Congress, NASA

An all-star panel Wednesday

The Senate Commerce Committee has announced the witnesses for Wednesday afternoon’s hearing on “The Future of U.S. Human Space Flight” and it’s a high-powered list:

The Honorable John P. Holdren
Director
Office of Science and Technology Policy

The Honorable Charles F. Bolden Jr.
Administrator
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Mr. Neil A. Armstrong
Commander, Apollo 11
Astronaut (Ret.)

Captain Eugene A. Cernan
USN (Ret.)
Commander, Apollo 17, Astronaut (Ret.)

Mr. Norman R. Augustine
Chairman
Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee

There’s also a mix of opinions represented. Holdren and Bolden are obviously in support of the new direction for NASA, and Augustine has largely supported the plan as well. Armstrong and Cernan, on the other hand, signed a letter last month sharply critical of the plan.

69 comments to An all-star panel Wednesday

  • I hope Buzz can make time to show up. Even sitting in the audience he is a balancing effect to these washed up astronauts looking backward instead of forward.

  • Paul Vaccaro

    Mr. Waddington you should be ashamed of yourself to speak this way of two of Americas great heroes, they are not looking backwards Obama is. The moon mars and beyond was chosen because no astronauts today have the skills to do what they did 40 years ago the moon was chosen as the initial starting point to aclimate todays astronauts to living and working and landing on another world. Having a common frame of refrence to do this is important , practical and safe. A personal note my father worked with these men for a great many years I myself had the opportunity to meet them, I have great pride , admiration and RESPECT for these men who have done more than you and I will ever do in our lifetime, people like you who cannot show respect to true Americans and their sacrifice to this great nation should learn some manners and respect if you can’t then keep your mouth shut and you opinions to yourself. thank you an American

  • Ferris Valyn

    Mr. Vaccaro – I respect what Armstrong & Cernan did, but they are absolutely wrong when it comes to space policy. Constellation died more than a few years ago – Its time we realized it.

  • amightywind

    The fur will fly! I am dying to hear from the Malthusian Holdren and his idiot Bolden. They are out of their league. Neil and Gene will definitely provide awesome star power. Augustine in front of the Senate? Again? I guess the Senate Committee felt like they needed a wet blanket. Neil Armstrong should be trusted to make the call and end the haggling. Constellation lives!

  • Ferris Valyn

    amightywind – so, wait, do I have it figured correct? Armstrong is suppose to be Jesus in this Constellation religion?

  • Hopefully at least one Committee member will ask Armstrong and Cernan how they intend to pay for their rerun of Apollo, not to mention why we should spend another $150 billion just to get more rocks.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ May 10th, 2010 at 10:21 pm

    Hopefully at least one Committee member will ask Armstrong and Cernan how they intend to pay for their rerun of Apollo, not to mention why we should spend another $150 billion just to get more rocks.

    yeah, in my world the question would be “What value would humans on the Moon give for the cost of putting them there, as oppossed to a very heavy uncrewed exploration of the Moon”…

    in the end the only reason sending people to the Moon makes sense is 1) things are made up (The Chinese are going to take over the Moon) or 2) the value of human spaceflight is just accepted for the jobs it creates on earth.

    There is a reason most Generals train to fight the last war.

    (and why Armstrong and Cernan look old)

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Trent Waddington wrote @ May 10th, 2010 at 9:00 pm

    I hope Buzz can make time to show up. Even sitting in the audience he is a balancing effect to these washed up astronauts looking backward instead of forward.

    as I have said many times in the past. Buzz still looks like he would win a bar fight…Armstrong…old Robert G. Oler

  • What’s despicable is that we went from a rational open debate in the Augustine committee to a mud fight with former astronauts. Get this, Constellation is simply not doable with the current NASA budget. Everyone who is an advocate of Constellation is either unwilling to accept this or thinks the solution is to just magically add $3B to $6B per year to the budget. If that was an option it would have been done decades ago. NASA’s budget is what NASA’s budget is.. if you want to have an adult conversation you have to accept that.

  • J201

    What is so wrong to trying to live up to the legacy of a past generation? And then building on it?

    Not only does a great nation need a space program, but the space program needs a great nation. Recent events fail to inspire.

    I’d take a rerun of Apollo over tech demos any day.

  • Studying Both Sides

    Here are my thoughts… If Obama want’s a technology driven NASA, a good reason to go to the moon is to test low-g, oxygen deprived mining technology, collection, and refinement technologies. These technologies can then be given to earth industry to go use on asteroids, etc… That is a good start to a space based industry. I’m sure there are high priced minerals on some of those asteriods out there even though we haven’t found them yet. It would help to start putting an infrastructure in space.

  • J201, so once again a Constellation advocate fails to participate in the adult conversation..

    “I’d take a rerun of Apollo over tech demos any day.”

    How are you going to pay for it?

  • Paul Vaccaro

    If any one needs to learn about adult conversation it is you Mr. Waddington , you begin with washed up astronauts. as far as you, go get your facts straight learn something first. My famly has 50 years of NASA spaceflight experience and I am very versed with our current capabilities. I spoke to Gunther Wendt back in July he was a regular in many stores here in Titusville, we spoke of this subject often, he also agreed the moon simply for the reason of getting todays crews ready for journeys of tomorrow. He mentioned we don’t need to stay for years just enough time to get todays astronauts the skills needed to make the deep space flights.
    If I offend you sorry pal but this is a close nit community and many of us have been around some great americans and pride is important, respect for these people is important, honor is important. Everytime I see my dad’s name on the Apollo monument it reminds me of three basic principles of this the great American experiment, DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY.

  • Robert G. Oler

    J201 wrote @ May 10th, 2010 at 10:55 pm

    What is so wrong to trying to live up to the legacy of a past generation? And then building on it? ..

    because the legacy has no reference to this generation…it barely had any reference to that generation after oh say 1966.

    sorry

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “If Obama want’s a technology driven NASA, a good reason to go to the moon is to test low-g, oxygen deprived mining technology, collection, and refinement technologies”

    And that’s exactly what’s being pursued:

    “1. In-Situ Resource Utilization: Lunar Volatiles Characterization This project will address the key question “How can we locate, access, and extract volatile resources on the Moon?”

    The objective of the demonstration is to verify the presence of water and other volatiles on the Moon by direct in-situ measurements of the lunar regolith. The project will build upon recent field tests of in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) technology by demonstrating operation of a prototype ISRU system in a thermal vacuum chamber. Then a flight experiment to demonstrate lunar resource prospecting, characterization, and extraction will be developed for testing on a robotic precursor mission around 2015.

    The top-level requirements for this demonstration are:

    Locate sub-surface areas of elevated hydrogen bearing compounds
    Acquire sub-surface samples for analysis
    Analyze soil samples for mineral composition, volatile content and bulk regolith characteristics.
    Demonstrate the potential for volatiles and regolith utilization
    Must be capable of flying on a variety of lunar lander precursor missions in a polar location.
    Overall system mass must be less than 60kg and consume no more than 200W of peak power.

    To enable this mission, information is sought on several key capabilities:

    An instrument system that would be able to detect hydrogen with a concentration of at least the minimum required water ice abundance (0.5 wt%) for ISRU contained in a surface layer of at least 5 cm thickness on top of otherwise dry regolith. Additionally, the instrument should also be able to detect at least 1 wt% of water buried beneath 1 meter of dry regolith. The time required to measure abundance and approximate burial depth shall be no more than 10 minutes at a given location. Instrument system mass should not exceed 2.5 kg.

    An instrument system that can quantify volatile gases released by sample heating below atomic number 64 (of particular interest H2, He, He-3, CO, CO2, CH4, H2O, N2, O2, Ar, NH3, HCN, H2S, SO2). The instrument system must also be able to withstand exposure to the release of HF, HCl, or Hg that may result from heating regolith samples to high temperatures.

    The instrument should be capable of detecting 1000 ppm to 100% concentration of the volatiles in the gas phase. The instrument should have a mass of less than 5 kg not including any vacuum components required to operate in the laboratory environment.

    A thermal vacuum chamber will be required to test the experiment in simulated lunar conditions. This chamber would not only need to approximate lunar temperatures and pressure, but it would also have to allow a bed of lunar regolith stimulant to be inside the chamber so that a complete end-to-end test of the system could be conducted. The chamber size desired is roughly 8′ x 8′ x 8′. Information is sought on chambers that may already exist or could be modified to meet this requirement.”

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=34056

    FWIW…

  • Derrick

    Paul Vaccaro wrote @ May 10th, 2010 at 9:53 pm…
    “Mr. Waddington you should be ashamed of yourself to speak this way of two of Americas great heroes…”

    Okay Paul, I’ll wait for you to respond to this comment:

    amightywind wrote @ May 10th, 2010 at 10:07 pm…
    “The fur will fly! I am dying to hear from the Malthusian Holdren and his idiot Bolden….”

    but chances are you won’t because you agree with Armstrong and disagree with Bolden, despite the fact they’re both heroes in their own right.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Paul Vaccaro wrote @ May 10th, 2010 at 11:28 pm

    oh please…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mark R. Whittington

    I suppose the conclusion of some of the folks here is that people who have actually explored another world cannot possibly have anything to say about–well–exploring another world. This shows how very weird some of the supporters of Obamaspace are getting.

  • Paul Vaccaro

    Matter of fact my father n law who worked close with Charlie Bolden spoke highly of him, he feels he unfortunatly is being used for political purposes. He went on to say he ‘s a good man, smart man, honorable but apparently has fallen into the political trap that is Washington d.c. politics.

  • Derrick

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ May 10th, 2010 at 11:38 pm…

    Yeah and what does Buzz have to say about it Mark?

  • I love what they have to say about exploring another world. I could sit and listen to them all day long. But it has absolutely nothing to do with NASA’s FY11 budget. That is a discussion about MONEY and how to spend it. Until they have something to say about that they’re off-topic and the Congress shouldn’t be wasting their time discussing things that it would be nice to do if there was a big pot of gold handy.

    Paul, as great as your family, friends and pets must be, this is a site for discussing the politics of space, so if you find it distasteful, feel free to leave.

  • vulture4

    The Shuttle is finally flying safely and productively. It carries almost twice as many people as Orion, carries more than ten time the cargo, and actually costs less per mission. With an increase in the overall NASA budget we could easily keep it fling while developing a more advanced reusable launch vehicle. Those who advocate canceling it seem to be motivated mainly by boredom.

    Meanwhile Constellation is far from dead; the program is still consuming billions and planning five “test flights” including manned flights to the ISS which will cost billions more. It’ supporters hope that by demolishing the Shuttle pads they will force Congress to restart Constellation.

    The dirty truth is that human spaceflght with ELVs is far too expensive to be practical. There is no economic or political case for flight to the Moon, Mars, or anywhere else unless the cost can be reduced by a factor of ten. And it can be done; that was why we built the Shuttle. All the actual fuel, the energy that puts the Shuttle in orbit, is less than 1/2 of 1% of the mission cost. The rest is maintenance, fabrication, overhead on the expensive Apollo-era facilities, etc. all costs which were unanticipated because there were not real prototypes and and could be vastly reduced in a new design.

    It makes sense to keep flying the Shuttle while a fully reusable successor is designed and brought into service. Trashing the Shuttle now that it is finally working well, and dispersing the only workforce int he world with hands-on experience maintaining reusable spacecraft.

    Terminating the Shuttle program far short of the planned 100 flights per orbiter and terminating all work on fully reusable launch vehicles is the most serious mistake NASA has made, since it will delay practical human spaceflight for many decades. Arguably it is more costly than the errors that led to the loss of Challenger and Columbia, because it throws away the valuable lessons learned at such painful cost.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Paul – why isn’t it possible that Bolden found a better plan? I’d go so far to argue its a much better plan.

    And, the simple fact is, Armstrong has done NOTHING to earn chops as a policy wonk. When it comes to knowledge about things lik engineering, and knowledge about lunar flights, definitely.

    But name something large scale that Armstrong has helped to develop, policywise, that he deserves the level of hero worshiping you are giving him.

    Its no different then asking someone like Britney Spears for environmental policy suggestions.

  • J201

    How do you plan to pay for that asteroid mission in 10 years? Or for that mission to Mars in 20? The money will be spent regardless. I would prefer it to be spent on human spaceflight.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Neil Armstrong = Britney Spears? Ferris, do you actually think about what comes out of your keyboard?

  • Ferris Valyn

    Mark – show me the policy work that Armstrong has done. If he has done something that involves actual development, like Sally Ride, or Buzz Aldrin, (or Charlie Bolden, or Harrison Schmitt or Jack Swigert, both of who actually did work with Policy experience, even if I STRONGLY disagree with some of their positions), or someone like that, I’ll gladly say I was wrong and apologize.

    But speaking out on a topic, to agree or disagree, while mostly keeping to himself through the years – thats not evidence of someone who can understand and develop policy. Sorry, it just isn’t. He hasn’t been brought out because he has extensive history, like John Logsdon, or a former NASA administrator – he’s a celebrity.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ May 10th, 2010 at 11:38 pm

    I suppose the conclusion of some of the folks here is that people who have actually explored another world cannot possibly have anything to say about–well–exploring another world.

    of course that was not the criteria you used during the Bush years…ie people who knew what they were doing saying that the Bush folks had no clue.

    the problem here of course is that Armstrong, and the rest really have no particular expertise in the topic at hand. The issue is one of space policy, ie what should be the policy of the United STates in terms of human activity in space.

    Cernan seems intent on redoing something whose relevance ended a long time ago…and Armstrong really has not written or spoken all that much on policy.

    Maybe both can say The Chinese are going…LOL

    Robert G. Oler

  • Paul Vaccaro

    Mr. Valyn that doesn’t even deserve a response, why don’t you google his bio you just might learn something. As far a Obama plan what plan give me specific details , they can’t because they don’t have any, the problem is if they had thought this out better and had details before they decided to drop a bomb like Constellation termination maybe this upside down debate would not be happening, they didn’t prepare to well. As for this so called President who thinks he can do anything he wants, sorry folks, the Constitution of the United States does not give him the power to terminate anything he can only propose, only Congress has the authority to that. and I hope they finally get this right and fund and set Constellation on it’s rightful course.

  • Robert G. Oler

    vulture4 wrote @ May 11th, 2010 at 12:06 am

    to think that the same folks and process that gave us shuttle can with more money try it again and yet suceed is nuts. Particularly since they have failed on every other vehicle they have tried to design since 1980.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris Valyn

    Mr. Vaccaro – pull your fingers out of your ears, you’ll see PLENTY of details.

    We have the budget itself, which HAS details. We have the Augustine Report, which provides plenty of ideas, and of course we have the latest slides which provided MORE detail
    In particular, these are the most interesting, (Laurie Leshin’s slides), but they were all good

    Also, President Obama is no more “so-called” than any of the other previous 43 Presidents, so if we are going to have a discussion about respect, then for him he deserves some as well.

    Finally, I will grant Armstrong served on the Rogers commission, which was some policy work, and I do apologize for not remembering that.

    OTOH, given that that was in the 80s, and he hasn’t really done much beyond that, I am still wonder why he should be given more credence then someone who actually works regularly on policy.

  • vulture4, “With an increase in the overall NASA budget we could easily..” do anything and everything. But, THERE IS NO MORE MONEY. Thank you for coming, please pick up a flier on the way out.

  • someguy

    1) People here keep saying that Obamaspace is such a pile of crap, and yet no one against Obamaspace has given a realistic answer of where the money is going to come from to fund Constellation or any shuttle-derivative plan. NASA’s budget is going to pretty much stay where it is, around $20 billion. There’s no place in the federal budget that can be realistically raided to transfer to NASA. All of the money is already spoken for, and no one’s going to give up their budget, just because NASA wants it. Where’s the money going to come from?

    If someone’s budget is going to get cut, just so NASA can build a bigger rocket when there are two perfectly usable ones (Altas and Delta), and a third one coming online (Falcon), what do you think that person is going to say? Can you honestly say that road workers working on a highway are less important than NASA workers working on Ares V?

    Are we going to borrow $200 billion from China for NASA? Are we going to raise the income tax?

    Where is the money to fund Constellation?

    2) Also, there are roughly five space states, give or take. That leaves about 45 other states that pay federal taxes that also get to have an opinion on this subject. A lot of people here seem to keep forgetting about that.

    3) And if Obama wanted to gut NASA as some people here say, then why didn’t he just let Constellation keep running until it destroyed NASA on its own. Constellation was doing a fine job all by itself killing NASA from the inside out. I wouldn’t be surprised if soon robotic missions started to get gutted to pay for Constellation. I wouldn’t put it too far out to think that things like the Mars Science Labaratory would get gutted as well to pay for Constellation if we keep going down this path. Maybe not MSL itself since it’s almost ready to go, but the next MSL-type project would be sacrificed to feed Constellation.

    I used to like DIRECT, until I realized the problem that all shuttle-derived rockets have: only NASA is going to use it. The military already has two of their own that work just fine, so they are probably just going to tell NASA to shove it if NASA wants the military to help pay for Ares/DIRECT/whatever. If the military had a real need for something bigger than Delta IV Heavy, I’m pretty sure they would have gotten it in a heartbeat, since it’s the military. And they would have probably gone EELV Phase I or II, since they are already buying EELV’s as it is. Might as well use the same people and only have to pay for a super heavy lifter when you need it, then have to fund a completely separate system (and all of the associated people) dedicated to just one big rocket and all the costs that go with that.

    4) I know it’s just easier to believe that Obama is a Communist Muslim atheist America hater. But, perhaps he actualy does care about NASA and is trying to move in a different direction than the past, so we don’t keep repeating the same MUST-HAVE-A-DESTINATION-NOW-OR-THE-REDS-WILL-WIN cycle that we’ve been on the last 40 years. Yes, I know. That’s just crazy. It’s much easier to just shut my brain off and think he’s a Communist Muslim atheist America hater. :P

    5) I’m sick of hearing about how everyone at NASA is SOOOOO important that we have to keep shoveling money at them no matter who they are or what project they are working on, no matter how badly it’s going, just because they are associated with NASA. You know what the rest of us in the country say: “Get in line”. None of the rest of us get to pitch a fit about losing our jobs if the private sector decides to do that. If we get laid off, then that’s just how it is.

    If the country, through our Congressmen and president, decide to go in a different direction, and your job is no longer required, then, just like in the private sector, you get to be laid off, just like the rest of us.

    End rant.

  • Ferris Valyn

    someguy – my own 2 cents, FWIW – the disagreement about Obama’s proposal isn’t actually over the proposal. Its over who is proposing it. Because it really boils down to the fact that they just don’t like Obama, and his other political opinions, and can’t accept anything else.

  • Derrick

    someguy wrote @ May 11th, 2010 at 12:47 am …

    “1) People here keep saying that Obamaspace is such a pile of crap, and yet no one against Obamaspace has given a realistic answer of where the money is going to come from to fund Constellation or any shuttle-derivative plan. ”

    And I don’t think you ever will. As always they’re great at spewing their opinions but if you ever question them on their facts, you rarely get an answer.

  • someguy, btw, none of the NASA civil servants are being laid off. All of the “job losses” that we’re hearing about are in the private sector.

  • someguy

    Trent Waddington wrote @ May 11th, 2010 at 1:02 am

    I would consider wholly government-contracted jobs to be essentially equivalent to public sector jobs for the purposes of this discussion.

    Yes, I know there’s somewhat of a gray line, but I think the general point I was trying to make still stands.

  • someguy, well the only jobs that are actually going to be lost in layoffs is the ones at USA. And, frankly, they’ve know about it for years.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ferris Valyn wrote @ May 11th, 2010 at 12:57 am

    someguy – my own 2 cents, FWIW – the disagreement about Obama’s proposal isn’t actually over the proposal. Its over who is proposing it. Because it really boils down to the fact that they just don’t like Obama, and his other political opinions, and can’t accept anything else.

    yes. the vast majority of the anti obama space policy are about like the Birthers…logic is not their strong suit and insanity is a pre existing condition.

    Most of the anti Obama crowd are doing what they always accused people of doing to Bush…and they are on the backwater of American history

    Robert G. Oler

  • someguy

    Trent Waddington wrote @ May 11th, 2010 at 1:13 am

    OK. I’ll take your word on that.

    Does USA have any business outside of NASA contracts?

    I was really only ranting about the cries of “OH NOES, NASA JOBS ARE BEING LOST” I keep seeing everywhere. Like I said before, get in line.

  • someguy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Space_Alliance presumably they’ll dissolve it and appropriate employees will be absorbed into the parent organizations where appropriate.

  • mike shupp

    Derrick —

    According to Aviation Week, DOD/NSA space spending ran to 46 B$ in FY 2009, while NASA was spending 18 B$. And as part of last year’s economic stimulus program, Obama raised DoE spending from about 18 B$ to 53 B$ in one year. (NOAA stayed about the same, at around 4 B$)

    Just spewing an opinion here, but I think the money it might take to fund a more ambitious manned space program might be found in the federal budget, the same place it usually comes from.

    If you guys were half the financial experts you think you are, you probably should be analyzing the whole 65-70 B$ federal space program rather than one small component.

  • Mike, NASA also got stimulus money. It was supposed to go to CCDev, but only 1/4 of it made it there, the rest went into Constellation. As for NASA’s overall budget, there is simply NO WAY that it is going to increase by $3 to 6B/year. That’s the hard cold reality. If you want to talk about the “imagine what we could do with more money” dreamland then don’t be surprised when people write you off as a dreamer.

  • Robert G. Oler

    mike shupp wrote @ May 11th, 2010 at 1:59 am

    you are dreaming if you think there is more money…and oddly enough it wouldnt matter if there were. NASA HSF would find a way to waste it

    Robert G. Oler

  • mike shupp

    Trent —

    You didn’t understand my point. There’s money for a larger manned space program if the President decides to spend the money. (Do not start blubbering about Constellation’s unaffordability. That’s a red herring.) The “cold hard reality” you embrace is that this President does not intend to spend that money.

    That’s it, guy. He’s spending money elsewhere, he’s even spending money on military and intelligence satellites, and wants to spend more on climate and general earth observation satellites — nice good science! But manned space flight is going to take it in the ear for the next eight years, not because God or the dismal state of the federal budget demands it, but because the President decided it would. You’re being dishonest if you can’t admit that.

    You’re the dreamer.

  • Obama doesn’t decide the top line for NASA’s budget. The congress appropriations committees do.. and they have consistently decided on the current NASA budget levels since Apollo. Why would anything change now?

    Military spending has nothing to do with NASA spending.. except possibly when NASA gets cut to redirect funds that way. You live in this baffling alternate reality where NASA is such a national priority that it can get $6B/year more to continue a bloated redo of Apollo. I’d love to live there with you, but I don’t.

  • someguy

    mike shupp wrote @ May 11th, 2010 at 3:02 am

    Manned space flight is going to take it in the rear because it hasn’t been able to justify its own existence for the money we’ve been spending on it for 40 years. That means the answer isn’t to spend more, but to restructure how we go about it (stop having NASA-only rockets for instance).

    There was one time in 1969 when manned space flight was maybe really truly justified, and that was it. 5 minutes after the first moon landing, we had won, people stopped caring, and that was it.

    Satellites in general can much more easily justify their existence because they cost much less money. But even satellites get cancelled if they start costing too much (see NPOESS).

    I’m as pro-HSF as anyone is, but we can’t keep walking in the same circle that we have been since the end of Apollo. Apollo only worked because NASA had a basically unlimited budget. Without an unlimited budget, Apollo fell apart. And now here we are again with Apollo2, er, Constellation.

  • Robert G. Oler

    mike shupp wrote @ May 11th, 2010 at 3:02 am

    You didn’t understand my point. There’s money for a larger manned space program if the President decides to spend the money.

    not really. the country is running a massive deficit…it is not simply a choice of funding this or that program…that wont come until the budget comes into balance.

    If we want to spend more money on hsf…then 1) it has to be warranted, ie it needs to have some value for cost and 2) it has to be explained in light of a budget deficit.

    No President since the end of the Apollo days has really found an avenue for hsf to hold the same place in the American scheme of things that it did during the time it substituted for a hot war with the Soviets.

    to not understand that is to be completely unrealistic.

    Apollo fell apart very quickly after the lunar landing because the American people couldnt understand why we were still doing it.

    to not understand that is to be completely unrealistic

    Robert G. Oler

  • It’s such a shame that the Augustine commission wasted so much time discussing options a few billion over the current budget line. It not only sent the wrong message to the Constellation supporters (and when you look into their big puppy dog eyes it’s so sad to think about that false hope) but it also gave the administration only two options: continue Constellation with inadequate funding and watch it go no-where or delay heavy lift, and the only option that could delay heavy lift sensibly was 5b. A lesson for the next committee I guess.

  • Starjock

    The media is going to be all over these Senate Hearings. It is not very often that Armstrong, a national hero, gets to express his opinion in public. He has stayed very low profile for the past 40 years and now he is about to blast the Obama Plan!

    Right or wrong, his opinion will be broadcast Worldwide and will carry a lot of weight in the ongoing debate.!

  • Starjock, yep, except all he’ll say is platitudes about how the US needs to be going somewhere and doing something by sometime and that’s about all. I expect the contribution to the “debate” will be minimal. It’ll certainly add some heat, but not a lot of light.

  • amightywind

    Looking at your comments I see you all fear what Armstrong and Cernan might say. I am not surprised. They are infinitely higher in stature and credibility than the petty bureaucrats they are to debate. Let’s face it folks. Neil Armstrong’s balls wouldn’t fit in a dump truck. He sits at the top of Tom Wolff’s ziggurat or flying. The endless, muddled, partisan debate has ruined our manned space program. It is time to move on by decree.

  • J201

    Even if Armstrong and Cernan aren’t as versed in policy making as Aldrin is, what they say will carry weight. Of all people, they should know what it takes to make a great space program.

    If I were Administrator Bolden, Mr. Augustine, or Director Holdren, I wouldn’t be shaking in my boots, but I’d be nervous.

  • Ben Joshua

    The cast for tomorrow’s Senate Commerce Committee theater presentation appears to pit old school celebrity against new school lesser knowns (relatively speaking).

    This unreal show may come down to style points. Which witness is speaking guardedly? Which will speak in reality dollars? Which can tell a policy story that brings clarity and sense to both broad objectives and programatic details?

    Will Augustine say something definitive or just be nice to everyone? Will Armstrong and Cernan deal in particulars, or slogans? Will Holdren shine because of his smarts and breadth of knowlege or will he be on the defensive? Will Bolden snap out of his meandering ways?

    If you were adding a witness to this panel who could bring light, clarity and real dollar talk to the proceedings, whom would you choose?

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    FWIW, I suspect that this hearing is going to be an attempted ambush of Holdren and Bolden, probably co-ordinated between Nelson, Shelby and Hutchinson. What am I saying? I have a feeling that Nelson has come up with a ‘Plan-B’ and is going to use this meeting to roll it out. He is going to use Armstrong and Cernan’s objections to the President’s plan and cherry-picked data from the A-Com (Mr. Augustine is there basically to repeat them to the panel) as justification or even endorsement. He will then probably try to make Bolden and Holdren look stupid in front of the cameras by asking how all the experts at NASA and OSTP couldn’t come up with this plan when a couple of Pol Sci graduate staffers in Nelson’s office could.

    Now, the chances of pulling off an ambush like this is low, given how leaky Congressional offices can be. It is possible that Bolden and Holdren have gotten wind of this plan. In my tin-foil hatted world, this is the source of the ‘Ares-Alternate’ plan recently reported on at nasaspaceflight.com. It was the plan on which Jeff Hanley had his managers working… on Administrator Bolden’s instructions. The similarities between it and Boeing’s “Not-DIRECT” are interesting. It may have been an attempt to spike the guns of Boeing/ATK’s supporters.

    Just some friendly-neighbourhood conspiracy-mongering theories. :-)

  • ISSvet

    If you were adding a witness to this panel who could bring light, clarity and real dollar talk to the proceedings, whom would you choose?

    Jeff Greason, in a heartbeat.

  • I suppose the conclusion of some of the folks here is that people who have actually explored another world cannot possibly have anything to say about–well–exploring another world.

    He doesn’t have anything to say about doing it affordably or sustainably.

  • David C

    Ben,
    Tin Foil Hat Time, what would happen if Bolden’s study from Marshall that was done late winter, were to surface at this hearing ;0 Hanley had it, and Shannon knows about it; these ‘Direct Lookalikes’ to me have the appearance of path finder, or hats in the door, to see what the response would be to that study, that L2 says, came up with Direct as the only viable HLV, not that it was affordable, by any means, but it was a viable alternative; Nelson has the authority to get that study, I wonder if he did, and that is what this is all about; talk about an ambush ;0

  • Vladislaw

    Paul Vaccaro wrote:

    “he also agreed the moon simply for the reason of getting todays crews ready for journeys of tomorrow. He mentioned we don’t need to stay for years just enough time to get todays astronauts the skills needed to make the deep space flights.”

    You either want to build systems to explore multiple points IN space, or you want to leave space and land to do LUNAR exploration and give space exploration. Lunar exploration is not space exploration. To claim it is, I can claim that exploring earth climate and other earth science is also space exploration.

    “As far a Obama plan what plan give me specific details , they can’t because they don’t have any,”

    (taken from a post on clark’s site)

    2011: human robotics interfaces (ISS) (ETDD)
    2011-2016: 3 SpaceX demos and initial 12 operational cargo flights (ISS) (C3PO)
    2012: ALHAT (autonomous landing and hazard avoidance) (ETDD)
    2012: biomed tech demo (ISS) (HRP)
    2012-2016: 1 Orbital demo and initial 8 operational cargo flights (ISS) (C3PO)
    2013: radiation risk model (HRP)
    2014: advanced in-space propulsion mission (FTD)
    2014: closed-loop ECLSS (ETDD)
    2014: high-energy systems (ETDD)
    2014: NEO robotic precursor (RP)
    2014: performance health tech demo (ISS) (HRP)
    2014: commercial crew demo flights (ISS) (C3PO)
    2015: Lunar lander robotic precursor (RP)
    2015: advanced in-space propulsion (ISS) (ETDD)
    2015: advanced in-space propellant transfer and storage (FTD)
    2015: LOX/methane or LOX/H2 in-space engine demo (HLPT)
    2015: another biomed tech demo (ISS) (HRP)
    2015-2020: commercial crew missions (ISS) (C3PO)
    2015-2020: Orion Emergency Rescue Module missions (ISS) (Orion)
    2016: lightweight/inflatable modules and closed loop life support (ISS) (FTD)
    2016: ISRU (ETDD)
    2016: Mars robotic precursor (RP)
    2016: LOX/RP prototype engine (HLPT)
    2016: further radiation risk model (HRP)
    2017: aero-assist/entry, descent, and landing (FTD)
    2017: performance health suite demo (ISS) (HRP)
    2018: EVA demo (ISS, maybe for suitport/suitlock tech) (ETDD)
    2018: another Mars robotic precursor (RP)
    2018: Mars Medical Suite demo (ISS) (HRP)
    2019: another NEO robotic precursor (RP)
    2020: LOX/RP operational engine, thrust >= 1M lbs (HLPT)
    2020: nuclear thermal propulsion (ETDD)

    Acronyms:
    FTD: Flagship Technology Demonstration
    ETDD: Enabling Technology Development and Demonstration
    RP: Exploration Robotic Precursor Mission
    HLPT: Heavy Lift & Propulsion Technology Program
    HRP: Human Research Program
    C3PO: Commercial Crew and Cargo Program
    Orion: Orion Emergency Rescue Module

  • Ben Joshua

    “Tin Foil Hat Time”

    No need for the foil. It’s SOP in budget battles to orchestrate support for plans A, B and C (and C sub sliver) until the senate appropriations process says, “Final!” btw, is Bolden’s Marshall report public? Where can we find it?

    Direct-like plan B & C proposals are out there, no doubt appealing to a handful of Senators and Reps. and their staffs.

    Posts by technically oriented folks suggest Direct is head and shoulders above Ares, but is still a shuttle generation design, requiring mega bucks for development and support. Where will the bucks come from, in the FY2011 budget?

    It sounds like a deceptively alluring “compromise” but still uses solids for HSF, long pre-launch lead times, and operational costs that are likely much higher than the “2015” HLV. Sen. Nelson might try to get study money in as a foot in the door, but a full blown development budget?

    Aside from the local politics of “Direct” I think it shows politicians reacting to the space gap now instead of 5 or 6 years ago, when the gap was all but guaranteed by Pres. Bush and Administrator Griffin.

    Still, these stacked hearings are set up as flyers for competing budget lines, and Sen. Nelson is a savvy operator. Tomorrow’s hearing should be interesting.

  • David C

    Bolden’s Marshall report public?

    never made public, superseded by Feb 1st events; (Nelson has Congressional authority to compel NASA to show him the study) I don’t have L2 membership, but we were getting updates from Direct; that was why Direct Fans were sure we had a winner, up until the FY11 budget blew it out of the water;
    as for cost of Direct, depends on who you talk to, and whether it is Commercial or Gov’t driven; figures vary wildly and widely;0 every month that goes by, with Shuttle Stack (less orbiter) infrastructure being downgraded makes it more expensive and a longer timeline to get ET’s and 4 seg SRBs back into production;

  • Jason

    “Still, these stacked hearings are set up as flyers for competing budget lines, and Sen. Nelson is a savvy operator. Tomorrow’s hearing should be interesting.”

    Indeed.

    That’s one small Senate hearing, one giant heap of Gov’t space propoganda.

  • red

    Vladislaw, how can that big list of exploration milestones compare to my Constellation list?

    2011-2015: 3 SpaceX demos and initial 12 operational cargo flights (ISS) (C3PO)
    2012-2015: 1 Orbital demo and initial 8 operational cargo flights (ISS) (C3PO)
    2016: Entry, descent, and landing demonstration (ISS, in the Pacific ocean specifically)
    2019: Ares I/Orion ready to dock with ISS

    I guess my first 2 items would be a bit less likely to happen than the corresponding ones in the big list because their destination would be going away (taking away motivation from SpaceX/Orbital) and the $312M COTS augmentation wouldn’t be there, but my 3rd item should be a quite spectacular demonstration of the wisdom of Constellation, and the 4th should be quite entertaining as well.

  • mike shupp

    Robert Oler –

    I don’t see a single statement in your long reply to me that has any bearing on anything I actually said.

    You are ill.

  • I don’t see a single statement in your long reply to me that has any bearing on anything I actually said.

    Robert just likes to see his ungrammatical keyboard diarrhea appear on the screen, regardless of whether it has any relevance to the topic at hand. It’s why I banned him from commenting at my site.

  • Robert G. Oler

    mike shupp wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 9:00 am

    try reading slower next time…

    lol

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    Well, the hearing is past and I’m feeling a bit depressed by it all.

    The debate remains squarely “Either PoR or full commercial” with no middle ground even admitted to exist. I’ll say this much: If the camps remain this polarised and completely without any reference to the many alternate paths then NASA’s future is bleak. Either a decimation of its technical base in the hope that, one day, commercial vendors can fill the gap or decades labouring in futility on Congress’s pet rocket.

    A third way must be found if NASA is to make any sort of progress. However, as always, such things seem anathema to the ‘black or white, with me or against me’ mindset of the political leadership.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Ben Russell-Gough

    Part of the issue is that we live in a hyper-partisan time. A number of people aren’t interested in actually having good governance, or trying to find legislative answers. There is a very large, loud group, that is interested in only their way, and not interested in a compromise. That, and there isn’t additional money to be spent on things.

  • yakman

    Wow, this thread really pulled the thin(?) veneer off a lot of folks on this forum; we learned that a number of seemingly reasoned, long-time voices around here have little desire to calmly discuss either points-of-fact or philosophy and display little respect or tolerance for the dissenting, or at least contrary, positions and arguments of others. For myself, the most useful thing I learned today was who not to bother with in future discourse on the space fora. We can only hope that some of these folks have less real influence than they imply in their postings…

Leave a Reply to Trent Waddington 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>