hope this gets as much traction as the “keep Griffin” petition.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ May 5th, 2010 at 10:00 pm

    lol

    remember drill baby drill

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Jim D. wrote @ May 5th, 2010 at 9:59 pm

    keep repeating the myths…maybe they will become legend Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Gary Church wrote @ May 5th, 2010 at 10:45 pm

    But I am most of all disappointed about canceling Constellation. I was a space enthusiast long before I was a democrat. It was probably an easy call for Obama though.

    so what exactly did you expect Obama to do?

    Robert G. Oler

  • eh

    So Charlie Bolden wants us to cede our space leadership? What a strange comment.

  • vuture4b

    Constellation is not dead, in fact it is spending like there’s no tomorrow, abd its advocates are pushing to demolish the Shuttle pads so there will be no turning back. Meanwhile Shuttle, which is ripping off flights every month carrying almost twice as many people and 20 times as much cargo as Orion for less money, is about to be cancelled.

    I’m sorry to have to say this, but most Constellation supporters are so rabidly right-wing they would rather attack Obama than actually make space accessible. Constellation supporters want their own taxes cut, but they want other taxpayers to cough up billions to save their jobs. They cheered when Bush cancelled Shuttle and ordered ISS terminated in 2010, condemning us to at least 5 years without a manned flight. A local Florida politico, Mike Haridopolous,has repeatedly claimed that Obama promised to support Constellation, an outright lie. Obama promised to support _space_, and he has certainly done so with a substantial budget increase.

  • Constellation supporters want their own taxes cut, but they want other taxpayers to cough up billions to save their jobs.

    Duh. That’s what everyone in The South wants.

  • Vladislaw

    “Scott “Doc” Horowitz. He was supporting what was to become Ares 1/Orion as the “safe, simple, soon” option for human access to LEO first as a NASA astronaut, then as director of space transportation and exploration at ATK, and eventually associate administrator for exploration at NASA under Mike Griffin.”

    Now what would the supporters of constellation be saying right now if ole’ Doc worked for SpaceX then came to NASA and pushed SpaceX as hard as he is pushing ATK.

  • Vladislaw

    “Cost: The COTS providers (Orbital and SpaceX) were awarded firm fixed price contracts totaling $3.5B to deliver approximately 40MT of cargo to the ISS. This, plus the $500M already invested in COTS, results in a cost of $100,000/kilo ($45,000/lb) to deliver cargo to ISS. If the Ares I/Orion were flown at a similar rate (6 flights/year) the fully-burdened government cost for delivering cargo to ISS would be about $70,000/kilo ($32,000/lb)”

    Why does he get to add the 500 million development money for SpaceX and Orbital Sciences but does not have to add the 35 – 40 billion in development money for the Ares?

    There is no Orion cargo version being built, how much would it cost to have that designed developed and built? Does his calculations include those costs?

  • Vladislaw, it’s just like how Zubrin claims that NASA’s budget today is the same as it was during Apollo [1].. by cherry picking 13 years from the Apollo period [2] (and in some retellings the 90s too) and then defining “the same” as 21% more. [3]

    You’d think that completely objective proof that someone is wrong would be sufficient to discredit them but our community has been so diluted by politics and subjective opinion that we don’t hold anyone to their claims anymore.

    We’re supposed to accept that Zubrin is just making a point that the budget excuse is irrelevant, and hey, I don’t completely disagree with him, NASA can blow $9B on Constellation with virtually nothing to show for it, so a little NASA bashing isn’t out of line, but the argument Zubrin presents immediately after this mathematical sleight-of-hand is that “during the past 13 years, no new technologies of major significance were developed.” Of course, by “major significance” Zubrin means things like space suits [4], in space life support systems [5] and rocket engines [6].

    So next time you hear Zubrin talk, and I guarantee that it’ll bet he same old shtick, think of Doc Horowitz – the kind of person who assumes his audience is clueless.

    1. “In today’s dollars, NASA’s average budget from 1961 to 1973 was about $18 billion per year. That is about the same as NASA’s current budget.” – Zubrin, http://www.marssociety.org/portal/zubrinoped-space-news-2-10/

    2. NASA budget from 1961 to 1973, in constant 2007 dollars, $282.865B. NASA budget in 2010, in constant 2007 dollars, $17.912B. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget

    3. $282.865B / 13 = $21.759B, which is 21.48% more than $17.912B.

    4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_III_%28space_suit%29

    5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS_ECLSS#Water%20recovery%20systems

    6. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/lox_methane_engine.html

  • red

    http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/05/welcome-to-scot.html

    “Welcome to Scott Horowitz’s Parallel Universe

    Keith’s note: Of course, Scott Horowitz, who certainly seems to enjoy the breeze of that revolving door, is utterly hypocriticial when it comes to deriding decisions as being “political” in Washington DC (ohmygosh, politics in Washington. I wonder who knew this was going on!?) given that he is still a registered lobbyist for ATK (paid $30K in 2008 and 2009, and $10K thus far in 2010), and has been interacting with NASA in that capacity. Does he bother to disclose this when he posts these little one-sided missives? Of course not. Pot, kettle, black, Scott.”

    http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=20478

    An essay to nowhere

    CBO:

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10051/04-15-NASA.pdf

    GAO:

    http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-844

  • amightywind

    red wrote:

    “Wow, that’s a pretty expensive test. What did Orbital get for their entire commercial cargo COTS deal for a complete new rocket and spacecraft? $175M?”

    Orbital and SpaceX would find an on pad abort system expensive, if they had one. So far its been 6 years and a whole lot of nothin’ for that cash. You might wait boast when there is something to boast about. The upcoming Falcon 9 flight will be an interesting gauge of where the COTS program really is.

  • I’ve posted a blog over on SpaceKSC.com about Horowitz’s comments. Click here to read. Don’t click it not to read.

  • vulture4

    Agree on Kennedy. The conflict between the US and USSR had become a nuclear arms race. We were having air raid drills in New York. Somebody was going to push the button. Sputnik was persuading the nonaligned nations to move to the Soviet camp, because it suggested Communism was a faster path to development. Kennedy saw that shifting the conflict from a nuclear arms race to a symbolic technological race might allow the US and USSR to compete for world leadership without destroying the world. Kennedy was very clear on the goal of Apollo – “to send a man to the moon, and return him safely to the earth”. Period. To bad NASA wasn’t listening; They were shocked when Nixon canceled Apollo, but in reality it was completely impractical to keep flying a handful of people into space on giant throw-away rockets, and it still is.

  • I’m sorry to have to say this, but most Constellation supporters are so rabidly right-wing

    Whenever I see someone talk about “right wing” in the context of space policy, I know that the rest of what they have to say can be safely ignored.

    They were shocked when Nixon canceled Apollo

    Nixon didn’t cancel Apollo. Johnson did, in 1967, under pressure from Congress and the war. Just as Bush, not Obama, cancelled the Shuttle. Space policy is generally not as partisan as some partisans want to make it.

  • Rand Simberg wrote:

    Nixon didn’t cancel Apollo. Johnson did, in 1967, under pressure from Congress and the war.

    Let’s be factual here. LBJ may have put an end on the number of missions, but Nixon cancelled Apollos 18, 19 and 20 within a few months after Apollo 11 landed on the Moon.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind blew…

    “So far its been 6 years and a whole lot of nothin’ for that cash”. Au contraire! On the COTS program (awarded by Griffin/Bush), NASA is getting exactly what they want, and they only pay for it when they get it – it’s called a milestone schedule, and it’s a wonderful way to keep costs from ballooning (like on Constellation). For the ISS COTS deliveries, Orbital and SpaceX only get paid when they deliver – what a concept.

    I would imagine that you are advocating more Cost-plus contracts? Enjoy spiraling costs?

    If we’re going to be able to afford doing stuff in space, then we need to reduce the costs. Constellation was not going to do that. Just divide the development costs of Ares I or Ares V by the number of launches they could do in their first 20 years, and you would see that they are hugely expensive – and that’s without accounting for the materials, production, overhead and launch costs. They were going to bankrupt the space program!

    No Constellation supporter has ever been able to justify their support of the program by showing the economics of the program – can you?

  • common sense

    @amightywind wrote @ May 5th, 2010 at 9:45 pm

    What do you know about LAS or LAV? Do you know if it “always” makes the launch safer? If you answer no at either question then go post your stuff elsewhere.

    Oh well…

  • LBJ may have put an end on the number of missions, but Nixon cancelled Apollos 18, 19 and 20 within a few months after Apollo 11 landed on the Moon.

    Yes, Nixon could have flown out the hardware, but it was Johnson who ordered the end of the production, before Nixon became president. And for better or worse, Nixon started the Shuttle (and approved Skylab).

    As I said, space is one of the most nonpartisan areas of policy, and it doesn’t help the debate for people to try to make it partisan (as we can see from so much of the knee-jerk reaction to the Obama plans).

  • D. Messier

    So, it would have been impossible for Nixon to have reversed LBJ’s decision, even though NASA was still flying Saturn rockets for six and a half years after Nixon took office? Including nearly a full year into Ford’s presidency?

  • So, it would have been impossible for Nixon to have reversed LBJ’s decision, even though NASA was still flying Saturn rockets for six and a half years after Nixon took office? Including nearly a full year into Ford’s presidency?

    I don’t know what you mean by impossible. Certainly, with enough money, the program could have been resurrected. What were the political chances that Richard Nixon could have done that with a Democrat Congress, even if he’d wanted to? And as far as cost, it would have been far easier to resurrect Shuttle now, than Apollo/Saturn then.

  • Let’s not forget the historical context.

    Flying Apollo was dangerous, just as flying Shuttle is dangerous.

    Nixon pulled the plug on Apollos 18-20 before Apollo 13, but certainly there was a sense that each flight was a huge risk, not to mention very expensive.

    Bush cancelled Shuttle in January 2004 after the CAIB report, which concluded that Shuttle was an inherently dangerous design with a fatal flaw — the crew vehicle mounted on the side, which could expose it to flame and falling debris.

    The only reason JFK proposed the Moon program was to show the world our technology was better than the Soviets. We did that. There was no point to continue with the program.

  • Scott Horowitz is right! Constellation would have clearly been viable. IT JUST NEEDED TO BE PROPERLY FUNDED!! The Aries 5 was, and could still be, America’s next heavy-lift rocket. There is absolutely NO reason for President Obama to spew out all this nonsense about us having to now wait five more years, in order to come up with a whole new design for one! (What?—Charlie Bolden is going to invent matter/ antimatter propulsion sometime during the next half-decade?!) The Anti-Moon lobby just wants Constellation dead, so that nobody ever returns to Luna ever again! That way, they don’t ever have to deal with actual landing vehicles, designed to cope with strong gravity wells, and nor do they have to bother with actual chemical/ industrial equipment for resource utilization on a spherical planetary body. Hey, come to think of it: you really don’t need to ever concern yourself with the matter of developing a frontier-land when all you’re ever going to do is go to a place only once, brag about being the first to reach it, and then just go on the next mad rush to find another 100% Virgin Territory spot, to plant your flag. Flexible Path will result in one dead-end spectacular after another! NASA stagnates big time, under Obama’s Plan!!

  • Chris, so what you’re saying is that Constellation wasn’t viable at the actual funding levels that NASA gets. That’s what the rest of us have been saying from the beginning. Congratulations on catching up.

    Folks, there is no more money. NASA isn’t getting a massive budget increase of $6B/year to do Constellation and extend the ISS. Reality welcomes you when you feel like accepting it.

  • @ Trent Waddington….. Constellation got ANEMIC funding, from the start! PROPER funding was always the right thing for the administration to do, in order to remedy that situation. Hey, billions of federal budget dollars always seem to spring up magically, when it comes to funding the ISS! Why is it that we can keep on going there, to LEO, repeatedly, and you get not one word of complaint from anybody??! Constellation merely STARTS OUT resembling Apollo, but will clearly move on far beyond it, in terms of expanding the human presence & human operations on the Moon. Base establishment is clearly in the works, with Constellation’s subsequent expeditions. If Apollo was the dogsled mode for merely reaching the Moon, as polar explorers reached Antarctica & the South Pole, then Project Constellation brings us to an Operation Highjump mode of expanded scientific investigation PLUS BASE ESTABLISHMENT there. We need a new International Geophysical Year, like that of 1957; and more great explorer men like Admirals Richard E. Byrd & George Dufek. Read your history! Explorers have ALWAYS had to return back to where other men had been, in the far past, in order to DEVELOP the frontier, and to increase the scope of the human presence there. That STUPID “we’ve been there already” argument has NO place in the equation of this endeavor!!

Leave a Reply to common sense Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

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