Congress, NASA

Briefly noted: JSC and Griffith

Yesterday’s announcement of a $15-million Dept. of Labor grant for displaced KSC shuttle workers has a few people riled up around the Johnson Space Center, the Houston Chronicle reports. “This is a political statement by the White House and an attempt by this administration to divide the states,” said Bob Mitchell, head of the Bay Area Economic Partnership. While saying that Florida deserved the money, “It is just unfortunate that this administration continues to play games with the fine men and women who have dedicated their lives to human space exploration.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Parker Griffith (R-AL), who lost his primary election Tuesday, said he would continue to flight for Constellation for the remainder of his term in Congress. “Obama is sending the wrong message to our young community, who is interested in space exploration,” he said, as reported by WHNT-TV in Huntsville. “Obama has made a serious, serious error there, and we will fight daily to correct that.”

49 comments to Briefly noted: JSC and Griffith

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Obama to JSC: Drop dead!

  • amightywind

    For a guy with the reputation of an adroit campaigner, Obama’s political calculations on Florida and NASA are utterly baffling.

    An interesting quote from Elon Musk on spaceflightnow.com:

    “We will report events as they happen, but are not providing a score sheet that our numerous enemies can use against us to nitpick what will hopefully be a great flight,” Musk said. “This is the first flight of a new vehicle, so there will necessarily be differences between predictions and reality.”

    NASA has always provided such information, even on such risky missions as STS-1 and Apollo 8. There successes and failures have been there for all to see. Lockmart and Boeing were equally open with the first flights of Atlas V/Delta IV. Musk has already mastered Obama’s stonewalling politics.

  • Vladislaw

    Like nasa provided data on how they did the ESAS? Like the data on the ares I-x they still have not released? NASA has cherry picked data quite a few times in it’s history to push it’s version of events.

  • Justin Kugler

    Mitchell has no problem playing games, either. When some of us tried to keep the Go Boldly group on its original inclusive, nonpartisan message, BAHEP representatives rammed its talking points through by changing the website even while debate was on-going and ridiculed those who weren’t willing to just regurgitate their marketing.

    They are capitalizing on fear and uncertainty to push a particular agenda and fashioning themselves as our protectors in the process, even as they pick a fight that is counterproductive. Codependent relationships never end well, so I got out.

    The aid for KSC is only a slight against JSC for those who want to interpret it that way. Given the continuation of ISS and the hosting of the Flagship Technology Demonstrators Program, it’s not yet clear what the balance at JSC will be. We may yet have an equivalent number of jobs as compared with the POR.

    KSC was already poised to take the brunt of Shuttle layoffs, though, even if Constellation continued. The workforce and capability retention issue is nothing new, though the opponents of the new direction seem to want everyone to think it is.

  • amightywind

    Vladislaw, yours is a childish response. The successful flight of Ares I-X sticks in your craw. It is an inconvenient fact that cannot be besmirched. Obama mouthpiece ‘Time’ called it the ‘invention of 2009′ before they knew they were contrary to Obama. The parachute anomaly was openly discussed and resolved. Since Musk is funded by tax payers, all we ask is to be able to hold him to the same scrutiny as NASA. What’s wrong with that?

  • Vladislaw

    Yes if the plan was to wreck the launch pad, have the mock up capsule fall off and wreck the shell after a parachute failed, then yes, if that is how you measure success, it passed with flying colors.

  • I suspect the main reason the Obama administration is giving KSC more attention than JSC is Obama gave that speech in Titusville on August 2, 2008.

    Click here to read my March 12 blog looking back at the promises Obama made that day.

    Obama said he would “ensure that our space program doesn’t suffer when the Shuttle goes out of service” by “making sure that all those who work in the space industry in Florida do not lose their jobs when the Shuttle is retired because we cannot afford to lose their expertise.”

    Since my March 12, Obama came to KSC on April 15 and proposed a $40 million program to transfer the Space Coast into “the Silicon Valley of space” that would transition space workers into jobs in new technologies. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis appeared at KSC yesterday and proposed a separate $20 million job transition program.

    So far as I know, Obama made no such promises in Texas to JSC workers, hence no special programs for them.

    From time to time, I like to check in on PolitiFact.com, which is run by the St. Petersburg Times, as they track Obama’s campaign promises and where they stand to date. Click here for space-related promises. Nearly all have been kept or are in the works.

  • Set it straight

    @ Vladislaw: “Yes if the plan was to wreck the launch pad, have the mock up capsule fall off and wreck the shell after a parachute failed, then yes, if that is how you measure success, it passed with flying colors.”

    Yes, NASA knew there would be damage to the pad. It was under renovation already and didn’t want to spend the money to solidify it to withstand the blast as they were taking it apart anyways!

    What are you talking about the shell? There was no shell under the orion drop test. It was a test unit. Truly, you are uninformed.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Set it wrong – what they didn’t realize is that it would effectively destroy the launch pad.

    And it still didn’t really test any real systems. And thats the major point

  • Ben Joshua

    Emotions are running strong, with good reason.

    Ironic though, that any attempt by the administration to lessen the difficulty of the transition will be met by anger and derision, while the actions, taken years ago, that made this change inevitable, one way or another, were accepted with few questions.

    I wish that authoritarian and political decisions regarding space policy, architecture and goals could be analyzed as objectively and critically as test engineers analyze new designs, materials, procedures and integration factors.

    Perhaps the steps toward commercialization, and away from cost plus contracts, and away from decisionmaking weirdly skewed, will bring back the original idea of NASA and a more stable employment environment.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ben Joshua wrote @ June 3rd, 2010 at 11:45 am

    one of the realities of the last few years is that while the companies (USA in particular) have been fairly brutal in terms of what was going to happen…the politicians have not really.

    A few years ago I stood as a reference for a person who was applying to USA to fly for their corporate flight department. When I asked the person how the interview went and about the “end of shuttle” this person told me that they were very frank about where things were going “sometime in 2010 or 11″. (that is in fact one reason the person did not take the job).

    The problem is that the politicians have never been quite that way. In -22 in the 08 election both folks vying for the office when asked about the shuttle in town halls both were very very cagy about what the future held and where “they” thought it was going and it wasnt into retirement.

    Now most of them are acting very irresponsible. As are some of the local papers who are advocating positions which by now are nearly impossible (or very expensive) to hold.

    Couple that with a NASA administrator (Griffin) who was simply bizzare and internal NASA management that doesnt really give a fig about the workforce…well the fall was going to be long

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “Obama to JSC: Drop dead!”

    Yes, that’s exactly the message this Administration is sending JSC by assigning management of the ESMD Flagship Technology Demonstration Missions Program, the Commercial Crew Program, the Commercial Cargo Program, and the Human Research Program to JSC, on top of ISS extension. Yes, the JSC workforce would rather have a one-time $15 million grant instead of billions and billions of dollars of work for years to come.

    Stop making stupid statements and think before you post.

    Ugh…

  • Major Tom

    “The successful flight of Ares I-X sticks in your craw. It is an inconvenient fact that cannot be besmirched. Since Musk is funded by tax payers, all we ask is to be able to hold him to the same scrutiny as NASA.”

    Don’t make ignorant and stupid statements. This week’s Falcon 9 flight test is funded by SpaceX. It’s not one of the three COTS demonstration flights that NASA funded. Those start with the next flight.

    Moreover, Ares I-X flew a four-segment lower stage, a dummy upper stage, and dead weight in place of Orion, not Ares I’s five-segment lower stage, J-2X upper stage, and Orion. It cost the taxpayer nearly half-a-billion dollars.

    This week’s Falcon 9 test vehicle is flying the same first first stage and the same second stage planned for the operational Falcon 9 and a boilerplate Dragon to boot. It’s costing taxpayers nothing.

    There is no comparison. The latter is a real test-as-you-fly demonstration at no cost to the taxpayer. The former was a technically non-relevant waste of a half-billion dollars worth of taxpayer resources.

    FWIW…

  • DCSCA

    @MajorTom “Don’t make ignorant and stupid statements. This week’s Falcon 9 flight test is funded by SpaceX.” <– Speak for yourself. This is innaccurate. The launch facilities on CAFB were refurbished and reconfigured for SpaceX using stimulus funding, aka 'taxpayer dollars.' SpaceX is not a truly 'private enterprised' operation.

  • DCSCA

    @amightywind– Best thing Musk can do now is quiet down and get his rocket up.

  • Elon Musk needs to stop trying to get tax payer dollars and start focusing on the space tourism business. If he really can fly people into space then he should realize that he doesn’t need NASA. And NASA certainly doesn’t need him!

  • DCSCA

    @MajorTom- “This week’s Falcon 9 test vehicle is flying the same first first stage and the same second stage planned for the operational Falcon 9 and a boilerplate Dragon to boot. It’s costing taxpayers nothing.” <– this is inaccurate. The launch facilities at CAFB were refurbished and reconfigured for SpaceX operations using 'stimulus funding' aka taxpayer dollars. This long-anticipated-long-overdue-slipped-scheduled launch is not a truly private enterprise funded venture.

  • DCSCA

    @MarcelFWilliams- Space tourism to where? Sightseeing? It may not be totally fair to place the burden solely on Musk but unfortunately he happens to be the one up at the plate of late. Best thing he can do is get a rocket and payload that is reliable and can operate on a dependable schedule. So far, those goals seem to be eluding him. He’s no Von Braun.

  • DCSCA

    “There is no comparison. The latter is a real test-as-you-fly demonstration at no cost to the taxpayer.” <— no matter how many times you keep insisting 1+1 =11, it is inaccurate. Tax dollars from the stimulus package paid for the refurbishment and reconfiguration of the launch pad SpaceX is using at CAFB. 1+1=2.

  • DCSCA

    “We will report events as they happen, but are not providing a score sheet that our numerous enemies can use against us to nitpick what will hopefully be a great flight,” Musk said. “This is the first flight of a new vehicle, so there will necessarily be differences between predictions and reality.” <— British Petreoleum Public Relations 101. This is how the private sector will run a space program. No guts, no glory, Elon.

  • DCSCA

    Re- taxpayer dollars spent for SpaceX launch facilities: In October 2009 NASA provided a pre-solicitation notice regarding an effort to be funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The commercial crew enabling work would include a “base task” of refurbishing and reactivating SLC-40 power transfer switches, performing maintenance on the lower Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) substation and motor control centers, installing bollards around piping, replacing the door frame and threshold for the Falcon Support Building mechanical room and repairing fencing around the complex perimeter. Several optional tasks would include work installing conductive flooring in the Hangar Hypergol area, performing corrosion control inspection and maintenance of the lightning protection tower’s structural steel, upgrading and refurbishing other facility equipment and performing corrosion control on rail cars and pad lighting poles, painting several buildings, repairing and improving roads, and hydro-seeding the complex.

    Any attempt to label SpaceX as a true private enterprise space venture is inaccurate.

  • common sense

    Let’s asssume that SpaceX used tax payers dollars for the sake of argument. So what?

    The issue is the RIO. Constellation RIO is pathetic. SpaceX RIO is fantastic whether you like it or not, especially when compared with Constellation. So?

    Now of course if RIO means to you jobs then SpaceX is not as good as NASA’s institutionalized HSF. But then just be clear that all you want is not really a sound cost effective HSF but rather a jobs program. It’s okay but it does not require the ridiculous attacks on SpaceX.

    Now SpaceX might be successful, right? Then be afraid, very afraid. If it fails then it’ll be that. But if it is successful then you can kiss good bye the $Bs cost plus and Cold War architecture for HSF. And btw failure is not the first launch for those who forget. In the end we’ll finally be able to redirect these saved $$$ to climate change, Earth observation, education and all those things you don’t like yet are absolutely necessary.

    Then again, SpaceX is not the only contender.

    How’s that?

  • DCSCA

    “Let’s asssume that SpaceX used tax payers dollars for the sake of argument. So what?” <– Dick Cheney Public Relations 101. 'So what' it means is to peddle it as a private enterprised space venture is inaccurate. And it is not an assumption but a matter of public record. It is not a truly private enterprised operation. No private capital was raised to pay for the launch facilities. As previously stated, it may be unfair to heap so much on to Musk's attempt but he happens to be in the batter's box and was spotlighted by a presidential inspection. Best thing he can do now is quiet down and get his rocket up– with full disclosure, especially as LOE operatons for the United States may very well end up in his hands.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ June 3rd, 2010 at 7:05 pm

    This long-anticipated-long-overdue-slipped-scheduled launch is not a truly private enterprise funded venture….

    then of course no commercial airliner that takes off is a truly private enterprise funded venture.

    Sorry the “dog” you toss does a “Rand Paul”…it flounders in ideology run amock

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ben Joshua

    Thank you Robert Oler, for the observation and insight.

    Some issues, like space policy, are “get by” issues in presidential campaigns. Candidates don’t want it in their way, so they say the least controversial thing possible (true, untrue, ambiguous, just not definitive), and get back on message.

    If politicians really undertood the economic potential of technology, they would see the original vision for NASA and private space as engines of economic development, rather than just one more static corporate power center.

  • DCSCA

    “If we have a bad day, it will be disappointing, but one launch does not make or break SpaceX as a company, nor commercial spaceflight as an industry. The Atlas rocket only succeeded on its 13th flight, and today it is the most reliable vehicle in the American fleet, with a record better than Shuttle.” – Elon Musk, 6/1/10

    Elon best review the history of the Atlas. Comparing today’s Atlas family of LVs to the testy, ICBM test flights of those cranky early birds of the late 50s and early 60s, back in the days when Glenn, Carpenter, Schirra and Cooper were strapped a top them, is comparing apples and oranges. But it’s nice to see he believes his private sector company plans to absorb the costly failure of up to 13 test flights like the U.S. government was able to do. Very comforting commentary for venture capitalists and potential investors not to mention the White House and potential crews. But if it works– and works repeatedly–,it’ll be back to the future… circa 1963.

  • DCSCA

    This long-anticipated-long-overdue-slipped-scheduled launch is not a truly private enterprise funded venture….

    then of course no commercial airliner that takes off is a truly private enterprise funded venture.

    But then, Falcon is a test flight, not a commerciallt scheduled launch, isn’t it.

  • Ben Joshua

    btw, Mr. Oler, thank you for the Ecoupe reference the other day. It made for some good reads and a reminder of a significant piece of civil aviation history.

    It also reminded me of where a lot of pivotol ideas come from, ie. creative individuals. Robert Goddard, John Houbolt and a long list of visionary and capable people gave us most of the progress we see around us.

    After a series of failed efforts to develop an artificial heart, medical folks finally adopted a heart assist device, invented by a NASA turbopump engineer, which has saved lives and allows the heart time to heal.

    Bureaucracies would do well to unleash individual creativity and allow great ideas into the process.

    btbtw, if the FAA declares that an aircraft is operationally incapable if spin, that says a lot. But if a politician or media outlet declares themselves to be spin-free, or a no-spin zone, find a very big grain of salt. Very big indeed.

  • amightywind

    Tomorrow is the day of reckoning for Obamaspace. An unequivocal success will give Obamaspace ideologues more time to pursue their mad vision. A visible failure and commercial space as NASA’s centerpiece is finished. The forces of Constellation will be irresistible. This is the most significant launch since the return to flight after Columbia.

    Minor Tom:

    “It’s costing taxpayers nothing.”

    They have already pissed away $300M of $1.2G in govenment funding. You don’t know what you are talking about. As usual…

  • Ferris Valyn

    abreakingwind – the fact that you hero worship so much, and believe that an entire program is built around a success or failure of a single launch, should tell everyone how serious we should take you.

    We’ll leave it at that.

  • Paul Vaccaro

    GO CONSTELLATION I hope Obamaspace and Space X goes down in flames tomorrow. Let the true rocket men and women continue their journey to the heavens, NASA workers and this country needs to press on with Constellation let the commercial boys come along for the ride let them prove themselves first. WE CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT CEDE OUR LEADERSHIP IN SPACE. Hope and change careful what you wish for you just might get it, does anyone remember real hope and change it came by the way of Ronald Wilson Reagan, he restored respect and dignity to the White House and this country, unlike the current socialist let’s tear down NASA president, come on 2012 election.

  • Will Ill

    I hope Obamaspace and Space X goes down in flames tomorrow.

    You leave me no choice but to wish ill will for you as well.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ben Joshua wrote @ June 3rd, 2010 at 9:03 pm

    “btw, Mr. Oler, thank you for the Ecoupe reference the other day. It made for some good reads and a reminder of a significant piece of civil aviation history.”

    The “ER coupe” is a great ride. I enjoy flying it so much…and it does illustrate the simplicity of systems with design…the plane wont stall because ‘up’ elevator travel is limited and the high dihedral of the wing.

    simplicity is where you find it. The “DC-9″ is really called “the direct cable 9″ because there are no hydraulics on the elevator or aileron (the rudder has it)…the design comes direct from the A-4 which drives along quite nicely without hydraulics on the primaries and it quite manueverable.

    NASA really has no idea nor is interested in “simple but reliable” systems…that is why they insert layer of layer on the vehicles and then is surprised when they are not reliable…

    You are correct we have to have innovation and hopefully Musk will lay down the marker

    Robert G. Oler

  • Paul Vaccaro

    I hope the damn thing blows up on the pad, GO NASA, and Congress stop Obamaspace in it’s tracks. GO CONSTELLATION!!!!!!! This is from a son of an original rocket man of KSC. Listen folks I am not opposed to commercial fligth only when they have prove3n themselves in the mean time we need access to LEO and access to deep space this should be left up to the true professionals. Commercial boys when your ready and consistent then join the fray until then this country cannot afford to put all it’s eggs in one basket, this world is too dangerous for such a venture.

  • Ill JongWill

    This is from a son of an original rocket man of KSC.

    Like those original rocket men from Germany and Russia?

    Dude, the South Koreans are launching rockets.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Paul – does 20+ launches count as consistent?

  • Rhyolite

    “I hope the damn thing blows up on the pad”

    “Listen folks I am not opposed to commercial fligth”

    One of these statements is untrue.

  • Rhyolite

    “Commercial boys when your ready and consistent then join the fray until then this country cannot afford to put all it’s eggs in one basket, this world is too dangerous for such a venture.”

    The commercial boys, in the form of Lockheed, Boeing, and Orbital Sciences have been launching all of our national security payloads for the last couple of decades. NASA has been out of this business since the early 90’s. If we can trust our national security to them, I think we can trust a few astronauts to them as well.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Paul Vaccaro wrote @ June 4th, 2010 at 12:12 am
    we need access to LEO and access to deep space this should be left up to the true professionals. …

    rah tell that last sentence to the last crews of Challenger and Columbia…great professionals Robert G. Oler

  • Curtis Quick

    I hate to sound like a chicken-little, but alarming comments on this blog suggesting that some would enjoy seeing Falcon explode on the launch pad make me wonder if there is enough security surrounding the launch site. There is much to be lost by those who have benefited so much from the old system that they have a vested interested in making sure any new system won’t work.

  • Rhyolite

    The Ares apologists have a peculiar need to obsess on SpaceX.

    Suppose for the sake of argument that SpaceX did not exist, procuring commercial lift capabilities still makes more sense than completing Ares I. Preparing Atlas and Delta to launch astronauts still cost 1/10th the cost of completing Ares I and operating them would cost 1/4 to 1/2 the cost of operating Ares I. The development, cost and schedule risk are lower because Atlas and Delta are already flying. And they have established safety records.

    If SpaceX proves out, so much the better. But it’s not necessary. It might be Plan C to Atlas and Delta’s Plan A and B.

    I think the obsession Ares apologists about SpaceX come from the simple fact that they don’t have a rocket to stand on. Ares I is still 5 to 7 years – and many billions of dollars – away. Ares is the emperor with no clothes so its supporters have an acute need to direct attention away from its nakedness. SpaceX, while it is much further along than Ares I, makes a better target for Ares apologists because it is novel and still in development – therefore subject to risk. It is much easier to trumpet the development risks of Falcon 9 than admit the awful comparison of Ares I to any existing medium launch vehicle. It’s a poor strategy but it’s all they’ve got.

  • DCSCA, any taxpayer money that SpaceX receives will be returned in spades by the factor of 5 cost reduction on future flights. Therefore your argument is specious at best, and downright dishonest at worst. The fact remains that the total monies given to SpaceX to date (over the past 4 years) are less than the total cost of the false Ares I-X “test” (first time in America’s history that we tested a vehicle that was not in any way representative of the final product; it’s true, not even Saturn I was dumbed down like Ares I-X was). We’re talking a factor of 5 cost reduction to NASA and a factor of 10 cost reduction to commercial space. It is absolutely ridiculous to bemoan one dime that SpaceX has received from the taxpayer. It will be paid back in spades. I for one am glad that taxpayer money brought us a low cost commercial provider at least a decade sooner than said provider would have been able to come about through general market interactions (SpaceX would have had to fly hundreds of Falcon 1’s if not thousands to get where they are today, it is non-trivial). Thank you American government for spending taxpayer money right and thank you Obama administration for trusting capitalism over public spending.

  • Vladislaw, I love those ESAS appendices… kept secret for years, until they were released to WikiLeaks, confirming every suspicion had about the architecture. A dud from the start.

  • Bennett

    Curtis Quick wrote @ June 4th, 2010 at 2:08 am

    No Curtis, I’ve been thinking this too, for weeks. It’s not just the Cx gang or the Shuttle folks, but ULA and Boeing would love to have the seat price to the ISS stay at Russian levels.

    Best wishes to SpaceX, Go on, change the world.

  • Major Tom

    “The launch facilities at CAFB were refurbished and reconfigured for SpaceX operations using ‘stimulus funding’ aka taxpayer dollars. This long-anticipated-long-overdue-slipped-scheduled launch is not a truly private enterprise funded venture.”

    No, they weren’t. Only $50 million in stimulus funding went to commercial crew development (CCDev) and SpaceX wasn’t one of the awardees.

    .spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30135

    Don’t make stuff up.

  • Major Tom

    “They have already pissed away $300M of $1.2G in govenment funding.

    No, they havn’t. Their COTS award is only $278 million, SpaceX doesn’t receive payment until it reaches predefined milestones, and the big flight milestones have yet to occur.

    Don’t make ignorant, stupid statements.

    “You don’t know what you are talking about. As usual…”

    Doctor, heal thyself.

    Ugh…

  • Major Tom

    “I hope Obamaspace and Space X goes down in flames tomorrow… I hope the damn thing blows up on the pad… Listen folks I am not opposed to commercial fligth [sic] only when they have prove3n [sic] themselves… Commercial boys when your ready and consistent then join the fray…”

    So which is it? Do you want the “commercial boys” to become “consistent” or do you want their vehicles to go “down in flames” and blow up “on the pad”?

    Go away, think hard about it for a while, and come back when you have a consistent position and argument.

    “until then this country cannot afford to put all it’s eggs in one basket”

    NASA human space flight has four domestic, commercial baskets to turn to: Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9, and Taurus II — on top of foreign systems including Soyuz, Progress, ATV, and HTV.

    Don’t make things up.

    “this world is too dangerous for such a venture”

    Yes, we should ban commercial space flight because there are terrorists in the Middle East.

    Sigh…

  • I hate to sound like a chicken-little, but alarming comments on this blog suggesting that some would enjoy seeing Falcon explode on the launch pad make me wonder if there is enough security surrounding the launch site.

    I asked someone at SpaceX about that:

    “It’s an AF base, with good perimeter fence and armed security, and lots of cameras.”

Leave a Reply to Josh Cryer 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>