In a press conference yesterday, Huntsville mayor Tommy Battle made it clear he was not happy about the latest effort to cut back work on Constellation this fiscal year, let alone plans to cancel most of the program, given the impact it will have on his city. “It’s not a time to tell our citizens who have been the leaders in space technology and leading our country in manned space flight that they are out of a job and getting pink slips,” he said, as quoted by local TV station WAFF. “It seems that NASA has ignored the spirit of the law. The administrations course could be the long slow death of NASA. Congress has to step in and act at this time,” he added, according to WAAY-TV. Battle said he’s written letters both to President Obama and NASA Marshall director Robert Lightfoot; on in letter he asks Lightfoot to “stop any and all public announcements regarding potential job terminations or contract changes until his office and the Alabama Congressional Delegation can be appropriately briefed on the steps to be taken.”
NASA administrator Charles Bolden, though, has a different perspective on Constellation. In an interview with Patt Morrison on Southern California Public Radio last Friday, he said that Constellation was in effect too limiting, since it had become a Moon-only program. “Constellation was not about more human exploration,” Bolden said. He noted that when President Bush unveiled the Vision for Space Exploration in 2004, it “was almost identical to what President Obama is advocating now, but because the administration chose not to fund the program fully, then the destinations withdrew and it became the Moon.” He added, “If you look at the Constellation program today, the program of record, it is a lunar program. President Obama’s program is a deep space exploration program that will probably involve more flights for humans than we would have done under Constellation.”
He reiterated late in the interview that the “ultimate goal” for human exploration is Mars, but added a cautionary note. “Humans will get to Mars, we will definitely be—unless the nation gives up,” he said. “I have to caveat it. The nation could give up on it. The Congress could say, ‘I don’t care what President Obama says, we’re not going to Mars. We’re going to go back to the Moon and we’re going to stay there.’ That is a decision we could make. I think it would be an unwise decision.”
9 minutes 25 seconds, Bolden is crying again.
Even on radio….
The Congress could say, ‘I don’t care what President Obama says, we’re not going to Mars. We’re going to go back to the Moon and we’re going to stay there.’
That could very well happen since the goal was placed out to the 2029-2030ish time frame for just Mars orbital missions. Flexible Path seems to be hard for people to understand, even though the concept is cheaper because of no landers being developed by the Gov’t.
Let’s say folks prefer the Moon ( not just some of us space-geeks ), the tele-operated robot concept seems like the ticket to grab the attention of the younger generation Google-Earth/Moon/Mars crowd to get them involved.
Especially if Congress-critters somehow get the expensive/pork-rated,1990s retro-NLS concept/reduced funding for commercial plan pushed through.
I don’t see that happening though, too many regular folks like the commercial space companies supplying LEO concept.
Interesting that President Obama used the man on the moon analogy in peddling his weird dystopian views on energy in last nights address. Hypocritical considering he was so flippant in dismissing the moon as a goal in last months KSC address. It doesn’t matter what Bolden thinks about Constellation. The Obamaspace rollout was such a disaster that he abdicated NASA planning to Mikulski’s committee. They will tell him what to think. What is next for Constellation? Go at throttle up!
amightywind,
Congress hasn’t funded the POR to the level it requires up until now. Why are you suddenly so optimistic that will change? Did you see the letter Nelson sent to Mikulski and her response? She called the current situation the “stagnant quo.”
NASA administrator Charles Bolden states that “President Obama’s program is a deep space exploration program that will probably involve more flights for humans than we would have done under Constellation.†Well, President Obama will not be President in 2015 when his manned space mission is supposed to occur. Since we have unmanned missions to asteroids now why can’t we modify that type of missions to have a manned mission now? .
NASA administrator Charles Bolden states that the Bush Administration chose not to fund the program fully, Yes, that is true, but is the Obama Administration currently funding the space program adequately, will it fund it adequately in the future, and will future Administrations? And yes, I know there are no guarantees in or for the future. There is just the present. To a great extent, funding is not the issue. A real issue is a well thought out plan added to real determination and drive.
We should have an aggressive human space plan using current technology with new technology being developed as we progress in space beyond the Earth orbit. The Obama plan, however, apparently is only interested in developing new technology in hope that this technology might be useful in the future.
“..Congress has to step in and act at this time…â€
They would have to act very quickly. I know it’s being talked about. Not sure exactly what the plan is or will they follow through…
http://nasaengineer.com/?p=302
Bolden’s statement about “giving up” on Mars is pretty weird considering that he has given up on the Moon. Mind, given the choice between a lunar settlement that would make deep space exploration cheaper and more sustainable and a one shot Apollo on Crack mission to Mars, I know which one is the wiser choice.
GeeSpace wrote:
“Well, President Obama will not be President in 2015 when his manned space mission is supposed to occur. Since we have unmanned missions to asteroids now why can’t we modify that type of missions to have a manned mission now?”
What manned mission is planned for 2015, other than commercial launches to the ISS?
We do not have the infrastructure in place to do a human launch to an asteroid. That is why the President restructured NASA so we would be on that track with technology demonstrations to increase the TRL of the tools we will need to attempt those missions.
“We should have an aggressive human space plan using current technology with new technology being developed as we progress in space beyond the Earth orbit.”
And how do you propose to fund both? For the last 2-3 DECADES technology has been on the back burner to fund the shuttle and ISS. Griffin continued that policy by proposing a system that basically stripped technology R&D spending.
We are currently on a track that will FULLY fund the technology research and give NASA the tools it needs to move towards human exploration of the inner solar system.
GeeSpace – just to add to what Vlad said – how do you know Obama won’t be president? He could win a 2nd term, and be in until 2016
“We are currently on a track that will FULLY fund the technology research and give NASA the tools it needs to move towards human exploration of the inner solar system.”
Really going out on a limb here, comrade. A thrilling vision.
abreakingwind – you are really channeling your inner Glenn Beck. Do you get all your marching orders from him?
What’s wrong with Glenn Beck? The man is a prophet.
And we thank you for coming ladies and gentlemen, you’ve been a great audience – please don’t forget to tip your waitress
The mayor of Huntsville doesn’t give a damn about the American taxpayer or the future of the nation’s space program. All he cares about is keeping jobs in his town so he can keep his job.
Which gets back to the core problem … For 40 years, NASA hasn’t been about exploration, it’s a government jobs program.
It’s really a quite typical political counter-attack. Mis-characterise your opponents’ arguments and then attack those instead of their real position. This way you hope to tie them up with debating a whole different issue. In this case, he seems to be trying to get his opponents arguing over Moon or Mars when the argument should be sooner or (very, very) later.
I do hope that President Obama has a nice safe safe Congressional seat or good-paying DNC job lined up for Bolden. He has been a good foot-soldier and such loyalty should be rewarded.
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ June 16th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Which gets back to the core problem … For 40 years, NASA hasn’t been about exploration, it’s a government jobs program.
Totally agree with you on this, that is the plain truth as painful it can be..
Bolden said that Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration “was almost identical to what President Obama is advocating now, but because the administration chose not to fund the program fully, then the destinations withdrew and it became the Moon.â€
So then why not redirect Cx, and fund it fully – instead of cancel? What a debacle!
Atkins – Because there isn’t the money available for the doubling of NASA budget. And there isn’t the political willpower for it.
We aren’t going to get the budgets we had during Apollo
Vladislaw and Ferris Valyn
What I meant to type was 2025 nit 2015
Repeat
Vladislaw and Ferris Valyn
What I meant to type was 2025 not 2015
Constellation was becoming “The Beast that Ate NASA”. While I think the Augustine Committee was exaggerating both cost and time frame, it was becoming clear that both were getting out of hand.
Obama’s “plan” basically punts BEO human space exploration. While important and needed, R&D and demonstrators are hardly a plan to expand human presence beyond earth orbit.
The latest letter from Senator Nelson seems to me, absent any more details, to be SOJ, “Save Our Jobs”.
So I ask you…
A: Should HSF be expanded beyond Earth orbit? (Why or why not.)
B: What should NASA be doing with a budget of approx. $19 to 20 billion a year. Explain your “plan” a little.
given the choice between a lunar settlement that would make deep space exploration cheaper and more sustainable and a one shot Apollo on Crack mission to Mars, I know which one is the wiser choice.
Sadly for Mark, that isn’t the choice. The choice is an outrageously expensive Apollo on Steroids, or affordably opening up the solar system to human exploration.
This is a politically brilliant quote:
By seeking to rev up the “Moon versus Mars” feuding Bolden distracts attention from the ongoing divisions between RLV advocates and ISRU advocates. Unfortunately (at least IMHO) the lunar development needed to extract lunar ISRU rocket fuel is part of what is needed to make genuine cheap LEO access feasible.
In any event, Bolden’s quote makes it very clear that the VSE goal of extracting rocket fuel from lunar water ice (See Spudis, Marburger et. al.) plays no role whatsoever in the FY2011 proposal despite assertions that FY2011 is intended to continue the spirit of the VSE.
“Constellation was becoming “The Beast that Ate NASAâ€.”
Yeah, it must be annoying to the political apparachiks and climate scientists that NASA focuses on manned space flight. Obamaspace goes out of its way to sabotage manned space flight.
Sadly for Rand, there are choices other than Constellation (Ares 1 & Ares V) and FY2011 as currently proposed.
To paraphrase Shakespeare, “A plague on both houses”
It was a race to the Moon and the USA won.
That was great science and great politics, but please to not bother to return to the Moon is, more than anything else, BAD SCIENCE.
Bolden is, poor fellow, obviously bad at both science and politics. He will be Mr Expendable when the time is right, rather like some poorly designed heavy lift booster.
Meanwhile the shoot-out at the OK Corral continues between the executive and just about everyone else. Such is the nature of politics, including ignoring the absurd military space budget which continues to exceed that of NASA’s. Perhaps hidden there is a reason why we should be quarantined to this planet.
Vladislaw
“We do not have the infrastructure in place to do a human launch to an asteroid. That is why the President restructured NASA so we would be on that track with technology demonstrations to increase the TRL of the tools we will need to attempt those missions.”
What exact infrastructure in place to we need? It seems that we need a man rated rocket at least.
Has the President asked for adequate funding to increase TRL’s with technological demonstrations? What are the purposes (goals) of the technological demonstrations other than showing something can be done?
The Gemini and Apollo programs were a series of technological demonstrations. Unfortunately, the advancement into space did not continue.
“We should have an aggressive human space plan using current technology with new technology being developed as we progress in space beyond the Earth orbit.†And how do you propose to fund both? For the last 2-3 DECADES technology has been on the back burner to fund the shuttle and ISS. .
We need, perhaps, to look outside the box. I really don’t have all the ways to do that. Perhaps the question why are we funding some program should be asked more often? What item are we trying to make or goal are we trying to achieve?
We are currently on a track that will FULLY fund the technology research and give NASA the tools it needs to move towards human exploration of the inner solar system.
What do you mean by “FULLY funding†human exploration? And in what time span? 15-20 years? 50 years? 75-100 years?
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ June 16th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Which gets back to the core problem … For 40 years, NASA hasn’t been about exploration, it’s a government jobs program.
Totally agree with you on this, that is the plain truth as painful it can be.
Hmm..I noticed nobody disputed these statements, especially the Obamanator haters.
Admission of guilt by silence, gotta luv it.
MrEarl,
let me attempt to answer your questions
Yes, if
1. it can be done in a sustainable fashion that doesn’t require a massive budget increase for NASA, or requires destroying every other part of NASA in place of the HSF.
2. We can find useful things to do out there, or have reason to suspect that there are useful things to do
Ok, I am going to change the question slightly, for a very simple reason – of that money, only $8-9 B is for HSF. To try and raid other parts for HSF, is not going to be fun. So, with regard to the Budget
1. Retain ISS – Splashing a $100 B investment is really stupid
2. Move all Earth to LEO transport (Crew, Cargo, satellites, HLV) to the private sector. There are specific R&D aspects that NASA will play a role in here, but all of the operations stuff should be done via fixed price contracting, and none of it should be SDLV (unless someone can actually figure how to do an SDLV commercially and competitively)
3. R&D work – A big part of the problem is there is a lot of technology, that, if done, could either reduce costs, increase utilization, or do market creation. For example
suborbital flights – lets move towards using CRUSR for all science flights in the suborbital regime, including Sounding rockets.
Propellant depot – There is the smallest biggest piece problem, which means we need some amount of lift capability, and its possible that 25 mt might not be enough. OTOH, it might be – we don’t have a good idea, because the big thing that would tell us is the deployment of a fuel depot. But that won’t happen unless 1. Someone funds it, and 2. Someone commits to using it. And NASA won’t do so until it sees a full tech demo of every single piece by either an American company, or itself
Lunar ISRU – take everything I said about Propellant depots, and apply it to lunar ISRU (arguably all ISRU)
There is other tech, such as Nuclear propulsion, tethers, and so on.
The key thing about this R&D – it can’t be small scale (IE pictures, viewgraphs, and calculations) – its got to have a good chunk of money because, above all else, we have to see hardware flying. And not just little small secondary missions – missions that are in the range of a Billion+.
This large scale R&D will be the primary “new” focus for about 5 years (along with CCrew & ISS)
After that, there will still be R&D, but there will then be a follow-on to that R&D – a flexible Deep spaceship, designed around a lot of the tech that NASA spent 5 years on. It will have a re-configurable aspect to it, as well as a reusable aspect (since it is much closer to a station, its environment won’t be as bad)
The goal would then be to have the first mission of the smallest part of this to go to GEO, sometime before the end of the decade, and a first mission leaving earth orbit entirely could happen before 2025. An Orion Phase 0/CRV could form part of the basis for this craft, but its only a small piece.
As for landers, to actually get down to Lunar (or Mars) the starting point for that is going to come from the suborbital companies, with NASA doing its best to encourage the rise of the suborbital industry, via things like CRUSR. By doing that, we’ll have something that can easily transition to Deep space lander.
Thats the basis for my plan
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ June 16th, 2010 at 9:23 am
, given the choice between a lunar settlement that would make deep space exploration cheaper and more sustainable …
how goofy.
Constellation was never about a lunar settlement…it was/is a 200 billion dollar program to no where.
you have gone into self delusion.
(like the “WMD went to Syria” crud)
Robert G. Oler
Ferris Valyn wrote @ June 16th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Loud applause!!
Ferris Valyn,
One thing though…you forgot to mentioned how we incorporate the “porkchop” part in it..because without that essential part it wont pass sen. Nelson and the bunch of “pork” eaters…
It doesn’t matter about how bad you may think CxP is/was.
Either congress will appropriate to continue it for FY2011, or go along with the admin, or something in between, and NASA can get to work on it.
What does matter right now is the impact of the feuding going on between the admin and congress. It’s gone too far and its unproductive.
It is not logical to clean house in July and expect everyone to still be there in October, or whenever they make up their minds.
Spudis, Marburger & Wingo basically have the right idea, IMHO.
Except! (And what space advocate ever agrees with 100% with anyone?) I would amplify and extend their views on lunar ISRU by pointing out that building lunar infrastructure will create the demand for Earth-to-LEO lift that will allow cheap access to LEO to emerge.
ISS by itself shall prove an insufficient market to allow cheap access to LEO to emerge, again IMHO.
Also, developing lunar water resources should be done internationally, at least IMHO. My solution? An EML-1 Gateway owned and operated by a neutral agency that would facilitate every spacefaring nation gaining access to the Lunar South Pole, and its water resources.
That way, the US taxpayers are not the only people being asked to pay for humanity becoming spacefaring.
GeeSpace – we do need a man-rated rocket, but frankly, thats been done so many times, its the easist, and frankly, the last thing NASA should be doing. In fact, since there are private companies pursuing this on their own, its all the more reason why NASA shouldn’t be focusing on a man-rating system.
The infrastructure breaks down like this
1. Cheap, reliable, access to space – we don’t have it, we’ve never had it, and we need it.
2. Resupply capability in space – we have this in a very limited way with ISS, but there should be a lot more of this. The main focus should be on fuel, but it might not be the only one.
3. Deployed locations for humans to actually use space – again, we have a small portion of this, but only in very limited quantity (IE ISS). We need to see the establishment of locations in space & on bodies that can actually support humans long term. Its not enough to say “we can live on the moon” – right now, there is nothing that can do that for us. We need stations and bases
4. Reliable, reconfigurable, and as cheap as possible deep space transportation – We don’t have it, we need it, particularly if we are looking at BEO.
As for why Gemini & Apollo didn’t allow for the advancement – actually, Gemini did allow for the advancement, because Apollo wouldn’t have happened without Gemini. The problem is that Apollo didn’t demonstrate an ROI for the US in a way that resonated with people.
Spase Blagher wrote @ June 16th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
actually things are going along just fine. the pork is being worked out of the system
Robert G. Oler
Bill White wrote @ June 16th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Spudis, Marburger & Wingo basically have the right idea, IMHO. ..
but the wrong timeframe. Nothing is going to happen with local resources until some massive mapping/remote exploration (including some remote mining) has taken place.
No one or government is going to commit unless they know pretty much what is there and what it will take to get it.
Very little of the mining is going to be done by people.
Robert G. Oler
GeeSpace wrote:
“What exact infrastructure in place to we need? It seems that we need a man rated rocket at least.”
We need fuel depot technology. You can either launch a fully fueled expendable, EDS on a heavy lift launch vehicle that costs you 100 billion, or you can launch an empty, reusable, EDS and fuel it in space with current launch systems. It would seem wiser and less expensive to work towards gas stations in space and reusable systems.
“Has the President asked for adequate funding to increase TRL’s with technological demonstrations? What are the purposes (goals) of the technological demonstrations other than showing something can be done?”
Yes he has and the budget specifically points that out. That is why I say fully funded, usually NASA would hinge a technology on a predefined system, the tech hasn’t matured enough and the whole plan falls, witness venture star. If you look at the budget and what it lays out it is pretty evident what is planned:
advanced propulsion>advanced power>fuel transfer>inflatable habitat>closed look life support>aerocapture= space based, reusable, spaceship.
“What do you mean by “FULLY funding†human exploration? And in what time span? 15-20 years? 50 years? 75-100 years?”
I didn’t say fully fund exploration, I said NASA can do all this tech development (adding tools to the toolkit) fully funded, with no fear it will be canceled because a launch system is going to steal it away. Look what happened to Project Promethus under Griffin, robbing peter to pay paul. This will not be the case under this budget.
I would like to see at least 5 years spent on nothing but advancing the tech we need to expand out into the inner solar system. In the meantime commercial space will take over being the delivery service for crew and cargo to LEO and free NASA up to do the research that commercial space can’t do and develop the tech we need for the future.
“Interesting that President Obama used the man on the moon analogy in peddling his weird dystopian views on energy in last nights address. Hypocritical considering he was so flippant in dismissing the moon as a goal in last months KSC address.”
I do find it amusing how it is always assumed that what was great about Apollo was the Moon, or even space exploration. As if going back to the Moon or planting people on new big rockets is how to recapture the excitement of that era. I think Obama understands and respects the excitement of that era, but doesn’t make the mistake of assuming that the key enabling ingredient for that excitement was lunar dust or vacuum.
To the extent that space exploration can recapture the excitement that it once brought us, this nation is going to have to think hard about how to do it, in a way that really engages the American public. So far, we’ve largely failed to do so. That’s not to say that human space flight can’t energize the American public to the degree that we were energized by Apollo, but we sure haven’t figured out how to do it yet.
It’s almost as if to say the national pride that came out of our efforts in WWII could be reinstilled in us by dropping more bombs on Germany and Japan, or that our inspiration by Charles Lindbergh’s feat with the Spirit of Saint Louis could be recaptured by sending someone out to fly over the Atlantic again.
I pointed out during the presidential campaign how absurd it was to use Apollo as an analogy for solving the energy problem.
Another big contact for SpaceX:
http://flametrench.flatoday.net/2010/06/spacex-signs-492-million-launch.html
SpaceX inked a half-billion-dollar contract today to launch next-generation Iridium communications satellites on Falcon 9 rockets at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
In a joint news release, the California company and Iridium Communications Inc. of McLean, Va., said the $492 million contract is “the largest single commercial launch deal ever signed,” and “a new benchmark in cost-effective satellite delivery to space.”
I suspect the ULA people are really scared right about now …
Doug Lassiter wrote:
“To the extent that space exploration can recapture the excitement that it once brought us, this nation is going to have to think hard about how to do it, in a way that really engages the American public.”
After we landed that excitement ended, the race was won! We had beat the commies and now the new excitement was “when are we going?”. Pan Am going to be selling seats to space, Hilton talking about space hotels, America was now waiting to GO we were done watching.
Every new form of transportation was almost instantly available to the masses. But like a mean brother that keeps riding your bike to “show you” how to ride it and never giving you a turn, the government kept it for themselves and said screw you to the rest of the country.
The only way to excite the public, after 50 YEARS of watching, is to start bringing them with.
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ June 16th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
yeap…but I suspect the ones shaking in their boots are the folks in Europe and Russia.
While I think that the Dragon/9 launch is important, the most important launch (in my view) that spaceX will do is when it flies the first round a commercial contracts start flying. As the confidence in the launcher builds AND assuming that the dollar signs stay near what is advertised then all of a sudden the folks who are the bread and butter…the GEO comm people are going to start defecting.
the ability to bring the commercial launch industry “home” is going to change all sorts of equations.
The ULA/Russian/European thing with SpaceX reminds me of the story told about the person who designed the P51 (Dutch Kindlinger…spell) and the NAVION.
Dutch had a Navion that he flew around…and it was selling pretty good post war, when he went to some show and there was the Prototype Bonanza. He took one ride in it, found out what it cost to produce…and that was the end of the NAVION.
Falcon has got to mature…but I can see a similar event unfolding
Robert G. Oler
Every new form of transportation was almost instantly available to the masses. But like a mean brother that keeps riding your bike to “show you†how to ride it and never giving you a turn, the government kept it for themselves and said screw you to the rest of the country.Good grief. Now Big Brother is showering money at little brother instead of hogging it all for himself? I wonder how long that is going to last. Says capitalism and fee market to me!! Soon Big Brother will tell you to enjoy watching the neighbors ride their Big Brother’s bikes and if you’re real nice and throw money their way, you might get to ride on the handle bars.
Doug Lassiter wrote:
“To the extent that space exploration can recapture the excitement that it once brought us, this nation is going to have to think hard about how to do it, in a way that really engages the American public.â€
Sadly I dont think that is possible in this day and age.
There were, in my view, three elements of the Apollo program that made it “exciting” and interesting. IN decreasing order of importance.
1. The cold war aspects with the Soviets.
2. The novelty of people in space
3. The drama
REally in my view the only part of Apollo that actually captured all three was the Mercury efforts. Those were well “wow”. Single person in a small “fragile” (or it seemed) capsule riding rockets that sometimes blew up, fighting the Soviets in blood less combat. Our people had names, faces, wives. There was drama enough to make Cronkite flinch (“we may have lost an astronaut”…I still recall the look on his face as Scott Carpenter seemed out of touch to most of us).
All three elements were evaporating the closer one got to 11 except the Drama, it was kind of building and then wow it was gone.
I dont see how to recapture that effort.
Say that the folks on the ground had mounted a rescue mission for Columbia. That might have proved some “good story” for a bit (until it ended one way or the other).
but I am not sure how a Mars (or return to the Moon) or even go to an asteroid or even a landing on the sun (OK that might be entertaining) brings back the novelty of the 60’s effort short of a pyramid on Mars with the Star Gate in it or something.
Seriously I just dont see what would cause Americans to get excited about a bunch of people going (insert place here)…the answer most Americans, the ones who are not space groupies would say is “Well we already have pictures from there”…
Robert G. Oler
Anne Spudis wrote @ June 16th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Soon Big Brother will tell you to enjoy watching the neighbors ride their Big Brother’s bikes and if you’re real nice and throw money their way, you might get to ride on the handle bars….
no but if the Constellation program were to continue they would promise to mount a high def camera on it so one could see our “elite” astronaut corps doing things like blowing soap bubbles in space (and at 17,500 mph or even 25000 mph two or three decades from now when it goes back to the Moon)
wow
Robert G. Oler
“There were, in my view, three elements of the Apollo program that made it “exciting†and interesting. IN decreasing order of importance.
1. The cold war aspects with the Soviets.
2. The novelty of people in space
3. The drama”
Unfortunately, I think that’s pretty much right. I don’t have any magic recipe for using contemporary space exploration to recapture the excitement of Apollo. But the point remains that with regard to what excited the nation about Apollo, the Moon as a destination was a bit player. The Moon (and perhaps not even Mars) is not the magic ingredient for getting the public excited about contemporary space exploration. Blessing our efforts with lunar dust doesn’t make those efforts particularly enervating. By that token, “destinations” in general may not make them that way either. It’s been said before, and is worth saying again, that we need to do some rethinking about what exploration, and the excitement it entails, really means.
no but if the Constellation program were to continue they would promise to mount a high def camera on it so one could see our “elite†astronaut corps doing things like blowing soap bubbles in space (and at 17,500 mph or even 25000 mph two or three decades from now when it goes back to the Moon) …wow
If Constellation had been configured according to intent and budget parameters outlined in the Vision for Space Exploration, commercial and NASA would be heading for the Moon.
WOW! Is right. And when there’s a crisis, best to take advantage of it. Right? Holdren is practically giddy telling graduate students that America can’t expect to be number one in everything. Makes me all tingly.
BTW Robert G. Oler, where is your work product on space engineering/science/policy/politics published? I’d like to read your most recent published work outside your blogging career.
Well isn’t that special? Guess what – it didn’t, it wasn’t, and so we’re not. And we have a mess. The president’s proposed budget deals with this. It puts us back on a path towards the moon
Sorry, but do we want to be number one in everything? I mean, somehow, being number one in prison population isn’t something I relish
Well isn’t that special? Guess what – it didn’t, it wasn’t, and so we’re not. And we have a mess. The president’s proposed budget deals with this. It puts us back on a path towards the moon
If this wasn’t so tragically incorrect, it would be laughable that you would make this claim.
Sorry, but do we want to be number one in everything? I mean, somehow, being number one in prison population isn’t something I relish
I’m not sure that’s what Holdren meant, nor do you, I would suspect.
Pretty weak.
“Holdren is practically giddy telling graduate students that America can’t expect to be number one in everything. Makes me all tingly.”
Diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks.
But I never really picked up on any giddiness. Where did you get that? In fact, what Holdren says is quite sensible. What matters is what we decide we need to be number one in. I guess Fox & Co. is willing to avoid such hard decisions entirely by just making noise.
What matters is what we decide we need to be number one in.
Well, you work on that.
Anne Spudis wrote:
“Now Big Brother is showering money at little brother instead of hogging it all for himself? I wonder how long that is going to last. Says capitalism and fee market to me!! Soon Big Brother will tell you to enjoy watching the neighbors ride their Big Brother’s bikes and if you’re real nice and throw money their way, you might get to ride on the handle bars.”
Showering? If you want to talk about showers, lets talk about the cost plus contracting and see what 10 BILLION got us. That was a GOLDEN plated SHOWER if there ever was one.
What will the 6 billion get us? 2-3 commercial providers. Increased flight rate. Lower access costs for NASA in both cargo and crew to the ISS.
The Nation could afford a shower like that every year if we get actual results v.s. was we received from the Constellation program.
No big brother won’t be saying anything because NASA will no longer have a monopoly on access, so it won’t be up to big brother to decide that.
If a commercial firm is willing to provide me a service, why would I be surprised that I would have to pay for it. Unlike the stalinist model that NASA has operated under where it didn’t matter how big my checkbook was, it would NEVER be big enough to get me into space. If I can write a check and ride someone’s handlebars and it gets me to the destination, what do I care.
For those of us of a certain age, it is now abundantly and very sadly clear that we, in that age group, will not live long enough to see anything of note happen with the human expansion into the solar system. We grew up as kids reading the books of Willy Ley and dreaming of other worlds. I am hopeful that my grandchildren, at least, may see a modicum of progress outwards. All the gnashing of teeth we see in these many posts does nothing but confirm that there will be no push into the solar system in anyone’s near future. To call that a disappointment is due only to the lack of a better word to express sadness at this truth.
Anne Spudis wrote @ June 16th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
” And when there’s a crisis, best to take advantage of it. Right? Holdren is practically giddy telling graduate students that America can’t expect to be number one in everything. Makes me all tingly.”
Bush the last certainly rolled a crisis into his own little personal ideological assault on the world. There are about 200 or so thousand Iraqis who had no dog in any fight who are now dead as collateral damage from an invasion pushed on The American people during a “crisis”. There are about 4000 Americans who died believing the lies that the last administration cobbled together…go chant “USA” maybe it will make you feel better.
Being “number 1″ is about the dumbest thing that one can claim one is. It is a anatomical based (for both sexes) comparison that drums along in our psyche and sounds great but means little. Particularly in terms of nationhood.
When The Republic was formed it was “number 1″ in almost nothing in terms of how right wing (sorry Rand) trogolytes measure it today. We were not a military, economic, or really anything power. We were 13 states huddled on a sea coast, which we did not even control all that well.
But what we had was honor. And as long as we have that, as long as we are true to our beliefs enshrined in the DOI and put into law in our Constitution then we are everything…and when we dont have it…we are well a scared giant as the 8 years under Bush showed.
Same for a person. One can be the star (insert this here), reach the pinnacle of ones profession and all you are remembered for is a weekend of driving across the country trying to kill the other love interest of the person who you are cheating on your hubby with.
You and Whittington and Mightywind and all the other right wing thumpers define American exceptionalism in metrics that are more like the Confederate States of America would have defined them, not The United States.
American exceptionalism in economics are people like those who work at SpaceX, who have invested their lives and fortune in developing a better mousetrap and trying to perfect it to create real jobs and to change the future.
As for my “work product”. this is one I am extremly proud of. It is not the latest but it is one of the best.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/2672611.html
Robert G. Oler
Anne Spudis wrote @ June 16th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
no
If Constellation had been configured according to intent and budget parameters outlined in the Vision for Space Exploration, commercial and NASA would be heading for the Moon. …………….
Sure and if there had been WMD in Iraq then we might have some modest honor left from the lies of the last administration.
Were you so dull as to fall for the lies that the last administration told in terms of Iraq, space, and everything else? Did you really expect that “the vision” as Bush laid it out was going to happen that way? The guy who was sure that there was WMD in Iraq, that knew where it was?
About two weeks after bush made his stupid speech on “The vision” I predicted where this thing was going to run aground. Search this forum and find the prediction.
I was 100 percent correct.
“Fool me once shame on shame on … you fool me ……”..stutter, more then usual stupid glances, hands waving wildly…finally “well we cant be fooled again”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A
why were you fooled?
Robert G. Oler
Dave wrote @ June 16th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
For those of us of a certain age, it is now abundantly and very sadly clear that we, in that age group, will not live long enough to see anything of note happen with the human expansion into the solar system….
dont feel bad, it probably wont happen for sometime.
The one lesson (so far) of ISS is that one of two things has to happen to “go” any further in the business of human spaceflight.
1. it is going to have to become many orders of magnitude cheaper or 2) there is going to have to be some “rock crushing” application that makes HSF a requirement. (I think it is probably a combination of the two).
if either or both of those things dont happen then what you see with ISS is probably the best it gets. As has been pointed out on this forum many times, the US spends about as much on spaceflight with NASA as all the worlds space agencies do combined. And this is the best that can be done. There will likely never come a time when, without solid results to show for it, the US is going to spend say Iraq invasion style money on pushing off planet…and that is what it would take to get substantial people “off world” at the cost it now requires.
Good news is that at least the cost seem to be coming down. I dont know if there are more killer apps out there but there might be at least we will try and find out.
As for the disappointment. Try the uncrewed probes. For most Americans they are as close as they were going to get anyway.
Robert G. Oler
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ June 16th, 2010 at 9:23 am
“a lunar settlement that would make deep space exploration cheaper ”
The prophet Whittington!
@ Dave wrote @ June 16th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
I follow 3 forums and frankly, I am on the point of giving up on any compromise or consensus in this generation (the next 30-40 years) it may be our grt, grt gand children that see any forward movement out of Near Earth / Moon Orbit; IF AT ALL; the political will and the societal will are not coming together; it may take a break thru like warp drive or impulse technology (gravity drives?) to break the log jam;
“Let’s say folks prefer the Moon ( not just some of us space-geeks ), the tele-operated robot concept seems like the ticket to grab the attention of the younger generation Google-Earth/Moon/Mars crowd to get them involved.” It’s an ‘old’ idea– and there isn’t a kid alive who wouldn’t try to wreck it within a week.
“Constellation was not about more human exploration,†Bolden said. [RE- Congress] ‘I don’t care what President Obama says, we’re not going to Mars. We’re going to go back to the Moon and we’re going to stay there.’ That is a decision we could make. I think it would be an unwise decision.†<– said the Peter Principle Administrator.
@amightywind “What’s wrong with Glenn Beck? The man is a prophet.” Uh, no… the putz is a profit center, not a prophet; no more, no less.
“Let’s say folks prefer the Moon ( not just some of us space-geeks ), the tele-operated robot concept seems like the ticket to grab the attention of the younger generation Google-Earth/Moon/Mars crowd to get them involved.†It’s an ‘old’ idea– and there isn’t a kid alive who wouldn’t try to wreck it within a week.—-
No, they’d wreck the controls that ADULTS put on it; they would get on it, like an online video game and work it as far as the ADULTs would let them, then get BORED, and go back to to their computers!! if the kids were given the control, and the money, they would probably take it further than any ADULT had ever dreamed, only because most ADULTs don’t have half the imagination and ability some of those kids have;
Oler, no matter whether Bush lied or was mistaken, no matter whether the WMD went to Syria or never existed, no matter the terrible pain of the past 8 or so years, the bald fact is that 25 million (give or take) Iraqis are free to decide their fate. They may foul it up completely or they may succeed beyond anyone’s dreams – hopefully, it will be at least somewhere in between; but the bottom line is they have the opportunity to try as free human beings. Also, the Horrible Cretin and most, though not all, of his Henchmen that ended the dreams (and lives) of far more than the 200,000 you claim as recent victims, is also gone. There has been a terrible cost, but the freeing of those millions is worth it, and although we probably honorably disagree; there is honor in the result.
I don’t have a dog in the hunt of you folks on this blog that seem to love to call each other names, so don’t lump me in with anyone else. You are quite right about honor, but another driving characteristic embodied in the backdrop of the DOI and Constitution is the principle of TRYING to be the best we can be (or at least trying to build something better) – as opposed to the SAYING we are the best which as you point out yields nothing of value – yet, the not-so-subtle secret is that the way to honorably reach one’s maximum potential is to try to do and be your best.
For those of us of a certain age, it is now abundantly and very sadly clear that we, in that age group, will not live long enough to see anything of note happen with the human expansion into the solar system….
Apparently you missed something of note… Project Apollo.
@ DCSCA,
I’m a child of the shuttle age. STS-1 was the first US crewed space launch that I remember (I was about a year old when ASTP flew). So, I haven’t seen anything of note occur in human space exploration in my lifetime.
For me, the highlights have been the Voyager program, Galileo, Cassini, Hubble, Magellan, Sojourner and the MSRs.
At the current rate of progress (I’m six years younger than President Obama, BTW), I’m not convinced that I’ll see a human launched by the US end of space exploration walk on another planet before I retire.
@BRG- In a way, children of the shuttle era have been cheated. Your benchmarks are Challenger and Columbia, which overshadows many of the successes of the shuttle program. Those of us who were alive to experience the early days can relish the ‘newness’ of it all with Shepard first shot, Glenn’s three orbits, White’s spacewalk, the GT-6/7 rendezvous; (they were launching Geminis every 60 days or so) the Fire (memories of which which still can make one wince), that first Saturn V launch; Apollo 8 and Apollo 11. (Although this writer’s personal favorite lunar expedition is Apollo 15.) What followed was impressive but less imaginative; Skylab; ASTP. Viking 1/2 in ’76 were remarkable for their time but the first questions asked were what’s over the horizon. The Voyagers were a stunning success as well but ‘the Grand Tour’ had the luck of good timing. Someone will go back to the moon- they may not be Americans, but someone will go in your lifetime. In this economy it’s hard to see Congress killing off Constellation jobs, especially in the Gulf region now.
Dave wrote:
“All the gnashing of teeth we see in these many posts does nothing but confirm that there will be no push into the solar system in anyone’s near future. To call that a disappointment is due only to the lack of a better word to express sadness at this truth.”
Hang on about 5 years. You will see Bigelow put up his first private space station. He is only waiting for 2 crew vehicles to be available. (he demands redundancy)
One will be Dragon on Falcon 9 (most likely) and the other will probably be the Bigelow/Boeing CST-100 capsule on an Atlas V.
There may be others.
This will probably be the take off point you are seeking.
You see the problem with NASA (like any government program) is the funds are limited. Things are never going to grow beyond what their budget allows. $18B a year.
And how far can you go on that?
With private enterprise there is no limit. Bigelow is about enabling anybody with a business plan to invest and create wealth in space.
Hire his habitat and start a business.
Ditto SpaceX
And dozens of other space startups, some existing and many as yet un-imagined
It’s going to take dozens of bits of technology to start the spread out from earth into the solar system, but 2015 is the year the first 2 key bits will be in place.
Somewhere to go…Bigelow habitats.
Some way to get there…commercial crew.
Robert,
I’m a real piker compared to you and your finely honed skill of personally attacking and labeling those who disagree with you. There are few who could hold a candle to your invective and sheer volume of postings to stamp out dissenting opinion. It’s your gift.
Your July 2004 Houston Chronicle Viewpoint slam of Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration seems to fit the template of political advocacy cloaked behind the call to push away from a national space program and toward commercial development of space. Did you work for NASA at one time? I only ask because it states on the Chronicle piece that you helped found the Clear Lake Group along with your co-author, Rich Kolker.
Bush’s Vision for Exploration backed commercial while retaining the infrastructure for a national program. It was geared toward increased commercial development of space exploration and called on NASA to identify natural space resources on the Moon that would eventually enable cheaper access to space with the well understood, and practiced commitment over the years of handing over development to industry. The same thing would happen with space resources once entrepreneurs could recognize a profitable venture and stepped forward to capitalize on it.
A lot of work has been done that is geared toward the eventuality of many people venturing into and profiting from space access, and without the need (or desire) to rip our national manned space program out by the roots to accomplish commercial access. Why would anyone advocate this as helping commercial? What happens when government (suddenly so generous to commercial) shuts the door in their face and tells them, “Times up! Look for funding elsewhere.� Where will the money come from then? Most likely markets will not have been identified and investors will not appear with billions when there is no good assurance of a return on their investment.
The VSE was to build a solid infrastructure, whereby markets born of space development would open up to buyers; commercial enterprise was the long term goal. Now what is there? Orbiting Mars in a couple decades? Picture books about asteroids? That will not create a viable marketplace. It only will sustain academics. NASA’s “new way†is NASA’s old way. It is not innovative. It is a dead end.
Commercial and government space programs will be as bookends holding the history of the demise of the U.S. manned space program.
The idea of capitalism isn’t government throwing money at something in the hopes it will make a profit. It’s companies recognizing a market and supplying a product or service that people will pay for.
The idea of lunar return and colonization rises to the fore again and again because it is the logical way we will move into the solar system. Believe it or not Robert, the VSE was taking us toward economic pay dirt. The architecture can be corrected but the Moon’s resources is still the correct objective. The goal: total access to space for all.
Anne Spudis wrote @ June 17th, 2010 at 10:25 am
I see you are easily impressed with what things were suppose to do or at best said they were going to do, and dont care so much as to how things ended up.
Not me.
Robert G. Oler
puzzled wrote @ June 17th, 2010 at 2:38 am
Oler, no matter whether Bush lied or was mistaken, no matter whether the WMD went to Syria or never existed, no matter the terrible pain of the past 8 or so years, the bald fact is that 25 million (give or take) Iraqis are free to decide their fate. ”
that is always the last justification of the folks still cheering the reasons for the Iraq war.
Aggression is aggression no matter what explanations are used for it. The Japanese tried that in the leadup to WW2. They were going to free all the colored people of Asia from White European colonialism and then protect them in the “co prosperity sphere”. When we finally put their aggression down we hung every last sob that made that argument.
If every nation has the right to go “free” people who they view as oppressed then we have reverted to the justification that OBL used for 9/11 just in our culture frame. I happen to like our culture, but that does not give us carte blanche to go rogue around the world beating up on regimes that might be horrific but do not threaten us.
In the end you are correct that the Iraqis have been given a priceless chance to change their future. What they make of it is what they make of it and we have to hope that it is something that is good for a future America.
But this one must live with the notion that after 9/11 we listened to a man and his administration that told lies, exaggerated and then bungled an invasion of a country that posed no threat to us. About 200K Iraqis who had no dogs in the fight paid for the privilege of the future to be free…as did 4000 Americans.
A lie remains a lie. And because brave and resourceful people (the US military and some Iraqis) made it work out, brings honor to them, not to the people who told the lie. Or people like you who keep defending it.
Robert G. Oler
To Mr. Oler: Sir, I did not defend (or promote) the arguments for the Iraq War, I merely stated the present somewhat hopeful consequence of it. Your comparison of the situation to the co-prosperity sphere is ludicrous and you know it; would the Japanese have allowed those poor downtrodden to have free elections and the chance to make of things what they could – of course not. We can’t perform the experiment of re-doing the last 8 years under your set of conditions (Saddam and the Tikriti with a real “boot on the throat” of their citizenry) to explore whether they were or could have been a threat, so it is pointless to continue a BDS rant at this point; let it go. Let’s worry about trying to do the best we can now to honor our principles, and as a small part of that try to have a reasoned debate here over how best to conduct the politics that will accomplish travel and living away the Earth’s surface.
I think I will close with some sage words you may recognize – you posted them in the post immediately following mine:
“I see you are easily impressed with what things were suppose (sic) to do or at best said they were going to do, and dont care so much as to how things ended up.”
“Believe it or not Robert, the VSE was taking us toward economic pay dirt.”
It’s actually not clear that the VSE doesn’t still pertain. That document was a very general one, and was pointing in all the right directions. It could well have been aimed at economic pay dirt. (I’m reluctant to say it was taking us there. VSE was never supposed to be “taking” anyone anywhere.) But what we’re talking about is Constellation as an implementation strategy for VSE. Properly funded, it might well have taken us to economic pay dirt. But it wasn’t properly funded and, it seems, couldn’t be properly funded. It was, for this reason, considered unexecutable. The new implementation plan is not inconsistent with VSE, though it’s probably going to take us longer to get to “economic pay dirt” than a properly funded Constellation program would.
But how is that relevant to anything? Reverence for a program that was unexecutable has no value and no meaning. It’s a false god.
But how is that relevant to anything? Reverence for a program that was unexecutable has no value and no meaning. It’s a false god.People like to interchange VSE and Constellation as it suits their purpose. I am well aware that Constellation was the way Griffin chose to implement the VSE. It was the 600 pound gorilla that ate the VSE. You choose to say it wasn’t properly funded but the VSE stated that the architecture chosen should be affordable and able to adjust with time as budgets permitted. Obviously this was a long-term, well thought out program. Two Congresses, under different political leadership, endorsed the VSE.
The VSE recognized that the Moon was the logical main objective, with Mars and beyond to follow once we had begun using space resources (commercial was included in the VSE since the idea was to make resource utilization an enabling prod to routinely get beyond LEO). However, as we all know, it was ignored and instead referred to as a Mars mission, which suited those running the agency.
Unfortunately for all of us, the chosen architecture ate the buffet then started consuming the tables and chairs and cried out for more. Stubbornly, instead of going with an affordable plan, the administrator bet the future of U.S. space exploration on his belief that he knew best and that Congress would not let the U.S. space program fail. However, the perfect storm blew in and he lost that bet, and with it the hopes and livelihoods of thousands.
Early on and repeatedly, sane alternatives and rational, affordable methods were offered — all were turned away at the administrator’s door. This was his decision and his failure and it has impacted our entire nation.
The VSE was about taking us somewhere, despite your claim otherwise. It was to learn how to use resources in space, starting on the Moon. Doing this on the Moon is the only sensible beginning to our move into space. How you can blithely say that, it was never supposed to take us anywhere, is beyond my comprehension. Have you read the VSE from cover to cover?
So, again we will do the odd (but expensive) parlor trick to entertain, instead of doing the hard work of getting people into space. To paraphrase you, it is a program that has no value and no meaning. But of course it is executable because it has no direction, no wrong answers, no work product, no nothing (unless, of course, you consider the elimination of the U.S. manned space program a good thing).
Clearly, the future of manned space exploration as viewed by those presently calling the shots is NOT like the VSE. How you can make the stretch so as to imagine this new “direction” as possibly “pertaining” to the VSE is nonsensical to me. By ignoring the Moon as THE objective, the VSE is killed. Now that is a different statement than saying Constellation is dead.
There will be no “pay dirt” until we exploit the resources of the Moon.
There will be no “pay dirt†until we exploit the resources of the Moon.
Space exploitation is not space exploration.
Space exploitation is not space exploration.
If we don’t learn how to use the resources in space DCSCA, we (humans) will not explore very far or for very long. As we moved west we certainly didn’t carry everything on our backs or depend only on what would fit in a wagon or on horseback. As we make space ours, we will do so by learning to live off the land.
Resource exploitation enables human exploration, if you will.
If you only want robots and scientific musings, then you might not care about things like, creating a system whereby all can participate.
The enabling technology for space exploration is not ISRU, it is CRATS (cheap and reliable access to space). The only consumable a launch vehicle have to get into orbit is the energy in its fuel, and the fuel that puts the Shuttle in orbit is incredibly ceap; LOX is 60 cents a gallon at LC-39! Physically, spaceflight is dirt cheap. The part that’s expensive is building a new rocket (or ET, or the SRBs, which are reusable in name only). That was why we built the Shuttle. Of course the shuttle didn’t meet its specs for reliability or cost, but the reason isn’t because it’s reusable; the reason is that it was the first time anyone tried to make a reusable launch vehicle, and we made some error that are obvious in hindsight, like not having flying test prototypes to test the reliability of critical systems in repeated spaceflight before the design was finalized.
ISRU can’t begin to pay off because ELVs are much too expensive to build the massive infrastructure needed on the Moon. With CRATS the cost of putting people in space will be lowered by a factor of ten. That will make it possible for people to do work in space that is actually worth the cost of putting them there, and to put tourists in space in substantial numbers for a price they are willing to pay.
vulture4,
How everyone has jumped (been pushed) into this pit of division is stunning.
Division, political posturing, simmering scores to settle, finger pointing, back stabbing, haughty claims and down right meanness is the product of this administration’s new direction. (I am not directing that list toward you).
It isn’t either one or the other, it’s commercial and government programs, just as the VSE had outlined. The government is responsible for our space assets and our national security. We can’t just off load that HUGE responsibility with our fingers crossed in the hopeful belief that things will just fall into place.
A favorite talking point on blogs is that conservatives don’t like spending public funds, so what’s up with conservatives now demanding NASA funding???
Well, that is obvious to anyone who isn’t trying to gain political points. Our national security and the protection of our commercial and military space assets ARE the government’s job and WHAT they are supposed to spend money on (unlike many other areas of huge expenditure).
It is cheap access to space (unfortunately that went out with the chosen architecture called Constellation) along with ISRU. The VSE, coupled with the appropriate architecture, is still the correct direction.
It will come together on the Moon, when and if everyone stops squabbling.
Political squabbling is certainly hurting the program. If Democrats and Republicans can’t work together we will certainly both lose.
As to national security, DOD has decided that human spaceflight isn’t an effective way to carry out their mission. The last military Shuttle mission involved such thinks as having crewmen looking through binoculars to find ships on the Earth that their eyes might supposedly be better at than electronic imaging. Not exactly practical. DOD satellites (GPS, Comm, recon, weather) are unmanned and operated by DOD. All missiles are ground-based, and Heinlein notwithstanding, there’s no indication we need any space-based weapons. NASA no longer has defense responsibilities.
I certainly don’t oppose government involvement, in commercial and scientific spaceflight but in reality Falcon Orion, and Shuttle are all built by private contractors working on NASA contracts. The fight is really just between different contractors and different NASA program managers.
I think the argument about NASA vs private is meaningless. I’ve been in hundreds of NASA safety meetings. Everybody wants to be safe, but I have seen no evidence in the past twenty years that NASA knows more about safety than USA, ULA, or SpaceX.