Absolutely. I strongly recommend watching the movie “The Road.” It is why we need HLV’s.

As for SRB’s, It is fascinating reading the story of the Aerojet 260 inch SRB and how Utah railroaded NASA into a booster inferior on every single count- except that it came from Utah by railroad of course. Sun shipyards produced the test boosters for Aerojet using submarine hull technology. Thiokol’s boosters all blew up at half the pressure needed to pass while Aerojet’s all passed. And yet Thiokol got the contract. Might have had something to do with who the NASA director was. This is ancient history- late 60’s. Utah still has it’s claws in the administration it seems.

That’s true, and it seems even weirder when you consider the numerous benefits the DoD is likely to get from the new NASA approach, like

– development of space and aeronautics technology of use to both DoD and NASA (smallsat technologies, general satellite components and instruments, rockets, RD-180 replacement, etc)
– shared use of (and thus shared fixed costs for) underutilized aerospace technology by DoD and NASA (EELVs, satellite components, etc)
– promotion of commercial space segments that can offer services to DoD

For example, here are some excerpts about FTD 1, the first Flagship Technology Demonstration mission for an “Advanced In-Space Propulsion Demonstration”. The mission will probably demonstrate DARPA’s lightweight and efficient FAST solar array technology and NASA’s ion propulsion system:

“This combined technology is anticipated to deliver a significant bus performance capability with broad NASA and DoD mission applicability for a wide range of existing and potential future missions in Earth-space, Cis-Lunar Space, and Deep-Space. … DoD has identified NEXT IPS as enabling for a class of Earth-Orbital operational missions. … NASA, DoD, and Commercial missions require lightweight high-power systems in space, both for SEP, and operational platforms, consistent with the performance characteristics of the DARPA FAST array technology.”

As a side benefit, this mission might take instruments to exploration destinations like Mars.

FTD-1 will also introduce the AR&D vehicle. In addition to its main NASA uses (getting technology demonstrations to their starting location such as GEO and the ISS), this vehicle may have other uses, such as delivery of ISS cargo, commercial services (if it’s procured commercially in the sense of not being a NASA-owned vehicle), tug services, and perhaps services for the DoD.

That’s just one example of the many ways the new NASA approach is likely to benefit the DoD.

Dream on. The Chinese are moving at a snail’s pace, and there’s no reason to believe they won’t continue at that pace. It seems like they’re moving quickly because we’ve long forgotten how quickly our program and the Russian program advanced when they started. The Chinese have a long way to go to even match our capability at a low level. If they put boots on the moon, it won’t likely be until the 30’s at the earliest.

“These politicians are never going to kill Constellation in this economy. Not in an election year. There are too many jobs at stake in areas where the economy remains weak or is weakening further (the Gulf coast) — jobs that are relatively high-tech and related to the technological base of the nation. ”

Again, like the faulty logic of floating the whole Cx program to save perhaps a few hundred million at the DoD, the logic of sustaining it to support a few thousand jobs in three or four metro areas is kinda silly. That logic may fly in the districts where those jobs reside, but not elsewhere. And of the space states, only two are reasonably in play by most polling, Florida and Louisiana. In both cases they are very likely to be Republican victories, though not as likely as Utah or Alabama. I don’t really anticipate most Dems will be willing to alter their votes much to court two unlikely victories. If it were a presidential election year it might be a different story given Florida.

Since you are obviously a Washington-wise professional, let me point out that I used the word “consult”, not “coordinate”. The accusation by Bishop and others is that the WH and NASA didn’t even TALK to DOD let alone ask their opinion.

And no, I don’t put much stock in Lester Lyles’ asking hypothetical questions either.

But when the AT&L command structure says “we don’t care about large diameter segmented solids”, I gotta believe they know something.

I’m not saying it doesn’t have an impact if NASA stops buying 2/3 (or a larger fraction) of the annual production of ammonium perchlorate. Yet, it could increase the raw materials costs of smaller solid rockets. But the Augustine Committee (not Lyles) dug into that in some detail with all of the solid producers/consumers. And everyone BUT ATK said that the impact of raw materials on the finished product was like 20-30% tops.

So yes, I would say that both the Administration and Augustine did seriously CONSULT the experts on this matter. No, they did not obtain a fully-coordinated interagency policy statement.

As you must know, that is now coming. And the initial results do not look promising for Mr. Bishop’s constituents.

– Jim

Where I live we have a Republican Congressman and Democratic Senators. None have expressed a public desire to support Constellation, and no one in my district is affected by it’s cancellation.

DCSCA, outside of Texas, Alabama and Florida, who really would have a political need to support it?

SPUDIS & ZUBRIN: NASA’s mission to nowhere

“The new plan proposes to contract with private companies to design and develop vehicles for human flights to low Earth orbit (LEO) and the International Space Station. The agency will research advanced technologies in the coming five years before picking a heavy-lift rocket design. Human missions are next – to an asteroid in 15 years and to orbit Mars in 25 years. A human Mars landing supposedly will occur afterward – sometime.

For 50 years, America has maintained this ability through an infrastructure of cutting-edge industrial hardware, specialized facilities and a skilled work force.”

If we have multiple commercial firms doing human launches to LEO America is not losing anything. NASA still retains the ability to send personal into LEO on both domestic and International carriers.

The New paradigm for NASA is that they are passengers for the first 200 miles. Just as an astronaut takes a commercial ride from kennedy to cali they will take a commercial ride to their work facility in space. There they will work on the advanced technology demonstration programs that will lead to America’s first dedicated space based, reuseable, gas and go, vehicle.

Future exploration will start from LEO, get used to it. Astronauts will go to stations to build stuff and use it in space.

sorry you are as my father use to say “a one note John”. there is no give and take…which tells me you dont really believe that which you say.

Enjoy

Robert G. Oler