Congress, NASA

Congress reacts to NASA Constellation announcement

When the Orlando Sentinel noted in its article about NASA’s memo about cutting back work on Constellation that the announcement “caps a bitter, three-month behind-the-scenes battle”, the first thought that ran through my mind on how Congress would react was a line from Animal House: “Over? Did you say ‘over’? Nothing is over until we decide it is!” And sure enough, members of Congress are making clear this decision does not “cap” this debate at all.

In a statement late today, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) said NASA was “skirting the law” with its plan to cut back work on Constellation to comply with the Antideficiency Act. She cited the memo as the latest evidence that NASA was “working to subvert Constellation”, along with letters sent to contractors about termination liability and the reassignment of Constellation program manager Jeff Hanley. Hutchison also released a copy of an email sent to Hanley on May 21 that contained direction and even language similar to Bolden’s letter to Congress this week (although Bolden’s letter contained additional specifics about the impact of the plan on each element of Constellation.)

“At best, this demonstrates that, at least three weeks before briefing members of Congress about issues related to funding challenges, NASA’s leadership had already taken steps to implement a course that today leads to the loss of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of jobs,” she said, comparing this week’s letter with last month’s email. “At worst, it shows an agency that is willfully subverting the repeatedly expressed will of Congress. In either case, the result is the same. The leadership of the world’s preeminent space agency has strained its credibility to the breaking point and something has to change.”

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) also provided a statement to Huntsville TV station WAFF, included in an article about Constellation-related layoff notices Boeing plans to issue next month. “NASA is reprioritizing funding based on a future budget that has not been supported, or approved, by Congress,” Shelby said, adding that language included in a supplemental appropriations bill the Senate approved last month is a “reaffirmation of Congressional intent to continue Constellation funding”.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) also made a brief statement about the Bolden letter prepended to a copy of the Sentinel article (which, I’m sure, Bishop’s office got permission to reprint.) The decision to cut back work on Constellation, he said, “is nothing more than a disingenuous legal maneuver to circumvent statutory language that was put in place to prevent this very type of action.

Bishop also issued a separate statement Thursday reacting to a comment in an interview with Elon Musk where the SpaceX CEO said that Utah is the “one state that is going to suffer from the Obama plan”. “Elon Musk is right that Utah will suffer under the Obama plan, but so will the rest of the country” because, among other things, the plan “severely handicaps our security and missile defense,” Bishop said. “In the end, all of us in America suffer under that scenario, and that is unacceptable.”

94 comments to Congress reacts to NASA Constellation announcement

  • Senator Hutchison wrote:

    NASA’s leadership had already taken steps to implement a course that today leads to the loss of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of jobs

    As I’ve written before … They couldn’t care less if Constellation ever launches. In their minds, NASA = Jobs = Votes. The quote proves that.

    Rep. Bishop wrote:

    … the plan “severely handicaps our security and missile defense.”

    Gee, I didn’t know Ares I was going to be used to target Al Qaeda.

    Shouldn’t we at least try to find Osama Bin Laden before trying to hit him with a LEO rocket?!

  • amightywind

    As long as Obama stays in power you can expect subterfuge from his devious minions. Bolden is not long for his current position. I wonder if he knows it? NASA is in a chaotic state like no one has ever seen before. It will also play out poorly for Elon Musk. The enemies he is making of the party about to assume power. But no long term plans can be made in this environment, that is clear. With oil in the gulf, the economy in the tank, a fiscal time bomb about to go off, and Iran about to be a nuclear power, the administration is disintegrating before our eyes. Expect to see the roll out of ‘Project Zodiac’ (Constellation2?) in 2013.

  • I wonder if there’s any way to call these boneheads who talk about missile defense and inform them that arguments from the 60s are not eternal wisdom to be blindly repeated forever. Morons.

  • Skidrow Bumm

    but … But … BUT … our elite astronaut corps!

  • vulture4

    If we politicize the situation we will never accomplish anything. About half of space advocates are Democrats. If we do nothing but attack each others’ parties, obviously we won’t accomplish anything. The problem with Constellation was not political, in fact neither party funded it. It’s problem was not technical, although it had major technical problems. The fundamental problem with Constellation was strategic. It was a step backwards 40 years in technology. Nixon canceled Apollo because going to the moon (or Mars, or an asteroid) in expendable rockets costs far too much to be practical.

  • amightywind, it’s a genius move and Cx is dead in the water. As companies cut back their work forces and disassemble the infrastructure there’s no way to revive it.

  • Vladislaw

    As soon as I read the Title I thought “okay let’s hear from the “usual suspects” and sure enough. Jeff should not have used the word ‘Congress’ in the title like that, it implies a bigger voice than it is. It is more like a “A tiny voice in congress once again fights for a jobs program instead of a space program”

  • “If we politicize…”

    If by “we” you mean the arm-chair blow-hard, think they’re experts and their posts may mean somthing, here on the internet… you’d better think again. What is said here means exactly zero (unless Mj. Tom or Oler says it- than it means less than zero). Constellation passed it this democrat controled Congress the last time by 400 to 8. The Congress isn’t in-fighting politically at all on this issue- Obama’s plan will NEVER pass as written. Obama’s political tank is DRY.

  • Vladislaw, and let’s not overlook the fact that Sen. Shelby is actually arguing against his states’ interest, as the new direction invigorates Boeing/Lockmart (Atlas/Delta) along with MSFC/RocketDyne. It is a disgrace that he is arguing for a direction that prevents thousands of jobs from coming to his state. Jobs his state would not have otherwise had.

  • Major Tom

    “unless Mj. Tom or Oler says it- than it means less than zero”

    Oh, what a burn…

    “Constellation passed it this democrat controled Congress”

    A meaningless authorization passed. Congresses, both Republican and Democrat-controlled, have repeatedly failed to put their money where there mouth is and fund NASA appropriations per the commitments made in the VSE (or even their own NASA authorization bills).

    “The Congress isn’t in-fighting politically at all on this issue”

    No, there’s no difference of opinion at all in Congress. Hutchison wants to keep flying Shuttle, Nelson wants to fly lots of Ares I-X type test flights, Shelby wants to resurrect Constellation in total, and others are pushing various SDLVs.

    No, no difference of opinion at all.

    FWIW…

  • Bennett

    Major Tom wrote @ June 11th, 2010 at 12:01 am

    Plus, there were other issues to deal with in FY2010 that were much more ‘front and center’. I suspect that NASA’s part of the budget was a push last year.

    This year? I think they’ll go with the new plan because it makes more sense than continuing Constellation. At least that’s how MY congresspeople will vote.

  • Robert G. Oler

    this is how it ends…the only people griping are the usual suspects, no House or Senate leadership has chimed in…

    someone throw future Senator Blutarsky (Belushi) the Jack…(sorrycouldnt resist the Animal house part…)

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Looks like we’re going to have a good old fashion knock down drag out between the legislative and executive branch over who gets to determine how money is spent. Mind, the Constitution already says which does, but that has not stopped Richard Milhouse Obama before.

  • SpaceMan

    Maybe Ms Hutchison and Mr. Shelby should next threaten to throw themselves on the floor and hold their breath until they turn blue. Probably work about as well as what they are doing now.

  • The whole quote is much funnier:

    Bluto: Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

    Otter: Germans?

    Boon: Forget it, he’s rolling.

  • Fred

    The sad thing is that until the new budget is passed nothing happens.
    There is 12 months of nothing but Constellation slowly dying.
    FY2011 can’t start.
    Commercial crew can’t get funded.
    And the gap grows.
    If Fy2011 was passed then things could start happening now.
    Jobs could be created now.
    People could transition to the new jobs.
    Commercial crew could be funded.
    New jobs could be created at Boeing, LM, SpaceX or whoever gets COTS-D type contracts, not to mention all the contracts for all the other programs that have been proposed.

  • G Clark

    amightywind,

    May I ask what the source for your allegation that Administrator Bolden is not long for his job is? If it’s just your opinion that’s fine. If you have some inside information that the rest of us are not privy too, please share.

    Serious question.

    No disrespect either intended or implied.

  • josh

    @G Clark

    amightywind is a delusional constellation fanboy who has no idea whatsoever what’s going on.

    the por is dead, the grumpy old people better get used to it and accept the new (much better) direction. what is congress (or rather maybe a dozen people in congress) gonna go? release some angry statements? real scary.
    the contractors are already starting to lay off people and jsc in finally following direction from nasa hq. nothing can save constellation now.

    shelby is a tool, so is hutchison. egomaniacs who only care about getting reelected, nothing (and i seriously mean nothing) else.

  • You guys should get this site renamed “the almightywind discussion forum”.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ almightywind,

    You realise that, if Bolden goes, Garver replaces him? She’s his deputy after all, and that is SOP in such agencies. Oh, I know that Congress would never approve of her, but all Obama has to do is delay nominating a replacement Chief Administrator until the next Presidential elections and she will effectively have a free hand.

    If you thought Bolden was a bad thing for NASA designing and operating its own launch vehicles? Wait until you get a load of Lori! IIRC she was a big noise in the commercial spaceflight movement and would likely be tripping over her feet in her haste to completely privatise all NASA launch services (and, possibly, spacecraft development).

    FWIW, I strongly suspect that Bolden was always just a mask for Lori Garver. I’m [pretty sure that she was Obama & Holdren’s choice and Bolden was only eventually nominated as a sop to Nelson. The way Garver went everywhere with Bolden after his confirmation suggested that she had a lot more power than probably was strictly in harmony with the terms of the agency’s charter. In practice it has been her and it has always been her that has called the shots. Bolden was just a strap-op bit of armour plate to protect her from the glare of public scrutiny and political accountability.

  • “Looks like we’re going to have a good old fashion knock down drag out between the legislative and executive branch over who gets to determine how money is spent.”
    Not really, yes the minority in Congress who have Constellation interests will continue to whine. But eventually, the rest of Congress (who really don’t give a damn one way or the other, since they’re not receiving the Constellation pork) will weigh in with their opinion when the issue actually comes to a formal vote. All that majority will be able to see is that continuing the route the whiners want will cost more money than they want to give them. Until then, you Constellation huggers will continue to desperately cling to any pie-in-the-sky hope and rationalization your delusional minds can conjure. Dream on little broom stick cowboy.

  • Dennis Berube

    If Obamas plan to allow free enterprise to get us to LEO even succeeds, we will be stuck there for many years to come. NASA and Constellation are the only ones who can get us from low Earth orbit, and out into the solar system, where we should be now! NASA had plans for Constellation to go to asteroids and on to even Mars. Constellation must survive period! Rumors are Obama will only be a one term president. Lets hope so, SO NASA CAN GET BACK TO THE BUSINESS OF GETTING US OUT OF LOW EARTH ORBIT AND BACK INTO DEEP SPACE!!!!!

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Actually, Rick, this latest move will cause the rest of Congress to give a damn. They can see a future President pulling the same stunt for –say–the Department of HUD or some other account they care about. They will want to nip this one in the bud before its sets an ugly precedence.

  • “NASA and Constellation are the only ones who can get us from low Earth orbit, and out into the solar system, where we should be now!”
    Another pie-in-the-sky delusion. First, as Bolden has stated, even if Constellation were FULLY funded to whatever level its proponents want, it STILL wouldn’t get us there until around 2030 at best. Second, we are still in the worst recession since the Great Depression. Where is the money going to come from? So either way with or without Constellation, we are (as you put it) stuck in LEO for years to come.

    If you are really serious about NASA going back into deep space, you need to back the new plan. Only then will NASA be able use the money it saves from employing commercial LEO transportation to work on getting us beyond Earth orbit. To me, the newly stated goal of a manned mission to an asteroid by 2025 is a lot more exciting than a moon mission reprise at a later date.

  • Vladislaw

    Dennis Berube wrote:

    “If Obamas plan to allow free enterprise to get us to LEO even succeeds, we will be stuck there for many years to come. NASA and Constellation are the only ones who can get us from low Earth orbit,”

    Are you joking? If all the aerospace engineers in America, NASA and the private sector, Constellation is it? It is the only conceivable design for BEO?

    Not only it is one of the most REdisigned systems ever proposed by NASA, witness the ton of memos of complaint by lockmart, it is so expensive if Santa Claus came and gave us the system totally paid for, we would have to immediatly cancel it because we couldn’t afford it. I would be like being unemployed and winning a dodge viper, you couldn’t even afford the insurance to drive it and would have to sell it.

    Constellation is a train wreck, not to the stars but to obscurity as a monument to how NOT to return to the moon.

  • “They will want to nip this one in the bud before its sets an ugly precedence.”
    Again, a grand illusion. They wouldn’t do anything about it any more than they did to the stunt Shelby pulled with his rider. And the reason is that as long as it doesn’t affect their immediate interests, they won’t care. It’s a similar situation as Shelby only looking at the immediate future of saving a few current jobs in Huntsville, rather than looking at getting a greater number of Atlas and Delta jobs in Decatur with ULA providing crew transportation to ISS under the new plan. He is also being short-sighted because development of the newly proposed heavy-lifter would be done in Huntsville. Yes, he would lose a few jobs in Huntsville in the short run, but he would gain jobs in both Huntsville and Decatur in the long run.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ June 11th, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Actually, Rick, this latest move will cause the rest of Congress to give a damn. They can see a future President pulling the same stunt for –say–the Department of HUD or some other account they care about….

    you use to be a serious analyst.

    not so much. A President would never do what NASA is doing with a program that Congress cared about. The reality here is that most of the Congress simply doesnt care about space policy.

    Constellation is dead

    Robert G. Oler

  • Let’s clear things up about constellation support. When constellation was pitched to congress way back when, we had just lost our second shuttle and all of the folks on board and were faced with years of no access to LEO. Constellation was offered as the solution to the problem and the alternatives were mostly quietly ignored by all but the DIRECT folks. The only real alternative that was ever offered was the VSE, which was so different from Cx as to really be a separate policy. But that, too, was forgotten almost before Bush’s mic went cold on the announcement.

    So we had demonstrably unsafe vehicles, no access to space, and a good deal of loss of life and prestige in the space community. We also had three decades of nothin but LEO, but congress didn’t actually care about that then any more than they do now (aside, of course, from the squeaky wheels in NASA districts). OF COURSE they supported Cx. The alternative was continuing on with a spacecraft that would never get us out of LEO even if it was safe and reliable, which it wasn’t.

    Now we have an alternative, and we have something to fight about. And so we are. But again, no one in congress that hasn’t had space hardware built in their districts cares at all. I’ve heard wailing and gnashing of teeth from the same dozen or so voices with an occasional chime in from one or two congressfolks in unrelated districts (though I’ve seen support in the non-space districts as well). The former astronaut corps is split on the issue with prominent astronauts who sat in the same Apollo capsule or STS flight taking diametrically opposed stands.

    And when the majority is apathetic and the interested parties can’t agree, the president gets what he’s asking for. This is the way the program ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper.

  • Doctor Big

    Constellation was offered as the solution to the problem and the alternatives were mostly quietly ignored by all but the DIRECT folks.

    Only the ‘Direct Folks’ huh? Nice bit of self delusion there. Not only was Direct not the only alternative, it was probably the LEAST AFFORDABLE of all of them.

    Thank you so much for your presentation, sir. Now let’s hear a big round of applause for the Direct Fanboi Enthusiasts Club!

  • “Only the ‘Direct Folks’ huh? Nice bit of self delusion there. Not only was Direct not the only alternative, it was probably the LEAST AFFORDABLE of all of them.”

    Seriously? I didn’t enumerate the laundry list of options that received no press at the time and I’m pegged as a DIRECT fan-boy?

    Don’t assume my lack of attention to your favorite equally-ignored pet option is ignorance of it. That wasn’t my point, and it wasn’t relevant to my argument, so I didn’t address it. I’m aware there were alternatives, both stated and unstated, including a program akin to the FY 2011 proposal. Some of those plans were good ones. But none of those were presented as real alternatives at the time. I was only a minimal supporter of DIRECT as it was. It seemed like a ‘lesser of two evils’ solution in my book. I was a much bigger fan of heavy reliance on commercial space, and I still am. But at the time Cx was put forward, DIRECT was the only alternative that received any real press outside the confines of the Space blogosphere.

    The core concept, and what I hoped was clear from my post, was that congress only paid attention to what was on the agenda, and the only things presented to congress were Cx and refuribishing shuttle with some minimal murmers of DIRECT. And given that false choice scenario it comes as no surprise that the answer was Cx. If those really were our only two options (and they weren’t) I would have supported Cx. If it was just between those two and DIRECT, I’d have supported DIRECT. Even so I defended Cx for some time because I believed no one in government had the guts or the interest level to completely pull the plug. I was happily surprised to be mistaken on that count.

    I usually don’t make ‘think before you speak’ comments as I feel they are pointless ad hominem attacks. But I will say ‘think before you snark.’ If you’re going to lash out with emotional and sophomoric garbage, at least make some attempt to actually understand my point of view. But then I suppose logic is not a prerequisite for snark arguments.

  • mark valah

    Six months ago, the US still had the capability to go to the Moon if enough Money was poured into the objective. For people unfamiliar with the industry, loosing the capability of making SSME’s and SRB’s, the capability of assempling these systems and organize and manage a mission is just comentary. In Congress, I was reading recently, there are more than 50 lawyers and 1 (one) engineer. The administration’s ability to understand the complexity of these capabilities is uncertain to me. Bottom line is that in another six months like this, the true capability to go to the Moon will be lost for generations. As for the true will to go to the Moon, that was probably lost a long time ago. And going to Mars any time soon? Good joke.

  • Doc Small

    I’m aware there were alternatives, both stated and unstated, including a program akin to the FY 2011 proposal. Some of those plans were good ones. But none of those were presented as real alternatives at the time.

    Delude yourself much?

    There certainly were. NO CONSTELLATION was the most viable alternative of all of them, and that call was already made in early October of 2005.

    The Direct folks were very late party crashers to the anti-Constellation party. Their fundamental problem is that they aren’t even anti-Constellation, and that’s why they have been mostly ignored for the last four years.

    It seemed like a ‘lesser of two evils’ solution in my book.

    Your portfolio only contains country and western music, apparently.

    You have BOTH KINDS! Welcome to flatland, flatlander.

    DIRECT was the only alternative that received any real press outside the confines of the Space blogosphere.

    And everybody who is anybody gets their critical decision making information from the main stream press.

    Snark off.

    If you’re going to lash out with emotional and sophomoric garbage, at least make some attempt to actually understand my point of view.

    Since your point of view is obsolete, why bother?

    SRBs are so 20th century.

  • “For people unfamiliar with the industry, loosing the capability of making SSME’s and SRB’s, the capability of assempling these systems and organize and manage a mission is just comentary.”

    You are aware that the one and only human program that has actually gone to the moon didn’t use SSME’s or SRB’s, right? It wasn’t solid-fueled at all. In fact, the day we switched from liquid-fueled Apollo to solid fueled STS was the beginning of our long exile to LEO. Solid is perhaps cheaper, but it is not necessarily better, and it is certainly not the only option. Again, it’s a false choice.

    And I’m tired of the ‘losing valuable knowledge’ argument. Yes, we will lose some knowledge and capability in some areas (and gain in others), but it’s not like SRB’s are a grand mystery that, once forgotten, will be lost to the sands of time, not to be recovered for half a century. I’d say 5 years tops and we’d regain that knowledge, particularly since SRB’s aren’t the only solid in production.

  • “And everybody who is anybody gets their critical decision making information from the main stream press.”

    You just reiterated my exact point. I can’t see how you fail to understand that the problem was PRECISELY that the people who were making the decisions were operating off of a short list of bad options and ignoring everything else. For god’s sake, we agree!

    I said explicitly and unambiguously, that Cx vs DIRECT vs STS was a false choice. I literally spelled it out for you. Over half of my last post was devoted to exactly that.

    At this point I can only assume that your only point is to insult me since clearly you have no intention of reading more than perhaps one cherry-picked line and taking it completely out of context. Have fun with that.

  • Coastal Ron

    mark valah wrote @ June 11th, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    Six months ago, the US still had the capability to go to the Moon if enough Money was poured into the objective.

    Dorothy, you’ve always been able to go back to the Moon. All you had to do was open your purse and let the money fly out. Go ahead, open your purse and let the unused money fly out and send you to the Moon… ;-)

    Hopefully you got the Wizard of Oz reference there. Since the end of the Apollo program, we’ve always had the ability to go back to the Moon. All that was missing was enough Desire + Money. There’s always been some of both, but not enough. Enough of both are still lacking, but we don’t lack the technology.

    For people unfamiliar with the industry, loosing the capability of making SSME’s and SRB’s, the capability of assempling these systems and organize and manage a mission is just comentary.

    We’re not “losing” the capability of making SSME’s or SRB’s, we’re just not making them anymore. SSME’s are only used on the Shuttle, and are made by Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne. SSME’s are not their only product, so the company continues with other products. SRB’s are still manufactured for a variety of products, both commercial and military, and the only thing we’re stopping is dedicated 12ft dia. Shuttle versions. The DOD has already identified that their overall costs may go up, but not dramatically.

    Unless we were going to build Ares V or Direct, we don’t need either SSME’s or Shuttle variant SRB’s.

  • Atkins

    The Administration has redirected NASA (whether legally or not) and there’s no turning back. It would take years to recover the Constellation program to the state it was it this February, when BO made his announcement. The announcement was made without consulting with any of the NASA centers, and without having a transition plan in place – which indicates either inept leadership, or blatant disregard for people and the mission of NASA. Now NASA is faced with losing a tremendous knowledge base to carry forward any new program. The highest caliber people, leaders, and young/fresh minds will find new jobs. The very valuable “gray hairs” will retire. And many of the staff face unemployment in a recession.

    This is no way to run a railroad – much less NASA. Given the other debacles of this administration, there’s little hope for change in “leadership style”. Thus it is incumbent on Congress to fill the leadership gap and help mitigate the gap between Cx and the next program – obviously not an ideal situation.

  • mark valah

    @Coastal Ron, @aremisasling

    Your commentaries are correct, but are just that, commentaries. Once you’ve dissassembled a certain infrastructure, it takes more expenses to re-create it. More important: it takes more will, or better said a convergenge of wills and insterests to make the significant committment. Once the current infrastucture will be dismantled – as it seems to be happening – the fiscal crisis, other more pressing interests and the general public apathy will preclude the recreation of a Moon reaching capability. The only drivers for that would be either a Cold War style threatening (real or perceived) conjecture, or the promise of a huge profit in going there. I don’t see any of them. And the purse is empty (or filled with collateralized debt obligations). Dorothy stays home.

  • indicates either inept leadership, or blatant disregard for people and the mission of NASA.

    “The mission of NASA” is not JUST to be a jobs program, but mainly to give our nation a PRACTICAL way of doing EXTENSIVE manned and unmanned space exploration using commercial vehicles where-ever possible (see the mission statement issued when NASA was created in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Act of 1958). Under that description of “the mission”, I can give you a one word definition of “blatant disregard for NASA’s mission”: Constellation.

  • Coastal Ron

    Atkins wrote @ June 11th, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    It would take years to recover the Constellation program to the state it was it this February, when BO made his announcement.

    And why would we? More on this below…

    The announcement was made without consulting with any of the NASA centers, and without having a transition plan in place

    Last I looked, I didn’t vote for anyone at a NASA center to make policy decisions. They ultimately work for the NASA Administrator, and he works for the President. The President made a decision that was based, in part, by the work he commissioned for the Augustine Commission. That was a public forum, and the information they solicited and discussed was public also. All you had to do was look at their suggested options, and you could see that Constellation was not likely to continue intact.

    Regarding having a transition plan in place, they had the goal, but the details take a while to be done in a thoughtful way. Also, Congress needs details in order to do their job, and the level of detail needed takes months of work. A $100B program does not shut down quickly, and Bolden is obligated to salvage as much as possible, which in itself takes a lot of time. By comparison, Constellation still didn’t have a firm set of plans in place, and it has been around for 4 years.

    Your complaint is the decision (or the party making it) – everything else is your excuse for why it was a “bad decision”.

    Now NASA is faced with losing a tremendous knowledge base to carry forward any new program.

    If the new plan is funded, Bolden already stated (and someone did a report validating) that the job impact would be negligible, or even have more jobs with the $6B in new funding.

    The highest caliber people, leaders, and young/fresh minds will find new jobs.

    Nothing new here. In fact, I would imagine some will end up at SpaceX or one of the other commercial companies that are winning NASA contracts. NASA is not a jobs program – are you a socialist or a capitalist?

  • Vladislaw

    Atkins wrote:

    “The Administration has redirected NASA (whether legally or not)”

    What has NASA did that was illegal? Other than the lawsuit they are currently defending against over small business. Any company that bids for NASA is liable for any close out costs. A business has two choices depending on how much risk they want to assume and how confident they are the program will continue. They can save or spend the close out costs. These companies CHOSE to spend the close out cost money INSTEAD of saving it. They put themselves into this postition, the current Administration didn’t.

    “The announcement was made without consulting with any of the NASA centers, and without having a transition plan in place – which indicates either inept leadership, or blatant disregard for people and the mission of NASA. “

    And how many of these centers would have jumped aboard the President’s redirection back to the VSE? About 2 out of 10 would have favored the changes. If the executive branch is going to shake up an agency, they NEVER give an advanced warning so that road blocks can be set up and congress pork barrelers will start in with the negatives to protect their pork. This was the ONLY way it could have been rolled out.

    “Now NASA is faced with losing a tremendous knowledge base to carry forward any new program.”

    What knowledge base are they about to lose? How to refurbish a 30 year old shuttle? How to design a space craft? What exactly is NASA losing that is absolutely vital to the nation?

  • Coastal Ron

    mark valah wrote @ June 11th, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    Once you’ve dissassembled a certain infrastructure, it takes more expenses to re-create it.

    Constellation was disassembling the Shuttle infrastructure, and Bush/Griffin cancelled the Shuttle, so who are you blaming here?

    Are you advocating the idea that we should stop the Constellation program, and turn the Shuttle program back on? For what goal?

    Once the current infrastucture will be dismantled – as it seems to be happening – the fiscal crisis, other more pressing interests and the general public apathy will preclude the recreation of a Moon reaching capability.

    You need to do better research. The only things being dismantled are because of the Constellation program, and since the spending on Constellation is being curtailed, the current administration is actually preserving the Shuttle facilities. But I’m not sure what program you’re talking about anyways, as you don’t seem to understand what the “infrastructure” that exists does.

    In regards to the Moon, let me say this in a different way. There is more than one way to go to the Moon, and Constellation was one way. Apollo was one way. And ULA has proposed a way to do it using current launchers & technology, and go to the Moon cheaper and quicker. The current plan has a lot of elements of the ULA proposal, both of which provide a system of capabilities that provide access to many places, not just the Moon.

    Constellation = Making A Few Trips To The Moon (anything more would need more funding), and then the “program” ended. Nothing else unless Congress decided to fund a new “program”.

    The New Plan = Keeping the ISS, and building the technology to go anywhere in our Earth-Moon system. If you want to land on the Moon, or an NEO, you just have to fund the technology for the last part of the journey, not the entire journey. That’s why it’s called the flexible plan.

    One could argue with the goals, and whether the Moon is best next place to go, but Constellation was not the best way to get back to the Moon (or do anything), and that’s why it was cancelled.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Atkins wrote @ June 11th, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    The Administration has redirected NASA (whether legally or not) and there’s no turning back. It would take years to recover the Constellation program to the state it was it this February, when BO made his announcement. The announcement was made without consulting with any of the NASA centers, and without having a transition plan in place –…

    that is enormously unfair or uninformed.

    Constellation was “no where” when BO made his annoncement…unless you figured somehow it was going to be a LOT MORE MONEY…and then it was simply on a road to continue not to really produce much flight hardware.

    Who cares about the NASA centers? most of them are managed ineptly anyway.

    Let me ask you this.

    how do you explain Musk and SpaceX being able to do what they have done for the money that they have done it…and 10 billion spent on Ares/Constellation with what is has done?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    “Despite the outrage, there is a growing sense among key staff members of several leading space backers on Capitol Hill, that these may well be the dying gasps of a doomed program, and that Congress and the White House are going to have to find a compromise on human spaceflight that does not include the Ares rockets.”

    my favorite part of the Orlando thing..”Doomed”

    LOL

    (remain Calm Mark Whittington…its just another Bush turd being flushed…)

    Robert G. Oler

  • mark valah

    @Coastal Ron

    I don’t argue for Constellation, at least not in its current (and initial) configuration. A series of articles in the New Scientist analyzed very well the failing approach and successive compromises taken by the Griffin team. Nevertheless, the industry was expecting a reformulation of the plan not an outright cancellation.

    I am not arguing for the Shuttle either, this program is coming to its natural end.

    What I’m saying it’s been said over and over: the current policy is for going back to the drawing board with a vague timeline, while the politcal battle (recently upp-ed with legal weapons) dismantles the network of crews who know how to assemble a complex series of missions (both mfg -wise, hardware-wise and management-wise). There is a huge loss of momentum and expertise. I experienced this before, take it as a small scale study: I lost a small team of 6 people, dismantled after a budget crunch, and then I was asked to perform the job I used to do with those 6, after less than 3 years. I was given 5-8 people. Impossible to do, I had no time to train them, they didn’t have the knowledge, nor were they motivated enough to assimilate it, the task was cancelled.

    The hopes are placed in the commercial. “Commercial” seems to be synonym with “magic”. Let me repeat what I stated many times: there is no commercial profit in human space exploration. It’s still the government dime. Once Space X for example gets on the government dime, and if the government begins driving their designs, their costs with line up with the costs of contractors currently on the government dime.

    Who said this: an elephant is a mouse designed per government specification.

    Gotta go do some work.

  • John Malkin

    One way for congress to save Constellation and stop NASA form shutting it down would be to pass an appropriations bill to fund Constellation. Of course that is easier said than done since Congress can’t decide either so they will ask NASA to do everything with less money as always. They are almost as useless as the Illinois Congress.

    We need to develop three things for any human exploration. Nuclear power like on submarines, in space fueling and living off the land which include recycling. I don’t think we should get rid of the concept of Constellation just fix it. I think if the President would have presented it in this way, he would gotten a lot less push back about the “Plan”. The thing he couldn’t avoid was loss of jobs due to the Shuttle shutting down which wasn’t his decision.

    To keep Constellation, IIS and Shuttle will be an increase of at least 3.5 billion over the president’s budget if we gut COTS crew. Of course Congress could under fund Constellation than it would be cheaper.

  • There is a huge loss of momentum and expertise.

    When the momentum is in a bad direction, that’s a good thing.

    “Commercial” seems to be synonym with “magic”. Let me repeat what I stated many times: there is no commercial profit in human space exploration. It’s still the government dime. Once Space X for example gets on the government dime, and if the government begins driving their designs, their costs with line up with the costs of contractors currently on the government dime.

    Nonsense doesn’t become sense from repetition.

    I’d say you’re the one engaging in magical thinking now. Elon just stated that he can demonstrate the ability to deliver crew for a billion dollars, including the launch escape system, and three test flights (on-pad abort, high-altitude abort, and demo test flight to and from ISS). How in the world would he be able to spend ten times as much? He doesn’t have the infrastructure to spend that kind of money.

  • mark valah

    Rand, first I am waiting to see that 1 billion being awarded to Elon (that’d be good progress) and then see what happens.

    I’d put my dime on the Iridium contract Elon seems to be getting, that is real commercial profit.

    Speaking of which: please explain to me the origin of commercial profit for human space exploration.

  • “Who said this: an elephant is a mouse designed per government specification.”

    It’s from Robert Heinlein’s Excerpts from the Notebooks of Lazarus Long”. And it is irrelevant to this issue unless you are talking about Constellation.

    Let me repeat what I stated many times: there is no commercial profit in human space exploration.
    Maybe not, but there is in space EXPLOITATION. That’s what Bigelow is counting on, so ISS will NOT be the only place where SpaceX and ULA can make money on human passengers to LEO.

  • “One way for congress to save Constellation and stop NASA form shutting it down would be to pass an appropriations bill to fund Constellation.”

    That had been posed by space state congresspeople numerous times since VSE and subsequently Cx began, including one dubbed the ‘Mikulski miracle.’ None of them panned out. And I’m not optimistic any future attempts will. In fact, the one piece of FY 2011 that I think is likely to be canned with little congressional debate is the extra money set to go to commercial companies. And therein lies the reason why Constellation will never be ‘fixed’ to an operational degree. NASA will never get extra money. Perhaps a few hundred million year on year. But $3.5 billion per year? That will never happen. Since Apollo was cancelled for cost reasons that hasn’t happened.

  • “What I’m saying it’s been said over and over: the current policy is for going back to the drawing board with a vague timeline, while the politcal battle (recently upp-ed with legal weapons) dismantles the network of crews who know how to assemble a complex series of missions (both mfg -wise, hardware-wise and management-wise).”

    And what we’ve been saying, over and over again is that that is incorrect. The current timeline is no more vague than VSE. It was for the first few months, but VSE was vague for the first year and a half. And what concrete dates were in there (LEO by 2012-2013, Lunar landing by 2015, Mars by 2025-2030) slipped so far into the future that the Mars dates became completely immaterial and the Lunar dates were quickly headed that direction. There’s this funny idea that because we had a number, the former program was somehow on a predestined track. But that number changed every year all the while budgets dropped, complete components of the Cx program were cancelled, and once concrete plans and dates became so much paperwork.

    As for maufacturing, we’re keeping much of what we had. SRB’s are about the only thing disappearing, but I think the opinion around here and in NASA for how necessary SRB’s are to getting to the moon is pretty much split down the middle. Again, the one and only program where men put boots on the moon, the rocket that got us there used precisely zero solid fuel.

    As for hardware, we’re losing almost nothing. We had a few test articles of Orion and we flew one test Ares I. The Michaud Ares V components have already been discussed either for additional STS missions or for use in the HLV that is to succeed it. And the Friction Stir Welding piece they just added to Michoud can be used for either the new HLV or for the rescue boat variety of Orion. I think the real loss will be the pad work that has been done at Kennedy. That will really be a sunk cost, and not a minor one. But I don’t think it’s significant enough to revive Cx to preserve.

    And management-wise, I think that’s assuming we’ve canned the whole beyond LEO program. We’ve done no such thing. You may be of the opinion that that is the case, but that’s opinion. And my opinion is that a program that has switched hardware multiple times, downgraded goals multiple times, and canned entire components along the way will not suffer to greatly from a change in direction. I’m not saying management has performed poorly across the boards, just that they have yet to work with a clear path forward, so this isn’t much of a change.

    We’re still aiming beyond LEO, we’re still planning to build an HLV, and we’ve actually re-added the scout missions, something that was quietly put to rest in the last plan. I don’t think the management situation has adjusted much in scope.

  • Vladislaw

    mark valah wrote:

    “The hopes are placed in the commercial. “Commercial” seems to be synonym with “magic”. Let me repeat what I stated many times: there is no commercial profit in human space exploration.”

    How is providing a service to provide human access to low earth orbit transformed into “exploration” in your mind? Where is commercial beating a drum to explore? They want to provide a fixed price to LEO for a lower price than NASA’s current operational costs.

    You can repeat it as many times as you want, just like can rant that there is no profit for commercial companies exploring the Ort cloud.

  • Rand, first I am waiting to see that 1 billion being awarded to Elon (that’d be good progress) and then see what happens.

    I assume that he’ll get in in phases, based on achieved milestones, as has all his money been to date. And he doesn’t say it will be a billion — he says it will be no more than that (i.e., it will probably be less).

    …please explain to me the origin of commercial profit for human space exploration.

    Profits made by delivering NASA (or other) astronauts to LEO, whence they can depart for other locations.

  • “Speaking of which: please explain to me the origin of commercial profit for human space exploration.”

    Well, Bigelow is a start. And Bigelow has stated that he has several interested ‘Sovereign Clients’, nations who are unable to have their own capabilities. There’s some issues there, but not insurmountable, especially for European nations or other allies, Japan, South Korea, India, etc. He has also explored non-governmental interest, though I’ve heard little of those results. I think the resounding support for suborbit, though, could be used as a model. Very little interest was expressed for manned suborbital access until SS2 debuted on the runways, then support and potential projects started coming out of the woodwork.

    DragonLab, which has been mentioned as potentially manned once it is available, is another component. The unmanned variants have three flights booked and interest has been expressed in the manned variety.

    And don’t forget tourism. While you may say it’s a joke, and I don’t totally disagree with that idea, Space Adventures had several paying clients, and they have more booked for when Soyuz becomes available again in 2012 or so. And they’re building a suborbital base with their cooperation on Lynx, so they could generate a more solid revenue stream while they wait for manned to come to fruition.

    None of these options are slam dunks, but they aren’t pie in the sky optimism either. There are serious clients with serious money looking at all of these options. And I think as manned Dragon, DreamChaser, the unnamed Blue Origen craft, and the Bigelow entrant start to push toward production models, I think you’ll see that market start to come together more, just as suborbital did. Honestly, I expect there will be at least a low-level commercial market for them before the first manned test-flights reach orbit. Enough to sustain 2 or more companies? I’m not as confident of that.

  • mark valah

    “Profits made by delivering NASA (or other) astronauts to LEO, whence they can depart for other locations.”

    This is not commercial. It’s a government paid job.

  • This is not commercial. It’s a government paid job.

    Nonsense. Are you saying that when astronauts fly on Continental from Houston to Florida, it’s not commercial?

  • mark valah

    @ Vladislaw wrote “How is providing a service to provide human access to low earth orbit transformed into “exploration” in your mind? Where is commercial beating a drum to explore? They want to provide a fixed price to LEO for a lower price than NASA’s current operational costs.”

    This is how manned flight is called generically, “exploration”. That’s what humans do in space, right now, other than fixing telescopes, they “explore”. If you have a problem with the word, use something else, it’s not important.

    And like I was explaining Rand, providing access to LEO at whatever price for the government, is just that, a government job. It’s not more “commercial” that it is for Soyuz.

    In my view, commercial is when coporation X needs access to space to make profit and pays corporation Y to obtain that access. Or better, corporation X1 and coporation X2 compete for a specific profit making activity in space and corporations Y1, Y2 and Y3 compete in providing space access for the corporations X1 and X2. And none if these enterprises is a government agency.

  • Michael Kent

    mark valah wrote:

    “Profits made by delivering NASA (or other) astronauts to LEO, whence they can depart for other locations.”

    This is not commercial. It’s a government paid job.

    It’s as commercial as Dominoes selling pizzas to the White House.

    Mike

  • Robert G. Oler

    mark valah wrote @ June 11th, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    “Profits made by delivering NASA (or other) astronauts to LEO, whence they can depart for other locations.”

    This is not commercial. It’s a government paid job.”

    that is an entertaining viewpoint.

    So KBR, Haliburton, Blackwater (or Xe) or etc etc are NOT private companies when they sale a product to the government? Or the private company that contracts out to the City of Houston to cut the grass on El Dorado BLVD in Clear Lake City is not a private company (thats odd since I am invested in it!)

    Someone mentioned government personnel riding on commercial airlines.

    And to think that Don Rumsfeld use to tell everyone who was being “served” by KBR and others that the services were “privatized”.

    I dont get your logic heree

    Robert G. Oler

  • mark valah

    Rand, Continental is is business of transporting passengers. Many paying customers which are not government. That’s what makes Continental “commercial”. It makes profit from its business, true profit, and it competes with other businesses doing the same for non-government passengers. The price of that transportation is not determined by the government but my a market. Etc. You get the point.

    The director of business development for the ULA has defined the difference between the traditionala NASA way and the so called “commercial”: i) traditional way: NASA pays for the development every step of the way, and breathes down the contractor designers’ neck 24-7 *driving* the designs (with significant cost consequences). ii) “commercial” way: NASA buys flights provided by a vehicle providing the service according to the flight specification, but developed by the supplier on his/her own dime, without any NASA participation.

  • Rand, Continental is in business of transporting passengers.

    As will be SpaceX.

  • In my view, commercial is when coporation X needs access to space to make profit and pays corporation Y to obtain that access.

    It doesn’t matter what your view is. When a company sells services to the government and others at a catalog price, it is a commercial company.

  • mark valah

    Rand you are being impolite. Besides, which “others” are you taking about for Sx? There is no “others” and that’s the point of discussion.

  • mark valah

    @aremisasling: I agree with your analysis: those are initiatives which can qualify as commercial, modest as they are. Time will tell.

  • “Besides, which “others” are you taking about for Sx?”

    Ah, evidently one of those Constellation huggers that know of space-related developments only if they come from certain parts of NASA, so I’ll give you a hint: Bigelow space stations, Dragon Labs for various companies and/or governments, etc. If you don’t know what these are, look them up. Expand your mental horizons beyond of Constellation.

  • Robert G. Oler

    mark valah wrote @ June 11th, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    Rand, Continental is is business of transporting passengers……

    and unlike you they dont give a darn about who is paying the money for the passengers. The breakout you have is goofy.

    I have a business that does Part 142 flight training. I dont care if the check comes from an individual buying a B737 type rating or an airline buying training seats for its crews or government agencies needing pilots trained. All I care about is that the check clears and DOT/FAA/TSA (mostly the later) say “the individuals are OK to train”

    Robert G. Oler

  • Rand you are being impolite.

    No, but you are being clueless.

  • The $2 billion a year ISS is a program that Obama wants to raise to $3 billion a year by 2014 should be terminated after 2015. Keeping it going is just workfare for Obama’s buddy Elon Musk at the tax payer’s expense. There’s no way were getting billions of dollars worth of science out of the ISS every year. No way!

    Time to move on!

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ June 12th, 2010 at 2:22 am

    that statement is just idle rhetoric or marks you as someone who simply doesnt understand things while I did not always agree with your post at least I considered them informed.

    no longer

    Robert G. Oler

  • Vladislaw

    mark valah wrote:

    “This is how manned flight is called generically, “exploration”. That’s what humans do in space, right now, other than fixing telescopes, they “explore”. If you have a problem with the word, use something else, it’s not important.”

    Manned space flight is known as manned space flight. Exploration is looking for something. Exploitation is utilizing what you found exploring.

    Human exploration of LEO has now moved to the human exploitation of LEO. Providing a service for access to LEO is not exploring anymore than a taxi cab. By saying using the word exploring it plays into the line that President Obama is killing exploration by utilizing commercial firms for access, they are apples and oranges.

  • Vladislaw wrote @ June 12th, 2010 at 11:47 am
    “Exploration is looking for something.”
    Whilst agreeing in principle, this is where the ISS ‘splashers’ fail to understand just how the ISS Expeditions can be Explorations. After all aren’t we just “going round in circles?”
    Some of the great Arctic and Antarctic Explorations weren’t about finding something. They were tests of survival, survival equipment and, obviously, political statements of the time.
    These ‘splashers’ fail to realise the real value of the ISS: primarily an orbital testbed to deliver the technologies for a third (fourth?) generation: “piloted complex.” This time one capable of operating outside of the magnetosphere! There are many other activities that an ISS ‘Base camp can support and lastly but not leastly the ISS remains an international symbol of cooperation that continues to confound the unilaterallist Vision of Record!

    Perhaps this is the real reason behind some of the political rhetoric. Grand Old American Exceptionalism cannot survive “Exploring Space as a species!” (To paraphrase Lori Garver.)

  • Vladislaw

    “Whilst agreeing in principle, this is where the ISS ’splashers’ fail to understand just how the ISS Expeditions can be Explorations. After all aren’t we just “going round in circles?” “

    I agree totally. The ISS is nothing more than an exploration hub. Exploration in human health, material science, and many more to long to list. Many have talked about how it is a waste of money and “no science” is conducted. I disagree. In my mind killing ISS (unless it can be replaced with a less expensive space based facility) is like telling high schools and colleges to stop teaching and doing science experiements because they have all been done before.

    Labs aboard the ISS will provide the “classrooms” for a whole new way of seeing our natural world. Each time a new group of astrotechs come on board and “blow bubbles” they are doing first time experiments just like a kid in school dropping the baking soda into the vineger for the first time.

    Although NASA may have made the facility more expensive than it had to the costs are now sunk so lets let it do what it is supposed to do. Train more people in a space lab and sooner or later we get the eureka moment where someone, doing a simple, repetitive, experiment has their moment and creates a new break though.

  • Francis Louis Charbonneau Jr

    Let us understand something here. The Obama Administration did a dastardly and brilliant though legal slight of hand to finish off Constellation. The logic dictates that even if the U.S. Congress desires to keep Constellation funded and defy the treachery and perfidy of this Administration and its imbelilic and perfidious NASA chief Charles Bolden, that the fact that the NASA chief has decided to enforce a 140 year old that is rarely used and rarely enforced, the layoffs shall commence forthwith. With the fact that Lockheed Space Systems in Colorado and in Huntsville at Marshall, along with ATK, Boeing, Jacobs Engineering, etc. the Administration is counting on the fact that once these engineers and project managers are laid off at these prime contractors, the supply chain of tier ones, tier twos, tier threes from Florida to Michigan, from Alabama to Utah shall also begin to let go of a percentage of employees associated with the project such as tooling companies in recession ravaged states of Indiana and Michigan. Once these employees are gone – and dismissed – they are gone. Bolden and Obama know this. And once they are gone, they won’t be back at their companies if ever. Without the expertise OF thes engineers, the program has just been assassinated and stabbed in the back. My compliments go out to the crafty and diligent lawyer who helped to research this law for this sorry excuse for a NASA chief. Now if the administration really wishes to enforce this law across the spectrum, then it must order Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Kuka Aerospace, etc. to start putting aside termination funds for the F-35 Lightning!!

    Now for the record, those who will disagree with my opinion who are attorneys, bully for you! You may quote the law and its enforceability but you are not taking into account the context of the enforcement of a RARELY enforced law with regard to NASA contracts. Our President, his Administration, and his imbecilic and perfidious and lying NASA chief are trying to shove their cheap, petty, bull…., political agenda down the throats of the Constellation Space Program engineers, the Lockheed Engineers, Boeing Engineers, I commend both of the instigators of this tragedy for their such expert, smart and sure of themselves tactical strike and their calculated attack on the work and employment of what will comprise 1000s of employees right down the supply chain.

    Those who support our Administration’s AUTHENTIC VISION FOR SPACE EXPLORATION, I hope that you have the guts to go and apologize to each and every one of the families during this situation who are going to begin losing their jobs. Sure stand on your soapbox and be counted and pontificate until you’re blue in the face, and tell those families that they deserved what is going to happen to them.

    This Administration and its imbelilic NASA chief has shown the most egregious examples of the following Nouns and Adjectives of the English Language which describe these jackasses: PERFIDY, TREACHERY, CONTEMPT, DISHONESTY, MALICE, COWARDICE, SCOUNDRELS, LIES, NON-INTELLIGENCE, NON-COMPASSION, NON COMPOS MENTIS, IDIOCY, DISHONOR, SCORN, TREACHERY, BACK-STABBING ACTIONS, INCOMPASSIONATE, ASSININE, UNCARING, UNCONCERNED, INDIFFERENT, LACKING SOUND JUDGMENT, ABSURD, UNCARING, NAUSEATING, SICKENING.

    And, most of all they believe in what they have done. But remember this is THE SAME ADMINISTRATION THAT BAILED OUT AIG INSURANCE WHO HAS STILL REWARDED ITS TOP EXECUTIVES WITH BONUSES. THIS IS THE SAME ADMINISTRATION WHO BAILED OUT WALL STREET IVY LEAGUE MBAS WHO CAUSED THE GREATEST FINANCIAL FALL IN OUR COUNTRY.

  • Mark Valah

    @ Robert Oler wrote: I have a business that does Part 142 flight training. I dont care if the check comes from an individual buying a B737 type rating or an airline buying training seats for its crews or government agencies needing pilots trained. All I care about is that the check clears and DOT/FAA/TSA (mostly the later) say “the individuals are OK to train”

    You’re just proving my point, Robert. If you were training only government employees you wouldn’t be a commercial business.

  • Mark Valah

    @ Rand Simberg wrote: No, but you are being clueless.

    Show your clues in responding on what “others” were you referring to.

  • Vladislaw

    “You’re just proving my point, Robert. If you were training only government employees you wouldn’t be a commercial business.”

    If other firms are competing against you for the government business and at any time a competitor can underbid you and take the work away you are a commercial business.

  • Artemus

    Whatever you call it, this experiment has already been tried and declared a failure by the military. It had various names: TSPR, management by requirements, acquisition reform, etc, and it was the initial contracting approach for EELV. They thought there would be high demand for EELVs from private customers. EELV was a technically successful program, but never came close to meeting its cost targets, because the commercial demand evaporated. No commercial customers means no cost-sharing means Uncle Sucker pays for everything, and you’re right back in cost-plus land where you started. And the (since discredited) projections of commercial EELV demand were far more credible than the current talk about commercial manned missions. We’ve seen this movie before and we know how it ends.

    Of course, when costs shot up, the military had no choice but to absorb unanticipated costs far more than the initial $1B or so put up by LM and Boeing. It also had to entangle itself in the creation of ULA. When NASA gets the final bill for a “commercially procured” launcher, it’s just going to cancel its missions. Which many believe will happen anyway, as the electorate becomes infected with people who would rather fly a pretend spaceship on a computer than see a real one.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark Valah wrote @ June 13th, 2010 at 1:02 am

    You’re just proving my point, Robert. If you were training only government employees you wouldn’t be a commercial business….

    really?

    When I started off my first two large contracts were US or foreign governments. Until then we were doing “one ofs” which was keeping us afloat but just barely.

    To get both contracts we had to compete against four other “type rating” companies.

    We had to come up with the absolute lowest bid possible and give the highest services possible. It was a “buyers market”.

    how is that not commercial?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Land-Locked Reginald

    Artemus wrote @ June 13th, 2010 at 11:01 am

    I agree that there have been many attempts to reign in costs on government programs, and some have failed. Having worked for a number of large government contractors, I’m familiar with some of the strategies that can be used – only the legal ones, of course… ;-)

    One of the secrets to holding down costs is to have clear deliverables, and clearly defined goals on how to meet them. The simpler, the better.

    COTS/CRS has very few deliverables, and clearly states the conditions under which they will be paid for. If future contracts we’re defined as “$$ paid for delivery of crew”, and the crew does not make it to the desired point, then that is easy to understand that payment would not be made.

    Some of the problems in the past have been when too many details are part of the requirements, and then the government does “feature creep”, and continues to make changes. Every time a requirement is changed, a change order is made, and somehow they try and estimate the change in costs. Sometimes this is possible, and sometimes it’s a SWAG. After awhile, the contract becomes muddled, and everyone thinks they understand it, but the goals become less clear.

    Commercial products and services, where listed on a GSA Schedule or publicly by the contractor, offer the easiest way to manage cost transparency.

    ULA is almost there with their public offer to provide Delta IV Heavy for $300M/launch, and Atlas V for $130M/launch. SpaceX publishes their prices, and you can get a Falcon 9 for $51.5M, and Elon has stated that he plans to offer crew services for $20M/seat.

  • Artemus

    Land-Locked Reginald wrote @ June 13th, 2010 at 5:15 pm: COTS/CRS has very few deliverables, and clearly states the conditions under which they will be paid for. If future contracts we’re defined as “$$ paid for delivery of crew”, and the crew does not make it to the desired point, then that is easy to understand that payment would not be made.

    Those simple “perform or you don’t get paid” conditions are what many people have in mind when they talk about commercial-style contracting. But they have never been tried for high-value military or human payloads, and would be considerably riskier than even the original EELV launch services contract, which put LM and Boeing on a fast track to the poorhouse. Based on recent history, I think the contractors will want a lot more than the prices you quoted when they start thinking about liability for damaging/destroying NASA assets, damages for program delays, etc. And if NASA has to indemnify the contractors against all that stuff, they’ll want to exercise a lot more technical oversight than the contractors will tolerate for the money they’re getting. I have to believe that if there were a way around these fundamental problems, EELV would have worked as originally planned.

  • @ Marcel F Williams
    “Keeping it going is just workfare for Obama’s buddy Elon Musk at the tax payer’s expense.”

    Given that Musk has no contracts for ISS delivery beyond 2015, that’s fairly silly. And OSC also has a contract. Is that Obama favoritism as well? How about ULA, Sierra Nevada, Bigelow, etc that received money to develop their crewed capabilities to support ISS delivery? Are they, too, just getting favors from the government? Are you cynically opposed to any commercial cargo, or just SpaceX because Obama decided to visit the launch pad? And where’s your evidence, aside from one half-hour visit to indicate that Musk is somehow best buddies with Obama?

    (I say this not actually knowing your opinion on the matter) So what, then, do you call the Cx program? An open-ended contract with no scheduled deliverables (at least no schedule they’ve kept), and no budget ceiling is what, exactly? Without ISS, it literally has nowhere to go for as much as a decade.

    ” EELV was a technically successful program, but never came close to meeting its cost targets, because the commercial demand evaporated.”

    So why is it that we hold such a small share of the launch market as one of the two big space powers if ‘the demand evaporated.’ I’ve heard the argument before and never given it much thought. I understand that price isn’t the only factor, but it seems to me that ULA is doing a poor job of capitalizing on what demand there is. It just seems to me that the results suggest a failure in more than demand.

    And then there’s the scientists, many who work for NASA, who are climbing all over themselves by some recent reports to fly on the cheaper Falcon 9, including programs that would never fly on more expensive launchers. This is work that doesn’t exist without lower cost providers. Perhaps it’s still not enough to keep the 90’s EELV model alive, but it seems there is at least some missed opportunity here.

  • So why is it that we hold such a small share of the launch market as one of the two big space powers if ‘the demand evaporated.’ I’ve heard the argument before and never given it much thought.

    You can thank ITAR for a lot of it. Government-subsidized competition from Europe and Russia for the rest.

  • byeman

    “But they have never been tried for high-value military or human payloads”

    Incorrect, look at the NASA Launch Service Contract. ULA, OSC and Spacex provide NASA a catalog of FFP launch services for each year. At those, prices, NASA pays for insight (not oversight) into the contractors processes. Various types of these contracts have been in place since the early 90’s.

  • […] Congress reacts to NASA Constellation announcement – Space Politics […]

  • Artemus

    Rand Simberg wrote @ June 14th, 2010 at 10:41 am

    You can thank ITAR for a lot of it. Government-subsidized competition from Europe and Russia for the rest.

    Both of those issues were already known when the EELVs were initially priced. Much more important was that the actual demand for launch services worldwide never came close to the projections on which initial EELV pricing was based. The Decatur plant was sized for 40 EELV boosters a year (heavy counts as three). Some years that has been an order of magnitude excess capacity. It is a game that has been played and lost before. Remember the 60 missions a year the shuttle was supposed to fly? Again, an order of magnitude too high. I hope SpaceX can turn a profit selling a quarter or fewer vehicles than current projections show, because that is where demand usually ends up.

    You can’t build a cheap rocket unless you sell a whole lot of them, and you can’t sell a whole lot of them unless they are cheap. Have we finally found a way to break out of that Catch-22? I have my doubts.

    byeman wrote @ June 14th, 2010 at 10:46 am

    Incorrect, look at the NASA Launch Service Contract. ULA, OSC and Spacex provide NASA a catalog of FFP launch services for each year. At those, prices, NASA pays for insight (not oversight) into the contractors processes.

    LSP doesn’t cover human spaceflight.

  • manindisbelief

    @Oler

    “how do you explain Musk and SpaceX being able to do what they have done for the money that they have done it…and 10 billion spent on Ares/Constellation with what is has done?”

    …by using technology already developed by NASA. SpaceX did not start from scratch by any means; and by using yesterdays technology. So, add to their cost the R&D that went before them and compare again.

  • common sense

    @ manindisbelief wrote @ June 14th, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    Ridiculous statement. The correct comparison would be what NASA would cost today for the same vehicle SpaceX is providing. If you want to normalize cost.

  • Paul D.

    > …by using technology already developed by NASA. SpaceX did not start from scratch by any means; and by using yesterdays technology. So, add to their cost the R&D that went before them and compare again.

    Everyone uses technologies previously developed by others. SpaceX didn’t start by reinventing stone tools and working up from there.

    And, what was stopping NASA from also using technology previously developed by NASA and achieving the same cost savings? Why was the incremental cost of Cx so enormous? The answer is bad management, broken culture, and a fundamental blindness to delivering actual value for the money.

  • common sense

    @ Paul D. wrote @ June 14th, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    “And, what was stopping NASA from also using technology previously developed by NASA and achieving the same cost savings? ”

    Believe it or not it always was the intent and direction on Constellation to do exactly that. Pretty sad.

    Oh well…

  • R7

    brobof said:

    These ’splashers’ fail to realise the real value of the ISS: primarily an orbital testbed to deliver the technologies for a third (fourth?) generation: “piloted complex.” This time one capable of operating outside of the magnetosphere! There are many other activities that an ISS ‘Base camp can support and lastly but not leastly the ISS remains an international symbol of cooperation that continues to confound the unilaterallist Vision of Record!

    I agree. The greatest value of “orbital piloted platforms” like the ISS and Bigelow modules is that they can be used as testbeds for future manned nuclear powered plasma rocket propelled interplanetary spaceships.

  • GuessWho

    “You can thank ITAR for a lot of it. Government-subsidized competition from Europe and Russia for the rest.”

    In part correct, especially the subsidizing of foreign launchers by their respective Govt’s. You also need to look at the requirements DoD imposed as part of their “assured access to space” policy as these drove reliability and flexibility costs. Also, as the primary EELV customer, they hold the standing option of bumping any commercial satellite launch for a USG asset. This makes it difficult to sell an EELV commercially as those users have relatively small launch windows (a few months) given how they schedule replacements and plan their capital expenditures and thus don’t appreciate repeated launch slips.

  • GuessWho

    “how do you explain Musk and SpaceX being able to do what they have done for the money that they have done it…and 10 billion spent on Ares/Constellation with what is has done?”

    Two main explanations:

    1. Ares/Constellation has significantly different mission requirements than SpaceX including safety. Different missions, different requirements, different solutions to meet those requirements. You can argue whether the requirements were good or bad, (haven’t seen much of that on this forum) and then whether the derived architecture was the correct one for those requirements (lots of arm-chair engineers here doing that with no idea about the former).

    2. Program execution and management decision making. NASA as an organization failed this one miserably. Example: The Orion PDR generated >4500 RIDS from >500 NASA oversight reviewers who attended. That is absolutely insane. Both should have been an order of magnitude lower but NASA Management couldn’t control the program. Lockheed had to spend engineers time (and money) dispositioning each and every RID. How many reviewers do you think ELON had at his Falcon 9 or Dragon PDR? As for the selection of the ARES I design, enough said …

  • manindisbelief

    NASA typically performs the R&D with tax-payers money – private business won’t because there generally is no profit in that. I do not have issues with that. Current commercial launch vehicles are spin-offs from NASA research. That is a benefit from the taxpayer’ investment.

    What I have an issue with is: cancelling the manned launch capability prior to it being commercially implimented. Granted, Constellation/Ares have serious issues, but fix it, don’t trash the whole program until you have something in its place. Lets do research for new and cheaper, faster, safer technology, but let us not trash what we already have – impliment a parallel R&D program. Additional point: It is the programatic process that needs to be streamlined – it currently is too beaurocratic.

Leave a Reply to Bennett 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>