Congress, NASA

Astronaut safety and contract termination

At today’s Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the future of US human spaceflight, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), the ranking member of the full committee, will bring up the issue of astronaut safety as an argument for extending the shuttle, the Houston Chronicle reports. She expressed concern to the paper about past anomalies with the Soyuz spacecraft, which will be the only means of transporting crews to and from the ISS from the time the shuttle is retired until a successor vehicle is available. Those anomalies “are very concerning because there has been no confirmation on their causes and we are unable to conduct our own investigation into them,” she told the Chronicle, referring to ballistic reentries by Soyuz spacecraft in 2007 and 2008. Russian officials said those were caused by the failure of explosive bolts to separate the Soyuz’s descent module from its service module, a problem that has been corrected according to both NASA and Roscosmos.

“Efforts to protect astronaut safety are traditionally non-negotiable on Capitol Hill,” the article notes, but the safety issue can cut both ways here. The 2009 NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) report recommended against “significantly” extending the shuttle manifest, and in particular warned against extending the shuttle manifest a few missions at a time. “The risk of continuing to fly the Shuttle without a recertification and expending the resources to bring the vehicle up to modern standards is more than what we should ask astronauts to shoulder,” the report states, adding that while the shuttle has performed well since the Columbia accident, “the Panel believes that its probable decline is upon us.”

The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, says another subject will likely come up in today’s hearing: the only-an-accountant-could-love topic of contract termination costs. NASA’s recent moves to warn Constellation contractors about setting aside funds for termination liability costs is strictly compliant with the law, the article notes, but is a break from precedent at NASA, at least for human spaceflight programs. “The current clash stems in part from NASA’s tradition of giving the Johnson Space Center… extra latitude in running programs,” the Journal reports. “According to industry and government officials, the Houston center frequently wasn’t required to comply strictly with the same accounting and program-management rules that applied to other parts of the agency.” Some, though, see the move as “a backdoor way to slow down or stop work on Constellation” given appropriations language that prevents NASA from canceling or altering the program during the current fiscal year.

99 comments to Astronaut safety and contract termination

  • Hutchison must be losing count.

    Shuttle deaths: 14
    Soyuz deaths: 0 since 1971

    Her fellow Texan, President George W. Bush, cancelled Shuttle in January 2004 because his non-partisan commission concluded it has a fatal design flaw. Sean O’Keefe, the NASA Administrator at the time, negotiated deals with the Russians to use Soyuz for crew rotations to ISS because NASA considered it safer than Shuttle.

    These bloviating politicians really are shameless. They don’t care about the future of the space program, only about jobs (and votes) in their districts. If anyone is putting lives at risk, it’s Hutchison.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 6:36 am ..

    actually it is worse then that.

    KBH knows that it is very hard almost unlikely at this date to preserve shuttle…but what she is doing is playing a KBH comeback game trying to ride out the TExas election cycle which in 10 is going to be very interesting.

    Most of her (actually her staffs) arguments are non sensical

    Robert G. Oler

  • “appropriations language that prevents NASA from canceling or altering the program during the current fiscal year.”

    Yep, it’s worse than that. The language actually says Constellation can’t be canceled until an appropriations bill is passed without the language in it. All they have to do is filibuster.

  • amightywind

    Our framers intentionally made it difficult for the executive branch to act precipitously. Killing technology projects can be difficult without consensus. Ever heard of the V-22? Like the V-22 let us hope that the current unpleasantness is just a bump in the road to a great future for Constellation.

  • By the way, it appears that today’s hearing will be archived on C-SPAN’s web site at this link:

    http://wwww.c-spanvideo.org//program/293473-1

    There are some older space-related archives on that page too that might be interesting for historical context.

  • Following up on the C-SPAN link … Here’s a real deja vu if you have the time:

    http://wwww.c-spanvideo.org/program/180283-1

    This is the June 2004 Senate Commerce Committee (same committee as today) meeting on Bush’s VSE proposal.

    Senator after Senator expresses skepticism that the funding request is adequate, that this program will be a boondoggle that won’t have the funding to do what’s proposed.

    Senator Bill Nelson brings up the gap after Shuttle retirement, talking about the 4-6 year period where we’d have to rely on “Russian or European rockets.” So it was right there at the beginning, everyone knew about it, yet no one seems to have complained until now. Fancy that.

  • Ben Joshua

    9 minutes to orbit, 9 months to shape a budget.

    Change a government agency’s direction from insular hubris to tech dev and outreach, priceless…

    Thank you, Stephen C. Smith, for a stunning link to reality, via the 2004 Senate hearing.

    As for Senator Hutchison posturing for shuttle extension based on safety concerens, how many of you have heard someone say something like, “After a shuttle launch, I breath easier after SRB sep, and when it re-enters, I breath easier after wheels down.”

    Irrational, given all the “fixes” or rational, given the crew escape procedure, shuttle history and management hubris?

  • Christopher

    SRB sep was the big bugaboo for as long as I was a flight controller

  • US senators either making up lies or being spoon-fed lies. Spinning ballistic reentry as a negative when it’s an automatic (by physics itself) safety fall-back position the like of which the Shuttles simply don’t have.

    Rough but survivable ballistic reentry is not the primary mode of return for Soyuz but it works, the Shuttles have only one mode of surviving reentry or they’re gone as has happened on one occasion.

    Would Hutchison prefer instant burial over the west coast (Shuttle) instead of a rough ride and landing (Soyuz)?

    By now I wouldn’t blame Energiya if they simply stopped selling rides to the US government just like I wouldn’t blame any company refusing to sell to troublesome customers thrashing their reputation without proper cause.

  • Habitat Hermit wrote:

    By now I wouldn’t blame Energiya if they simply stopped selling rides to the US government just like I wouldn’t blame any company refusing to sell to troublesome customers thrashing their reputation without proper cause.

    Well, it wasn’t their partner (NASA), it was a bloviating Senator. I’m sure the Russian parliament has its bloviators.

  • Vladislaw

    “Her fellow Texan, President George W. Bush, cancelled Shuttle in January 2004″

    Wasn’t it Kay’s bill that she sponsered that ended the shuttle in 2005?

  • Michael Kent

    amightywind wrote:

    let us hope that the current unpleasantness is just a bump in the road to a great future for Constellation.

    What “great future” would that be? Cancelling the Space Shuttle in 2010 and de-orbiting the International Space Station in 2016 to free up funds for it? Launching a 4-man capsule to LEO in 2019 — three years after splashing ISS — with nowhere to go? Launching an Ares V in 2028 without a payload because Constellation can’t afford to develop payloads and rockets at the same time? Finally landing a man on the moon in 2035 without a rover or long-term habitat because Constellation can’t afford to develop them?

    Wow, what a great future. Not!

    Mike

  • Michael Kent

    Trent Waddington wrote:

    Yep, it’s worse than that. The language actually says Constellation can’t be canceled until an appropriations bill is passed without the language in it. All they have to do is filibuster.

    Laws are not binding on future Congresses. Any bill passing the Congress and signed into law by the President — whether an appropriations bill, an authorization bill, a continuing resolution, or some other bill — that allows funds to be spent on Obama’s space plan will suffice. It doesn’t have to explicitly cancel Constellation or even mention Constellation at all.

    A continuing resolution could force NASA to fund Constellation, or it could be more flexible. It depends on how it’s worded.

    Mike

  • common sense

    @ Habitat Hermit wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 11:39 am

    “Rough but survivable ballistic reentry is not the primary mode of return for Soyuz but it works, the Shuttles have only one mode of surviving reentry or they’re gone as has happened on one occasion.”

    Yep exactly right. Now even better: Apollo did not have one “safe” such mode since it can enter either way unlike Soyuz: Soyuz will alwasy enter heat shield first as was seen recently when it started the wrong way after bad sep. This was a requirement during CEV Phase 1, I mean the ability to enter in ballistic mode and heat shield first… The result is in about 15 to 19 Gs and if the TPS is correctly designed the vehicle makes it. If an astronaut is in good health the astronaut makes it too. This is why it was a CEV requirement. There will always be anomalies, always. Some survivable some not. One anomaly with Shuttle usually have one consequence. What would you rather take for a Mach 25 to 36 reentry?…

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    I agree with the point you made…but the irony of the Columbia accident is that as the TPS failed (or more correctly as the heat penetrated the compromise thermal protection system) the flight control system of the shuttle orbiter, the fly by wire system, responded right up until it no longer had wings on both sides of the vehicle to keep the thing in control.

    As symmetry left the lifting surfaces it was impressive to watch in post mortem how the fly by wire system responded to the situation.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Gary Church

    The shuttle has got to go- it was the wrong path. Most of us now realize that sending a 737 into orbit was wrong. But no one likes depending on the Russians. It’s embarrassing. What about that Delta IV heavy? How long would it take to stick something on top of that to carry people to the space station? I hate to suggest it because stop gaps often become all there is for the course. We need something way bigger than Saturn V and reusable- that parachutes everything into the ocean to be refurbished- except the empty second stage which stays up there as a wet workshop. I am not very happy about supporting that space station either; a space ship is always a better space station. Over a hundred external tanks we threw away to burn up; just one of those has more room inside than the space station. What a waste.

  • amightywind

    Robert G. Oler wrote

    “by wire system, responded right up until it no longer had wings on both sides of the vehicle to keep the thing in control.”

    Not really. The RCC breach caused a drag asymmetry that the RCS thrusters were eventually unable to overcome. The vehicle yawed and then went into a hypersonic snap role and soon after lost its wings. Loss of controllability of the dynamic system (failure of the control system to control) precipitated the fireworks.

  • Vladislaw

    Gary Church wrote:

    “What about that Delta IV heavy? How long would it take to stick something on top of that to carry people to the space station?”

    I believe Rand has spoken to that issue before, if I remember correctly, the Atlas V would be a bit cheaper and faster to ungrade as it has some detection systems already in place. 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 years to launch a capsule. They would need to ungrade the pad, to the tune of 450 million to include a human loading walkway and emergency evac.

  • Vladislaw

    Kay didn’t mention increasing the budget to fund more shuttle flights, she did say that the 2.5 billion closeout costs would fund the shuttle another year and a couple flights.

  • Gary Church wrote:

    “But no one likes depending on the Russians. It’s embarrassing.”

    I’m not embarrassed.

    This decision was made a long time ago. There is no more competition between nations. The Russians are our partners. They relied on us to deliver the various ISS modules. We rely on them for most of the crew rotations. I’m sure there are people in the Russian bureaucracy who thinks it’s “embarrassing” to have their modules flown in the back of U.S. orbiters but I sure haven’t heard of one.

    I really wish we’d get past this chest-beating phase. We are going to space as a species, not as competing nations. It’s better for humanity and spreads out the cost.

  • Vladislaw

    Stephen C. Smith wrote:

    “We rely on them for most of the crew rotations. I’m sure there are people in the Russian bureaucracy who thinks it’s “embarrassing” to have their modules flown in the back of U.S. orbiters but I sure haven’t heard of one.”

    Actually, they are more embarrased by being reduced to being a “taxi” service and have given up on exploration:

    Pravda – Russia may become space ‘taxi driver’ soon rendering services to third parties

    “Russia may soon lose its lead in space exploration. At best, Russia would have to play the role of a regular space “taxi driver,” which renders services to third parties. We can arrive at this sad conclusion by taking a closer look at the latest dismissals and appointments in the top management of Russian aerospace company RSC Energia, which designs Soyuz manned spaceships and Progress carrier rockets.”

  • amightywind

    Stephen C. Smith wrote:

    “I’m not embarrassed.
    This decision was made a long time ago. There is no more competition between nations.”

    Wow! What planet are you from? I can assure you that Russia, China, EU desire to compete vigorously with the US economically, militarily, politically, and in space. What is it about liberals that makes them want to reflexively offer every orifice to US adversaries? Is it guilt? Reliance on the Soyuz reflects a failure of leadership. It is indeed a humiliating way to fly to space that the nation should not tolerate.

  • Just caught Gene Cernan in a lie … He claims that nowhere in the FY 2011 proposed NASA budget does it mention human space flight. I did a quick search on the overview document available on NASA.gov and found it in several places.

    I really think he and Armstrong are making things up to justify an Apollo rerun.

    Cernan just told another whopper, claiming that the investments in the commercial space sector will be “the biggest bailout in history.”

    Check please, Mr. Cernan. You just lost all credibility with me.

  • Vladislaw

    I wonder if Cernan is telling tales, the bailout of the auto industry was like 65 billion. I do not see how commercial would need 65 billion unless they are going to build hotels on the moon.

  • Vladislaw

    “Reliance on the Soyuz reflects a failure of leadership. It is indeed a humiliating way to fly to space that the nation should not tolerate.”

    Exactly why we need to finally get commercial involved. NASA should have many commercial options to get to LEO so they can start asembly of a gas n go, reuable space ship.

  • Vladislaw quoted:

    Pravda – Russia may become space ‘taxi driver’ soon rendering services to third parties

    That was a funny read. I kept on looking for a link to The Onion showing it was tongue-in-cheek. It reads like it was written by one of the space center congresscritters, substituting Russia for U.S.

  • Vladislaw wrote:

    I wonder if Cernan is telling tales, the bailout of the auto industry was like 65 billion. I do not see how commercial would need 65 billion unless they are going to build hotels on the moon.

    Not to mention the $700 billion for TARP.

    Cernan just claimed that inspiring people with Moon missions is a “freebie.” Gee, I didn’t know the Apollo program was a “freebie.”

  • common sense

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    Reentry vehicles with wings are very very difficult to build “safe”. Of course it all depends what we call safe. But a capsule will always, ALWAYS be safest. It’s a darn blob. No control surfaces, “simple” TPS. And this is why CEV went for a capsule and why most privates go for one. CEV lost its way and f… up the requirements. A capsule is a capsule, use it as a capsule. Don’t go crazy about down/cross range, “precision” landing and the such and your life will be easy. Ah and also make it small. It only is there to go up and down the atmosphere. If you want the Moon then build a “big” crew-able transfer stage and rendez-vous… That is the basic-est. That was CEV Phase 1. That is what could have been.

    Oh well…

  • This is just sad. Gene Cernan is making a fool of himself, and no one will dare call him on it, even if they recognize it, because he was the last man to walk on the moon.

  • Rand Simberg wrote:

    Gene Cernan is making a fool of himself …

    Well, he has plenty of company in the room …

    Still trying to grasp Hutchison’s rambling statement just now about our quality of life is better because we can put a space missile through a window from three miles away to kill thousands of people. (?!)

  • Bennett

    Wow, nothing like having KBH repeating Cernan’s speculation re time/cost for commercial to get a man rated LV, as if it was fact.

    Rand, yes, it is sad indeed. At least Mr. Armstrong seemed to sense that the battle was over and kept his comments brief.

    Steven, that missle/window comment caught my ear too… Yeah! That’s a benefit from HSF!

  • Robert G. Oler

    Gary Church wrote:

    “But no one likes depending on the Russians. It’s embarrassing.”

    OK then you dont like the concept of partnership…

    we are “depending” on the Russians in so many ways on ISS…if we did not have the Russian components we have no real orbital maintenance ability (ie Delta V change) and no real way to unload the CMG’s.

    The Russians depend on “US” for a bunch of critical things as well.

    Look, I didnt like the concept of partnership on the space station. I am on record Ad Astra, Space News and a few other op eds arguing that we should have cancelled the station instead of going this route. But those decisions were made and we are now stuck with them.

    Same with the shuttle. That horse left the barn about 5 years ago.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    This is just sad. Gene Cernan is making a fool of himself,

    yes this is a sad way for him to go out.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mark R. Whittington

    More disrespect from Rand Simberg. If Charlie Bolden told Ceran that NASA si prepared to do a bailout of the commercial space companies if that is what it takes to make the commercial space initiative work, it is a bombshell. That suggests the possibility that there will be little or no cost savings in the way Obama is doing commercial space. That is just devestating.

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    I did not intend my comments to disagree with any statement on capsules that you made. I concur completely. As someone who deals in FBW it was just impressive to me how well, in a deteriorating situation the FBW worked on the shuttle.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    More disrespect from Rand Simberg. If Charlie Bolden told Ceran that NASA si prepared to do a bailout of the commercial space companies if that is what it takes to make the commercial space initiative work, it is a bombshell.

    first off General Bolden disputed that statement and second…I guess you dont mind bailing out federal projects that are going nowhere…as evidenced your support of Ares.

    When did you become a proponent of big government? You have really lost your way.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    Still trying to grasp Hutchison’s rambling statement just now about our quality of life is better because we can put a space missile through a window from three miles away to kill thousands of people. (?!)

    dont try. it has been sad the last year watching KBH who in normal times is a pretty coherent person and has held her politics with a modicum of sanity simply do a “Tilt” on us here.

    The campaign against Perry sort of stunned her…and now she just seems unable to sense where the winds are blowing and has cobbled together this nutty approach that she is on now.

    It is no more goffy then Whittingon claiming that the Chinese are going to take over the Moon, but one expects better from KBH

    Robert G. Oler

  • If Charlie Bolden told Ceran that NASA si prepared to do a bailout of the commercial space companies if that is what it takes to make the commercial space initiative work, it is a bombshell.

    Even if he said that, the notion that this would be the “biggest bailout in history,” in light of what’s been happening for the past year and a half, is insane.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Rand, Oler, you would have to ask Bolden why he said it. I don’t think Cernan is lying. Bolden may be wrong about the magnitude of the bailout he is contemplating, but with this administration I am not placing bets.

    Oler, I am not in favor of big government An adequetly funded and competently run space program is not “big government” any more a well funded military is. I know that you have trouble recognizing reality, Oler, but you really need to watch what you post,

  • More disrespect from Rand Simberg.

    I have the highest respect for all of the Apollo astronauts, for their achievements back then. It doesn’t mean that I have to respect everything they say. I suppose that if Cernan had said that he saw little green men on the moon, or that he believed that the sun goes around the earth, we’re not supposed to point out that this sounds a little crazy? I respect Ed Mitchell, but that doesn’t mean I have to respect some of his wackier beliefs. The notion that a commercial space “bailout” would be the “biggest one in history” is nuttier (and more innumerate, and more ignorant) than anything that Mitchell has propounded.

  • Vladislaw

    Kay just asked if the Russians would run the soyuz as safely as NASA runs the space shuttle. I would have answered, NO. they won’t, they will run their system safer then the shuttle.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 5:29 pm


    Oler, I am not in favor of big government An adequetly funded and competently run space program is not “big government” any more a well funded military is.

    the problem is that you have shilled constantly for a program, Ares and Constellation that have not been competently run…and you are for bailing them out.

    You would give them whatever money they require.

    dont lecture me on reality. You are the one who bought into the WMD went to Syria nonsense…and bought every exaggeration that the Bush administration told about Iraq hook line and sinker.

    sorry Mark…you slipped off the reality wagon a long time ago.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    ne.
    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    Rand, Oler, you would have to ask Bolden why he said it.

    nope one of the SEnators did. Charlie answered the question. Since Cernan has made stupid statements like “the biggest bailout in history”…after Bush and his buds bailed out the banks I dont see any reason to trust Cernan any further.

    Age takes its toll. It seems to have done Gene in

    Old

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Oler, I can lecture you about reality all day long, starting with your personal history, or at least the various versions you have given out that have been at variance with known facts. I personally do not trust Bolden. His answers in a lot of these Congressional hearings have just been too slippery. If he admits to suggesting that SpaceX, et al might need a bailout, then Obamaspace is done. Of course he will not admit it.

    I have no reason to doubt Cernan’s honesty or recollection. Your bigoted remark about his age kind of jibes with your previous slanders against Buzz Aldrin. But that’s just you, Oler, tearing better men than you to make yourself feel big,

  • Mark, I know that you don’t do well with things involving numbers, but you could “bail out” SpaceX a dozen times, and it would still be cheaper than the Ares I development costs.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Just as an addendum. Bolden gave the Washington “I don’t recall” non denial denial. I suspect that most of the Senators recognized that one for what it was.

  • Vladislaw

    Mark R. Whittington wrote:

    ” If he admits to suggesting that SpaceX, et al might need a bailout,”

    Do you honestly believe SpaceX is going to need 50 BILLION to get a capsule into space? 40? 30? If there is a “bailout” do you believe it would even match what has been spent on Ares I to date?

    If we tossed 50 billion at the private sector we would have multiple launch companies, space stations and fuel depots.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    “Mark, I know that you don’t do well with things involving numbers, but you could “bail out” SpaceX a dozen times, and it would still be cheaper than the Ares I development costs.”

    Rand, let me see. Under Obamaspace SpaceX will be getting about half of the six billion being allocated to commercial space development to get it up to providing commercial space service to a single customer, the government. A dozen times three billion is–let me see- oh, yes, thirty six billion. I have heard that Ares 1 is supposed to cost 35 billion.

    Now who is bad with numbers?

  • Mark R. Whittington

    “Do you honestly believe SpaceX is going to need 50 BILLION to get a capsule into space? 40? 30? If there is a “bailout” do you believe it would even match what has been spent on Ares I to date?”

    Personally, no. I wonder why Charlie Bolden suggested that was so.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    Oler, I can lecture you about reality all day long, starting with your personal history, or at least the various versions you have given out that have been at variance with known facts

    and none of your rantings or half statements would make up for the fact that

    1. you support a big government program Constellation that has consumed far more money then Falcon 1/9, Delta, and Atlas COMBINED and you are willing to give it more money.

    2. You view the Chinese as someone who are going to take over the Moon requiring anyone else to “show their passports”

    3. you bought into the nonesense that the WMD went to Syria

    4. You bought into Cernans line that the commercial crew folks would need “the biggest bailout in history”.

    Sorry Mark, just to concentrate on 4 there is no chance that NASA or any other group could get the money to bail out SpaceX and OSC or any other group that is more money then your buddy Bush pushed out of the banks…

    but then again we are stuck, you believe in government bailouts.

    try dealing in reality Mark….and stop trying to cover that problem with personal attacks.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 5:57 pm

    Rand, let me see. Under Obamaspace SpaceX will be getting about half of the six billion being allocated to commercial space development to get it up to providing commercial space service to a single customer, the government. A dozen times three billion is–let me see- oh, yes, thirty six billion. I have heard that Ares 1 is supposed to cost 35 billion.

    there you go again misstating things.

    SpaceX and Orbital work the 6 billion between them but it is NOT to “get it up to providing commercial space services to a single sutomer”

    dont be goofy.

    the seed money to get them to providing a product is under 300 million and the rest is actually payment for a commercial service. ie a product.

    it is no different then the US military buying seats for troops to ride on Delta.

    Work hard Mark and try and come back to reality.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bennett

    “you could “bail out” SpaceX a dozen times, and it would still be cheaper than the Ares I development costs.”

    Too true!

    I suspect that anyone in that room could figure this out as well. I didn’t hear anything that could overcome Norm Augustine’s calm statement of facts.

    “Constellation was the least attractive of our options.”

    “The President’s proposal has some very exciting HSF elements, much sooner than could be offered by Constellation.” (paraphrase)

    It was also pretty cool when he noted the two differences between 5B and FY2011 budget: The HLV would start right away, but needed 5 billion more per year!

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 5:58 pm

    Personally, no. I wonder why Charlie Bolden suggested that was so.

    only in the mind of a person who buys into the statement that the WMD went to Syria…or Saddam was going to kill us or all the other lies you bought into from Bush.

    I recall the statements you made “here” about the vision…wow were you wrong

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bennett wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    I was trying to do some paper home work and watch Lorelei, so I didnt pay all that much attention, and even less to when the apollo folks got on…but clearly the way this is drifting is that the administration is going to get what it wants here.

    Norm just blew all the options completely out of the water.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Rand, let me see. Under Obamaspace SpaceX will be getting about half of the six billion being allocated to commercial space development to get it up to providing commercial space service to a single customer, the government. A dozen times three billion is–let me see- oh, yes, thirty six billion.

    They will only be getting that money if they deliver. They’re on a fixed-price milestone basis, so that can’t constitute a “bail out.” If they don’t deliver (and they’re not even the most likely — ULA is), then it will be Atlas or Delta. You could start an entirely new SpaceX and get it to the point it’s at today (launch vehicle on the pad and ready to fly, with capsule to be tested this summer) for a billion dollars, because they’ve spent less than that to date.

    But I don’t even know what the words “bail out” mean in this context. You mean keep giving them money until they get the job done? Like their current cost-plus contracts to Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, ATK et al? Why don’t we call that a “bail out”?

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Oler, Rand, the question we now have to ask, considering the bombshell revelation from the hearings, in what sense is Obama’s commercial space initiative actually commercial? It sounds a lot to me like at best corporate welfare, at worse crony capitalism.

    If some of your people were actually honest, you would be reevaluating your support for Obamaspace.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “you would have to ask Bolden why he said it”

    They did. He explained that he didn’t remember saying it, and expressed his profound need for a commercial option. “That’s what I meant” he said. He needs it. He needs it badly.

    So what’s the point if he said it? We’ve bailed out Shuttle, which was supposed to be hugely economical when first proposed. We didn’t call it a bailout, but that’s what it was. We’ve bailed out ISS, which was supposed to do all kinds of things it has never yet succeeded in doing. In doing each of these bailouts, commercial enterprises got gobs of money they wouldn’t have otherwise had. They had their bailing cans, and were scooping up cash. What government agency doesn’t have projects that get bailed out? So Bolden called a spade a spade, and said, since I need this enough, I’m going to shovel money at it as a critical investment. What’s the problem? The commercial folks know they have NASA over a barrel, so this remark would come as no surprise to them.

    Now, it’s interesting that the administration decided NOT to bail out Constellation, which was grossly over its original budget. Why? Because the nation didn’t need it enough, I guess. It didn’t need to get locked in to an architecture that was unaffordable.

  • Oler, Rand, the question we now have to ask, considering the bombshell revelation from the hearings, in what sense is Obama’s commercial space initiative actually commercial?

    The only “bombshell revelation from the hearings” is that Captain Cernan doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Oh, and that KBH isn’t very bright on this stuff, either.

    Answer my question, Mark, or (once again) reveal yourself the fool:

    But I don’t even know what the words “bail out” mean in this context. You mean keep giving them money until they get the job done? Like their current cost-plus contracts to Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, ATK et al? Why don’t we call that a “bail out”?

  • common sense

    @ Doug Lassiter wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 6:20 pm

    “Now, it’s interesting that the administration decided NOT to bail out Constellation, which was grossly over its original budget. Why?”

    Because regardless of the amount of cash you were going to give Constellation it could not be done on schedule. It might not even be done without yet again significant redesign. In essence the design did not close. That is why it was not bailed out. Pure and simple. And yes the design process includes a budgetary component/variable. With infinite time and budget your design will most likely always close.

  • For the record, from what I’ve read the cost of the Apollo program was about $145 billion in current dollars.

    There is simply no way that commercialization of LEO access will cost anywhere close to that.

    Cernan made a fool of himself.

  • Here’s another gem of innumeracy from Captain Cernan:

    Cernan: Let’s put a box on the 1040 for taxpayers to give an extra penny to NASA. I bet we’d get enough $ to do all we wanted.

    Let’s be generous and assume that there are a hundred and fifty million US taxpayers. By my accounting, that would give us a whopping $1.5M a year.

    It’s like he’s just talking without thinking, and making this stuff up on the fly.

  • I would note that the “penny per taxpayer” quote shows just how out of touch these folks (all of them) are with budgetary realities. Other than Augustine, of course. I’d like to see the transcript of what Armstrong said. I suspect that he’s been updated on the programmatic realities himself, and was correspondingly more circumspect than when he first sent that letter a few weeks ago.

  • Bennett

    Rand Simberg wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    I think that was the case. I did listen to all of his statement and was surprised at the brevity and the lack of attack. He was stately. Then Mr. Cernan got on and went on forever, mostly inane and incomprehensible.

  • Vladislaw

    Generals are always fighting the last war and that is how I thought Cernan sounded. Try as he might, he did not make it sound forward looking at all, in my opinion. Then the way he brushed off game changing tech like it didn’t REALLY matter. It was a sad thing to watch.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    Oler, Rand, the question we now have to ask, considering the bombshell revelation from the hearings, in what sense is Obama’s commercial space initiative actually commercial?…

    the only bombshell is that Cernan is as goofy as you are. He clearly no longer is thinking with clarity in terms of national space policy, if he ever was. That is not to take away from his time as an astronaut and being on the Moon, but that as in itself means nothing in terms of his ability to deal with the reailty of today.

    As for Obamaspace I dont know what that is.

    But if you are referring in some childish way to the effort to commercialize space transport to ISS.

    It might not be as commercial as say Southwest Airlines starting up as I am not aware of SWA taking ANY money from the federal government whatsoever but …

    1) it is in all other respects commercial. At least in Musk case, thevast majority of money invested in his company is his. There is a lot of investment by his people in terms of their careers. They are clearly talented people and could offer those services at a good price to a lot of people…yet they have “bet” on the performance of the company and as the saying goes their lives and fortunes are at risk.

    2) if you dont like the COTS effort then 1) you have changed your mind since the article you signed onto with myself and Kolker and 2) then I dont have a clue what or how you think that we get to commercial space in any event.

    Sadly I think it is both of these. You have so wrapped yourself with goofy notions (the WMD went to Syria….not even Dead Ender Dick Cheney is saying that…or his nutty daughter) that it seems hard to understand any of the ideological underpinnnings you might have other then “I dont like Obama”…and yet you support failing big government programs which in the old days would have drawn your wrath.

    You are out of luck Mark. The days of government run space are drawing to an end. The Mark Whittington of old would be rejoicing, but all you can do is side with some old relics whose grasp on reality seems as weak as the one you have.

    Remember all those things you said were going to happen under “the vision”…sigh

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    CxP already tried in the past to bring Neil Armstrong to the fore with the letter writing exercise. I can easily imagine what an emotional subject it must be to him or to Cernan or to any one who worked on Apollo. I can imagine how lonely it must feel to have been the few ones to go to the Moon and soon there will be no more. As a human being I think I understand. And it is very sad that a group of people whose interest is to save their jobs or jobs in their districts can go so far as to use these gentle men, these heroes in such a way. That to put them through this little circus may tarnish their image because they are trying to defend the indefensible, to save the unsalvageable, to resurect the time gone past.

    Oh well…

  • amightywind

    ‘Poorly advised’, says FMOTM.

    A shot across the bow of Holdren and Garver, the architects of Obamaspace.

    “It clearly was time to push the reset button,” Holdren told senators.

    He had the guts to say it! In front of ‘the great men’ too. LMAO!

    Cernan: “and is in fact a blueprint for a mission to nowhere”

    Devastating. Stick a fork in it folks. Obamaspace is dead.

  • Rand Simberg wrote:

    By my accounting, that would give us a whopping $1.5M a year.

    Reminds me of when Dr. Evil tried to ransom the world for $1 million …

  • Reminds me of when Dr. Evil tried to ransom the world for $1 million …

    Well, this time it’s Captain Clueless. And there is no hot magma.

  • common sense wrote:

    “I can imagine how lonely it must feel to have been the few ones to go to the Moon and soon there will be no more.”

    But the thing is, it’s not about THEM. It’s about humanity.

    There’s a video clip at the end of the KSC bus tour (probably filmed about five years ago) which has Cernan going on about how he doesn’t want to be the last person to have walked on the Moon and hopes before he dies to meet the next person who will walk on the Moon.

    It’s a personal sentiment, but his personal sentiment is not a justification for the taxpayers spending hundreds of billions of dollars to rerun Apollo.

    Armstrong and Cernan were asked to give a compelling reason to go back now. Cernan rambled on with no coherent answer until Rockefeller cut him off and moved on. That was pretty much the bottom line. There is no compelling reason.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 8:09 pm

    Armstrong and Cernan were asked to give a compelling reason to go back now. Cernan rambled on with no coherent answer until Rockefeller cut him off and moved on. That was pretty much the bottom line. There is no compelling reason.

    Cernan is just lucky he got the flight…they were running out of reasons to “go back “shortly after Apollo 11’s command module was put on the deck of the USS Hornet.

    By Cernan’s flight the networks had left live coverage and the moon walks were getting summaries on the evening news.

    The odd thing is that I dont think we would have gotten here…had Griffin gotten the program under control and figured out a way to make it affordable and sustainable in terms of sustaining American industry. Problem is that most of the NASA leadership, particularly those thunderheads at JSC think about like Cernan …it is an entitlement and everyone in the nation should be privileged to support their program…because its “special”.

    Just ask John Shannon

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ben Joshua

    Senator Nelson wants to save the NASA / KSC status quo by adding a Direct-like compromise (or Ares, plan C or D) to the budget, however under-funded.

    Today’s hearing tried to use hero worship to sweep aside the rational arguments and empirical data supporting a shift in how our country plans and carries out spaceflight.

    How successful was Senator Nelson?

    btw, a highly competent astronaut is not necessarily skilled in policy and budget details or the ways of Washington. Mr. Cernan may have assumed his living room conversations with friends and colleagues rose to the level of congressional committee testimony.

    Be hard on the folks who invited him, unprepared, to appear, and on those who honored Mr. Cernan’s status by refraining from asking him real questions or challenging his assertions. Stepping out of the NASA echo chamber can be a shock to the system.

  • Ben Joshua

    When a small government, free market conservative argues that a hefty increase in the NASA budget is not big government, that blank checks for NASA and the military is “competent” spending, one wonders where all that big government is to be found.

    I guess all that “promote the general welfare” stuff, like medical research, infrastructure, regulation and social security should be slashed to the marrow. Maybe it’s time to amend the Constitution’s preamble (our nation’s mission statement) to delete “general welfare” and substitute “promote an unaccountable spaceflight monopoly.”

    Exceptions to the small government rule should be essential functions, self-supporting programs, and investments in the national interest that offer a tangible return. Where does old school NASA fit into that list?

  • Bennett

    Stephen wrote: “Mr. Cernan may have assumed his living room conversations with friends and colleagues rose to the level of congressional committee testimony.”

    That made me smile, somewhat in sympathy, having been guilty of that at least once in my life (not congressional testimony, but still).

  • common sense

    @ Stephen C. Smith wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 8:09 pm

    “It’s a personal sentiment, but his personal sentiment is not a justification for the taxpayers spending hundreds of billions of dollars to rerun Apollo.”

    This is what I was trying to express. You have to put yourself in their shoes. They are being asked what they feel. I do not see either having a strong record on space policy but I would be happy to be corrected. However what they do do is they convey the emotion of their experience and it was most likely the goal. I was just trying to explain why they may look like fools but actually are motivated by things that have nothing to do with the CxP crowd. Just check this http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/05/mike-griffin-ma.html

    This why I find it very sad that people are exploiting these astronauts. See in my very naive view of things these astronauts probably have a different notion of the CYA concept that the CxP crowd is trying to squeeze to the max.

    Again this is ridiculous. They should not be brought in this circus.

  • common sense

    @ Stephen C. Smith wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 8:09 pm

    “But the thing is, it’s not about THEM. It’s about humanity.”

    BTW it is not about humanity. Were it be about humanity you would have no such hearings. It is about cash. That’s all it is about. No one can come up with a good enough reason for humanity. And since it is about cash we should let the new entrants play and see what happens. As I said before and I say it again, if there is cash to be made the privates will find a way. If not then it’s all rhetorical. In order to make it for humanity you’d have to have a budget commensurate with the goal. $20B/yr? I don’t think so. The DoD is what $1T/yr? Nope not humanity. Sorry.

  • I think the best part of this hearing today was Rockefeller admitting he was a skeptic of human spaceflight’s value to the nation. The only answers that were forthcoming were the standard ones of spinoffs and inspiration. This is the hard question and it is finally being asked in public. It’s a shame that Rockefeller then went on to talk about Isaac Newton opening John Hopkins University 150 years after his death.

  • DCSCA

    The smart solution for the United States is to do the following: 1. Extend shuttle to fill the development gap and keep the next generation of engineers. 2. Create a general purpose spacecraft (Orion) to replace shuttle, the accompanying infrastructure, in the short term. 3. Adapt it to existing heavy lift LVs in the inventory and get it flying up to low orbit, akin to the methods used for Gemini. 4. Develop a heavy lift LV, lunar lander and long term lunar living facility to test and perfect infrastructure and systems for extended lunar exploration then transfer and extrapolated the technology for a Mars mission. There’s your manned space program for the next 40 years. Send the robots to the asteroids. And why, 50 years after Alan Shepard flew, is Jay Rockefeller ‘skeptical’ of the value of human spaceflight? The GPS systems used to find WV miners, living or dead, in his state should be enough for him. What an old fool he is.

    It is difficult to challenge Cernan or Armstrong. Their credentials and experience speak for themselves. But they are, in fact, both elderly now and this writer has had the opportunity of meeting both men and interviewing Cernan at some length. Cernan has compared Soyuz to a VW Beetle. (It’s ugly, but it gets you there.) But he is correct- the Obama plan is a mission to nowhere. And Armstrong correctly notes that there’s much of the moon left to explore. The day after addressing Congress not long after his Apollo 8 flight, Frank Borman called the manned space program ‘technical life insurance’ for the U.S. He was right. And it is all the more stunning that it still has to be justified and sold to Americans.

  • DCSCA

    @Oler : The days of government run space are drawing to an end.

    The Chinese and Russians should get a laugh out of that.

    @ amightywind: Lori Garver is bad for NASA. An aerospace lobbiest and Beltway bureaucrat. Nothing more.

  • DCSCA

    @BenJoshua– Cernan is a chatty fellow and in his younger days, quite adept at PR. Recall his ‘color’ work commenting on shuttle flights for ABC in the early 80s. But he wasn’t very good giving a straight report for the network. Armstrong, on the other hand, is quite articulate and chooses his words carefully and his assessments are accurate. But astronauts really arent the ones to be setting space policy, but they can present a point of view from the pilot’s seat for qualified managers to present. Norm Augustine’s reports have been consistent and accurate. Frankly, it would have been good to hear from Kraft, Kranz, Lunney and the rest of the Apollo era managment still around to remind Rockefeller and other Washington rodents, how it’s done.

  • DCSCA

    @StephenC.Smith Apollo coat $145 billion in today’s $ over 10 years. ($25 billion in 1969 $.) But keep in mind, a large percentage of that cost was spent in the U.S. literally constructing facilities for the Apollo program-the MSC, the KSC and the Apollo launch complexes; the VAB and other assets around the country. And the spacecraft themselves, all of which were paid for including the Saturn Vs and LM and CSM Apollo spacecraft relics left today that never flew. The Nixon Administration would not support the bucks for overhead to make the last lunar flights. And the Skylab in the NASM was supposed to fly as well. Augustine correctly notes that $3 billion/year more for NASA would have kept the manned spaceflight program viable. Cut some bureaucrats, take some money from the DoD. This writer would rather have a strong manned space program than more aircraft carriers and missile defense systems.

  • DCSCA wrote:

    It is difficult to challenge Cernan or Armstrong. Their credentials and experience speak for themselves.

    It’s easy to challenge them. Their credentials are obsolete. They’ve had nothing to do with the space program since the early 1970s. They are celebrities now. Their “credential” is that they walked on the Moon. That doesn’t mean they know anything about budgeting or federal priorities or the trillion-dollar annual deficits that will limit federal spending in the next decade. All they know is they want us to go get more Moon rocks. They are tone deaf to anything else but that.

    This writer would rather have a strong manned space program than more aircraft carriers and missile defense systems.

    So would I, but the majority of Congress and the majority of the public disagree. Polls for years have shown that a majority of the public wants less government spending and more private spending on space exploration. Such a poll came out when Bush proposed Constellation in January 2004, and three more polls this year showed the same.

  • Stephen C. Smith wrote @ May 13th, 2010 at 7:16 am

    So would I, but the majority of Congress and the majority of the public disagree. Polls for years have shown that a majority of the public wants less government spending and more private spending on space exploration. Such a poll came out when Bush proposed Constellation in January 2004, and three more polls this year showed the same.

    Indeed.

    But doesn’t that require finding revenue streams that do not first pass through Congressional committee hearings?

    Also, shouldn’t aerospace start-ups should be terrified at the prospect of having their future revenue streams controlled by the process we saw yesterday? And yet, NewSpace continues to clamor for an Uncle Sugar intravenous line as the only path forward.

    If we seek robust and sustainable human spaceflight maybe folks need to go around NASA (and Senate committees) rather than through NASA (and Senate committees).

  • Bill White wrote:

    If we seek robust and sustainable human spaceflight maybe folks need to go around NASA (and Senate committees) rather than through NASA (and Senate committees).

    So long as government dollars are involved, they have to go through Congress.

    The problem with a strictly private effort is that if they want to launch from Cape Canaveral or another government facility they will have to fight government red tape. SpaceX would have launched Falcon 9 by now if not for the USAF forcing them to use government contractors for the self-destruct mechanism.

    The space-industrial complex is a behemoth aided and abetted by the members of Congress who represent the space center districts. I suspect Obama knows this and his proposal is an effort to break it up. Congress and the space-industrial complex know it too, which is why they’re fighting it.

    In short, the gravy train is about to pull into the station but the passengers want to keep on riding.

  • Stephen C. Smith wrote @ May 13th, 2010 at 9:04 am

    The space-industrial complex is a behemoth aided and abetted by the members of Congress who represent the space center districts. I suspect Obama knows this and his proposal is an effort to break it up. Congress and the space-industrial complex know it too, which is why they’re fighting it.

    Indeed.

    But does Obama have the political firepower (and the motivation) to see this through?

    ULA would surely love a traditional cost-plus contract to fly to ISS using EELV and a student of George Orwell might predict we shall end up with exactly that.

    Overthrow our oppressive ATK rulers and end up with ULA as the four legged creatures who now walk upright.

  • […] Hutchison Pushes For Shuttle Extension […]

  • DCSCA

    @StephenCSmith- Armstrong and Cernan’s credentials remain valid and smart people in the space community listen when they offer input. They helped ‘invent’ the techniques and protocol necessary to perfect piloting spacecraft and perform work in space and on the lunar surface. Bear in mind Americans have only been capable of landing and keeping people alive for, at best, 72 hours at a time at a time, six different times, on the moon. Not much experience at all to base launching an expedition to Mars. Armstrong is correct when he advocates using an expanded lunar exploration program as a basis for technology transfer to extrapolate systems and a robust protocol for a more long term voyage to Mars. Lassoing asteroids is a job for roping robots.

  • DCSCA

    It’s disturbing that Hutchinson sat in that hearing and justified the manned space program to Rockefeller by pointing to missile technology that can target windows in buildings and kill people more efficently. She might do better to point to Cheney’s pacemaker as spinoff. After all, he endorsed her run for governor.

  • @StephenCSmith- Armstrong and Cernan’s credentials remain valid and smart people in the space community listen when they offer input. They helped ‘invent’ the techniques and protocol necessary to perfect piloting spacecraft and perform work in space and on the lunar surface.

    Those are not credentials for evaluating cost or schedules of development programs.

  • DCSCA

    @BillWhite/@StephenCSmith- Politics has fueled the space program from day one. Lay out a map of contractors over a map of the U.S. for reference. The states with the fewest contractors squawk the most about wasting money on NASA. The last piece of space work to come out of West Virginia was Homer Hickham, as Rockefeller’s staffers know. The MSC is in Houston purely because of LBJ when it should have been based in Florida. Politics as much as funding fuels space exploration.

  • DCSCA

    @RandSimberg- Input on methodology and protocol for developing systems and techniques most certainly are elements for planning a space program. Lori Garver is no Armstrong, Cernan— or Wernher von Braun.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ May 13th, 2010 at 6:32 am

    @Oler : The days of government run space are drawing to an end.

    The Chinese and Russians should get a laugh out of that.

    ..

    and their programs are not doing all that much

    Robert G. Oler

  • Input on methodology and protocol for developing systems and techniques most certainly are elements for planning a space program. Lori Garver is no Armstrong, Cernan— or Wernher von Braun.

    It’s a shame that what you wrote has no relevance to what I wrote.

  • Bill White wrote:

    But does Obama have the political firepower (and the motivation) to see this through?

    I think the fact that Senator Jay Rockefeller (from West Virginia) is chair of the committee works in Obama’s favor. Rockefeller told Armstrong/Cernan to their faces that he’s a skeptic of human space flight, and challenged them to give him a compelling argument why we should send humans back to the Moon. Cernan rambled on without making a point until Rockefeller cut him off.

    Rockefeller will control whatever budget proposal comes out of the committee. The Republicans on the committee, being in the minority, won’t have significant input unless Rockefeller needs votes. I’d think that Bill Nelson will have some say, but buffoons like Hutchison and Vitter won’t.

    Of course, there are other committees and lots of votes yet to come, but I think what emerges from the Commerce Committee will by and large support Obama’s proposal.

  • Stephen C. Smith wrote @ May 13th, 2010 at 7:32 pm

    But does Obama have the political firepower (and the motivation) to see this through?

    Might Obama get something like his FY2011 through Congress? Yes, that might very well occur.

    However, the rubber will thereafter meet the road if SpaceX is delayed, shuttle derived is off the table and ULA says they need a cost-plus bail out (plus incentive bonus) if they are to deploy sufficient EELV in time to keep ISS up and running.

    Will Obama have the gumption, then, to tell ULA “No deal! Its fixed price or else!”

    If not, then I predict all that will change is the flavor of the pork sausage NASA buys.

  • common sense

    @ Bill White wrote @ May 13th, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    “ULA says they need a cost-plus bail out (plus incentive bonus) if they are to deploy sufficient EELV in time to keep ISS up and running.”

    A very real risk, unfortunately. As we already saw Boeing’s CCDev management would be happy to go the cost-plus route (can’t find the link though, nasawatch.com I believe). This is precisely why SpaceX has been turned into the poster child of commercial space. They do not have cost plus contract and have not said they want one.

    So may be the WH answer ought to: No fixed price, No Buck Rogers…

  • […] Astronaut safety and contract termination – Space Politics […]

Leave a Reply to DCSCA 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>