Congress, NASA, States, White House

White House adds to NASA’s tab for economic development spending

In his speech at the Kennedy Space Center in April, President Obama announced that $40 million would be made available for economic growth and job creation in the Space Coast region of Florida around KSC. Since then a Presidential Task Force on Space Industry Work Force and Economic Development, co-chaired by NASA administrator Charles Bolden and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, has been meeting to develop a plan to spend that money; at a public meeting in Orlando earlier this month Bolden said that $30 million would be used for regional economic growth and the other $10 million for job training activities. That, plus a separate $15-million Department of Labor grant to the Space Coast region, has generated criticism elsewhere, particularly in Texas, where the focus on the Space Coast is seen as political favoritism of a swing state versus solidly Republican states like Alabama, Texas, and Utah, who will also feel the impact of the end of the shuttle program and the proposed cancellation of Constellation.

Late Friday the administration made a move that appears intended to blunt some of that criticism. The president sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi containing a number of amendments to its budget proposal, including one for NASA. “This request would fund an initiative to develop a plan to spur regional economic growth and job creation along the Florida Space Coast and other affected regions in furtherance of my Administration’s bold new course for human space flight, which revitalizes NASA and transitions to new opportunities in the space industry and beyond,” the president wrote in his letter.

The amendment, contained in page 15 of the document, includes the $30 million that will go to the Commerce Department for regional economic growth on the Space Coast and the $10 million that will go to the Labor Department for job training in that region. The amendment also includes an additional $45 million that will go to Commerce for regional economic growth “in other areas affected by job losses associated with programmatic changes in this account” and $15 million more to Labor for job training in those other areas. All the money—$100 million total—would come out of the Exploration portion of the budget, although the document doesn’t specify what specific areas of Exploration would lose money to fund these initiatives (the original $40 million was to come from Constellation closeout costs.) Despite effectively getting its budget cut by $100 million, NASA put a positive spin on the amendment: a spokesman told Space News that the money was “essential” to helping the workforce and regions most affected by the agency’s changes.

149 comments to White House adds to NASA’s tab for economic development spending

  • amightywind

    Obama specializes in bribes for the unemployed. He kills industries with one hand and dispenses crumbs with the other. Ask the unemployed oil rig workers in the gulf. I doubt that the NASA workers will be conned.

  • I was watching NASA tv earlier and there was a speech from Lori Garver and some other random government employee about jobs in the region. Then it was question time and after a few pleasant questions from the media there was a question from a union representative who I’ll paraphrase:

    “How would you respond to our members who say: I don’t need the government to help me polish my resume, I need the government to give me a job.”

    When did the US become the Soviet Union? When you see people out of work because the government just canceled some Big Project, that’s a sign that you’ve taken one too many steps down the wrong path.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSChW9HxAvI

    Still seems relevant.

  • red

    “All the money—$100 million total—would come out of the Exploration portion of the budget, although the document doesn’t specify what specific areas of Exploration would lose money to fund these initiatives (the original $40 million was to come from Constellation closeout costs.)”

    If the goal is to deal with Constellation job loss, it seems logical to take it from Constellation closeout costs. If it’s to deal with Shuttle job loss, it seems like the Shuttle slip contingency funding is the best source.

    Hopefully it’s not used to raid other accounts (wiping out jobs in those areas).

  • Mark R. Whittington

    The only question here is why the administration is even bothering asking Congress permission. It has given the legislative branch the middle finger at every other opportunity during this train wreck, why not now?

  • CharlesHouston

    First off, we are certainly a hard-to-please bunch. We want more – of whatever.

    Every time some area gets a grant – the rest of the country wants a larger grant.

    But back to the topic at hand, before long it will have been cheaper to continue the Shuttle than to dispense all of the promised money to help people recover!! And apparently the money will come from our Flagship projects – where else is there money that is not on the critical path to some real project?

    And of course all of this money is borrow deficit spending that our grandchildren will sacrifice – to pay our debts.

  • Vladislaw

    ” has generated criticism elsewhere, particularly in Texas, where the focus on the Space Coast is seen as political favoritism of a swing state versus solidly Republican states like Alabama, Texas, and Utah,”

    It looks more like the republican states are asking for the payoff, it wasn’t like the President was going to them with an offer.

    Reminds me of a piece by Jon Stewart, no matter what the President offers them, they still won’t let him ride in the same car with them and won’t vote for anything he proposes anyway, so why deal with them like they will. He will still only get critisism. Look at how many republicans ranted about his stimulas and threatened not to take it, but then would show up at the ribbon cutting and brag how they got this for their state. It will be the same here, no matter what the President offers them, they will still be ranting about it as they accept the check.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Trent Waddington wrote @ June 19th, 2010 at 9:53 am ..

    that is where we are in NASA hsf.

    Look the conversation about HSF exploration would be quite different IF two things were going on 1) there was some reason for HSF that made money not required it…2) if the cost to do human exploration of space were an order or two of magnitude cheaper then what it is. Say for instance we could return to the Moon for 20 billion tops.

    SpaceX seems to have indicated that such cost figures are possible…but until we pick that trend up there is going to be no real reason to do HSF other then “its a government job”.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ June 19th, 2010 at 11:06 am

    The only question here is why the administration is even bothering asking Congress permission. It has given the legislative branch the middle finger at every other opportunity during this train wreck, why not now?…

    oh it is kind of like when Congress wanted to withdraw all the troops and Bush wanted (FINALLY) the surge…guess who won.

    you really need to take a class in practical American history.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Vladislaw wrote @ June 19th, 2010 at 11:53 am

    Reminds me of a piece by Jon Stewart, no matter what the President offers them, they still won’t let him ride in the same car with them and won’t vote for anything he proposes anyway, so why deal with them like they will. …

    it is far to early to start the obit on this administration; although the way that the oil spill is being handled has in the last two weeks made me think that Obama has the potential to be a one termer….

    but to model Obama one almost has to reach back to Woodrow Wilson. I know that a lot of people said Bush the last was “woodrow” but no not really. If there is a “w” model it is Buchanan …just complete chaos.

    But back to Obama. He reminds me a lot of Wilson (who I think is really the first actual “Superpower President” (although TR was kind of knocking on that). Both never quite figured out how to “pleasantly humiliate” (a term that is original with Douglas Brinkley) their opponents in the course of political battle while presenting viable plans in a method that rallied public support, even though they seemed to both have a clear understanding of the future that they wanted America to have.

    Obama like Wilson seems bewildered as to how to deal with an opposition (in this case both Republicans) whose theory is “stop the future I want the past”. Like Wilson Obama seems to think that world leaders who got to the top by political maneuvering that would make any American blush are now going to “play nice” just because he talks to them in a spirit of intellectualism.

    it is all very entertaining. The only thing that is saving him is that the GOP is being weighed down by the likes of the tea party. Harry Reid must have gone to Church the day after the Nevada GOP primary Salvation is a nice thing.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ben Joshua

    Change is messy. (Because entrenched interests don’t want it)

    Pain for those caught in the middle is axiomatic. (Because entrenched interests resist to the last any attempt at a smooth transition)

    Quibbling and criticism from the vocally inclined will continue, even as nostalgiac background, once the new way of NASA is established by a budget cycle or two.

    Change is messy, but this one is long overdue. A NASA closer to its original charter will yield a wellspring of new technology and capabilities. Economic development and growth vital to our national interest will follow. And oh yes, HSF and exploration.

    I only wish the same quality of change could be brought to other budget areas and economic sectors. America is on a moribund path, and just maybe the change at NASA can set an example for transforming a budget sponge into an engine for technical and economic development.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ben Joshua wrote @ June 19th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
    I only wish the same quality of change could be brought to other budget areas and economic sectors.

    yes…if Obama is a one termer it will be because he has failed to revolutionize the economy in a manner that can save it.

    A reformed NASA can be a multiplier instead of a drag on the American economy. Just like NACA was.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Gary Church

    “How would you respond to our members who say: I don’t need the government to help me polish my resume, I need the government to give me a job.”

    When did the US become the Soviet Union? ”

    Since you think I am “posting too much”, I thought I would come back to space clown town and have a whack at you Trent. In case you did not notice, federal, state, and county employees- all paid by tax dollars, are well over 20 percent, add in the contractors being paid by tax dollars and you have the largest employer in America. What country do you think you live in? You are just repeating THE BIG LIE like everyone else that is trying to put NASA’s budget in their pocket- that NASA is an evil empire. Tell a lie long enough…
    Try talking about the DOD and their 8 billion dollar contract to rework the presidents helicopters; not even a drop in their bucket. While you private space advertisers weep bitter tears about NASA trying to build a decent rocket. You are pathetic.

  • DCSCA

    A reformed NASA can be a multiplier instead of a drag on the American economy. Just like NACA was.

    On the contrary, a ‘reformed’ NASA without a vibrant manned space program will be dissolved and its remaining research projects that can be funded in hard times absorbed by existing agencies conducting similar research. NACA was dissolved; it’s relevant components nd key personall folded into a new agency in 1958- NASA.

  • DCSCA

    “When you see people out of work because the government just canceled some Big Project, that’s a sign that you’ve taken one too many steps down the wrong path. Hmmmm, guess you’ve never been around when a major war ended.

  • DCSCA

    “SpaceX seems to have indicated that such cost figures are possible…but until we pick that trend up there is going to be no real reason to do HSF other then “its a government job”.” =yawn= as Cernan so rightly stated, ‘they don’t know what they don’t know yet.’

  • DCSCA

    And of course all of this money is borrow deficit spending that our grandchildren will sacrifice – to pay our debts. <- War is hell– or rather, expensive as hell, and the previous administration saw fit to off-budget and not pay for them. That's why the America's space program is on a trajectory to oblivion. Slice $200 billion from DoD and boost funds for other programs, including NASA, and the country would be much better off.

  • Trent Waddington wrote:

    “… I need the government to give me a job.”

    Which is precisely the problem. These people think the government owes them a job. Try the real world for a change.

    I got laid off in October 2008 and never once did I expect the government to give me a job. Not one penny of that $40 million is going to help me, directly anyway.

  • In tangential news:

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-18/obama-orders-use-of-do-not-pay-list-to-cut-fraud-update1-.html

    … the Obama administration identified about $110 billion in “improper or erroneous payments” by the federal government last year they plan to eliminate to reduce the deficit.

    Although not in the linked article above, the Florida Today report (apparently not online) includea a quote from Biden about why wasn’t this stopped before. He said prior administrations didn’t have the courage to address it because they were afraid of the very question, as it would implicitly admit they had allowed it to go on.

  • @Trent Waddington

    “When did the US become the Soviet Union? When you see people out of work because the government just canceled some Big Project, that’s a sign that you’ve taken one too many steps down the wrong path.”

    Its the responsibility of the Federal government to create an environment for full employment, economic growth, and technological advancement. Governments that don’t do those things are usually referred to as third world countries. Big projects that advance our technological know how and give us access to new resources are good for the country and for our economy, not bad!

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ June 19th, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    Yes, but there is a difference between a government job that is simply a job with no measurable value to The Republic, one that is overpriced, over staffed and almost meaningless in what it does…and creating an atmosphere where private industry creates jobs.

    SpaceX (Masten, Bigelow etc) are the poster people for American exceptionalism. Constellation is a hand out. it wont change a thing. SpaceX et al are the future. There is no difference in what Boeing did with the B-17 and SpaceX did with the Falcon9.

    Both will change history

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mrearl

    Robert:
    Last week the Falcon9 was the DC3, now it’s the B17, next week what will it be?
    SpaceX has made great strides the past two weeks but it’s still a long way from being a profitable company. Their books are closed so we really don’t know what their expences are.
    Shannon’s group has completed their work on a SD HLV and the numbers are very interesting. Initial price per launch is placed at $600 million with the ability to reduce that to $450 million. That’s very close to price per pound to orbit as SpaceX.
    Now I know you and the other minions will accuse Shannon’s group as being delusional or lying but it deserves serious consideration.

  • Human space exploration still needs to find a revenue stream not derived from the taxpayers, regardless of how much SpaceX reduces launch costs.

    Non human space exploration shall continue to do fine because there are viable revenue streams not derived from the taxpayers.

  • SpaceX has made great strides the past two weeks but it’s still a long way from being a profitable company.

    SpaceX has been profitable every year for several years.

    Initial price per launch is placed at $600 million with the ability to reduce that to $450 million.

    That doesn’t include the eight billion dollars of development cost.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mrearl wrote @ June 19th, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    Robert:
    Last week the Falcon9 was the DC3, now it’s the B17, next week what will it be?..,

    you dont do aviation history. SpaceX is the DC-3, the B-17, the Beech Bonanza…it is whenever a group of people get together, take current technology and figure out how to use it efficiently in a product that lowers cost.

    As for Shannon. I dont believe a single thing he or his group comes up with. They have demonstrated an ability to “BP” the numbers over the last 10 or so years that as far as I am concerned they are irrelevant. If Shannon or any NASA person said that they could buy lunch at the Oriental Gourmet in Houston for a certain price, I would call my friend there to verify it.

    You dont understand free enterprise. The cost per pound is important, but as important is the ability of a free people to use markets to generate wealth. That is a feedback process (much as the DC-3 was) and is what makes cost go lower, in the final analysis.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mrearl wrote @ June 19th, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    to be clear.

    Shannon and his team have never come up with a cost estimate for anything that was even close. There is zero chance that this could be developed for 7.X or 8 or ever 12 billion dollars…and no chance that its ops cost would be 700 million or whatever number a mission. We will need Shannon’s infrastructure etc but of course that is “free” in NASA ese.

    Besides this entire plan is going nowhere. There is no money or desire for it.

    end of ride

    Robert G. Oler

  • MrEarl

    Rand:
    You can’t make that statement because SpaceX dose not release financial statements that can be independently audited.
    Eight billion to create a launcher that is able to launch over 80mT into LEO, sounds like a bargain since there isn’t another launcher that can come close to that.

    Robert:
    Aviation and space are two completely different arenas.
    As for free enterprise, I know more about how free enterprise really works than you ever will. I’ve lived it since I was 15.
    The numbers that Shannon’s review give sound reasonable to me ant I think it should be verified by an independent source but I’ll bet it’s buried someplace.

  • You can’t make that statement because SpaceX dose not release financial statements that can be independently audited.

    Are you accusing them of lying? What reason do you have to believe that they are not profitable?

    Eight billion to create a launcher that is able to launch over 80mT into LEO, sounds like a bargain since there isn’t another launcher that can come close to that.

    If we really needed such a vehicle (we don’t), SpaceX could do it for much less, extrapolating from costs to date.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ June 19th, 2010 at 8:08 pm

    The numbers that Shannon’s review give sound reasonable to me ant I think it should be verified by an independent source but I’ll bet it’s buried someplace.

    People like Shannon (and he is good at it) always come up with “reasonable numbers” before the thing starts then the next thing you know they are only 2 billion then 5 then 10 then 20 billion over budget..none of it is their fault of course, it is just how it is.

    the hope is that it is buried someplace. Space is not like aviation, but it could be. it could we have already started that movement.

    Robert G. Oler

  • MrEarl

    Rand, it’s simple, until ANY company has released financial statements that can be audited independently everyone takes any pronouncement of earnings with a LARGE grain of salt.
    Numerous studies and committees that have studied BEO have come to the conclusion that heavy lift of over 75mt to LEO is needed, the last one being the Augustine Committee.

  • Dimitar

    To Rand Oler:
    “SpaceX could do it for much less, extrapolating from costs to date, then the next thing you know they are only 2 billion then 5 then 10 then 20 billion over budget.”
    Sounds good, right?

  • Bennett

    committees that have studied BEO have come to the conclusion that heavy lift of over 75mt to LEO is needed,

    Even if that’s true, I go with what Rand wrote SpaceX could do it for much less, extrapolating from costs to date.

    What he’s saying, and I agree with him, is that there’s every likelihood that SpaceX could spend less than a billion and get the job done, way before NASA could.

    Not slighting the good engineers at NASA, it’s just that the business and organizational models allow SpaceX to do a specific job (using some of the best folks who ever worked at NASA, ULA, and Boeing) in half the time for tenth of the cost.

    And we’re talkin’ apples and apples here.

    It’s the way things need to get done if you want results without wasting resources.

  • Bennett

    75mt to LEO

    Unless you can show me something that weighs over 75mt that needs to get up to LEO in one piece, having ULA (or whoever) boost it up 35mt at a whack for 500 million per launch makes billions more sense.

    Please tell me why it does not?

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ June 19th, 2010 at 8:46 pm

    Rand, it’s simple, until ANY company has released financial statements that can be audited independently everyone takes any pronouncement of earnings with a LARGE grain of salt.

    that is where the Iridium deal is so “nice”.

    the last time that Iridium tried to launch satellites the launch cost brought it to bankruptcy. So doubtless before anyone would “loan” Iridium the money to buy SpaceX launchers they had to be convinced that the numbers were solid enough to actually perform the task and not drag everyone down.

    I am surprised you demand numbers from a private company but buy NASA’s carte blanche. Tell us again your experience in free enterprise.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Dimitar wrote @ June 19th, 2010 at 9:38 pm

    To Rand Oler:
    “SpaceX could do it for much less, extrapolating from costs to date, then the next thing you know they are only 2 billion then 5 then 10 then 20 billion over budget.”
    Sounds good, right?

    from someone who cannot even get a name correct…my answer would be “nope”

    try harder. Rand and I are not the same person. He doesnt like me! (and I am such a loveable person)

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind's clone

    The evil librul president obama doesn’t like the sooper awsome Ares I (it has already flown!) and Ares 5. Instead he likes toy rokkits built by the Internet Rokkiteer’s Club like Falcon 9. Falcon is da toy rokkit, it probabbly has a wind up key on it.

    Go Ares I, Go Constellation!

    Press to MECO America!!!!!!111111one1one!!1one11.

  • cy

    Plain and simple, no other nasa human space flight program will cost less than Cx. If commercial gets the green light we won’t see American human space flight for more than 10 years. And it will be just as costly.

    The workforce will disappear into other industries or DOD and America won’t have civil human space flight.

    The roll out of the budget told us how competent the current leadership is.

  • My recollection (I could be recalling wring) is that Elon Musk has only claimed that SpaceX has been “cash flow positive” — and I rather doubt Musk’s accountants have structured things so that he owes income taxes on those “profits”

    The definition of profitable can vary significantly whether you are talking to your banker, your investors or the IRS and details involving cash versus accrual accounting and what future liabilities SpaceX has incurred can also influence these issues.

    For example launch deposits made for future launches are a “dollar today for a hamburger next Tuesday” type of deal.

    Not a bad thing, but it does influence what is meant by “profitable”

  • @Robert G. Oler wrote @ June 19th, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    “Yes, but there is a difference between a government job that is simply a job with no measurable value to The Republic, one that is overpriced, over staffed and almost meaningless in what it does…and creating an atmosphere where private industry creates jobs.”

    MW: Then I guess you’re not talking about NASA or our government’s 60 year investment in space technology which has helped to advance and to grow this economy.

    “SpaceX (Masten, Bigelow etc) are the poster people for American exceptionalism. Constellation is a hand out. it wont change a thing. SpaceX et al are the future. There is no difference in what Boeing did with the B-17 and SpaceX did with the Falcon9.”

    Both will change history”

    MW: Energia changed history when they launched the first paying tourist into orbit. If Space X and other American companies can ever do the same then they’ll be in direct competition with Energia (a company that is not standing still) and probably other foreign and international manned space launch companies.

  • Hey Bill, Elon has claimed SpaceX is profitable and has been profitable for the last 3 years about, oh, 10 times now. Both in print and on video.

  • @Gary Church

    Why do you have to be so uncivil?

    Why is there no-one here with a cluebat warning, then banning you? Let’s elevate the debate.

  • amightywind's clone

    Those who oppose the awsome maginfidcent Ares 1 and 5 are the ones towho need the clue bat warning. Falcon 9 is just a toy Rokkit!!!11111one

    Press to MECO America !!!!!!!!111111oneq11111!!!!one1111!!!!!

  • Gary Church

    What are you afraid of ? Can’t handle the truth? Ban yourself Trent.

  • Gary, say what you want, but stay civil please. amightywind, thanks for an example of a comment that should be deleted on sight.

  • Bennett

    Trent, I think amw’s clone is just another attempt by Gary to get attention. How sad?

  • Brian Paine

    Where is the spirit, the sense of adventure, the determination to break the shackles that bind mankind to this planet and determine for us a collective fate?
    It DOES NOT reside in the body politic but it does reside to varying extents, regardless of the individual political philosophies, in the persons who endlessly argue their points of view on this “blogatory.”
    So please keep up the debate, it keeps the dream alive.
    From “Down Under.”

  • If FY2011 advocates are looking to Representative David Obey for support, be wary of a wolf in sheep’s clothing:

    At the same time, he (Obey) has also scaled back his appetites. For example, his draft bill last month included $23 billion to help state and local education boards cope with budget cuts driven by the economic downturn. That has now been cut in half to about $10 billion.

    The administration insists that very little money is still available from the Recovery Act. As of two months ago, about $68 billion was unobligated, but of that sum, all but about $1 billion was committed to designated programs.

    Going back in and rescinding these sums will then affect planned investments, many of which are Obama favorites such as broadband, high-speed rail, electrical grid improvements and medical information technology.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38350_Page2.html#ixzz0rPOYRS83

    If Obey is willing to look for money for education by taking it from “Obama favorites such as broadband, high-speed rail, electrical grid improvements and medical information technology” then reducing the human spaceflight component of NASA’s budget to give to local schools should also be expected.

  • @ Trent Waddington

    I believe both you and Elon, however, without a precise definition of “profitable” it is difficult to figure out what he means.

    Hasn’t SpaceX received federal assistance associated with “milestones” on the road to future deliveries? Deliveries not yet completed?

  • MrEarl

    Rand, Robert, a little perspective here.

    My dealings with both SpaceX and Shannon’s findings have been, “this is interesting, lets check the numbers”. Where-as you guys believe without question every word that comes from the mouth of Musk while vilifying everything from the anti-Christ that is Shannon. (Yes I’m exaggerating for effect.) All that money for deposits on contracts that are coming into SpaceX can not be recorded as profit until l the contract is completed. Frankly, under general accounting procedures that money is a debit or liability until the contract is fulfilled. That’s free enterprise in the REAL world.
    Let’s take the Iridium contract. That money is also for development of a multiple carrier for the F9. They could run into unexpected problems in the development which could increase the cost significantly. Conversion of the Vandenberg Titan pad could pose unexpected difficulties that eat into profits. The Falcon 9 may not meet expected performance for a polar orbit necessitating more launches. I hope none of this is the case. I’ve always thought that SpaceX, Orbital, ULA, etc. are the backbone for the US to have a vibrant, innovative space industry but I’m not so blind as to cling to one and disregard the others, especially NASA, as you two seen to have done.

    Bennet: That’s a nice little straw-man you threw out there. You have learned well young padawan from MT, Oler and Rand.
    Here’s a lesson in economics for you, firms don’t build what they can’t launch. There are designs for spaceships, orbital power stations, ect. that would require 75mT or more launch capability. One of those “transformitive technologies”, VASIMER, would need a nuclear power generator or huge solar cells that will need every pound of that 75mT. If it was available it would be used.

  • MrEarl

    Almost forgot. I think this is your first so happy Fathers Day Robert.

  • MrEarl

    Bennet, Sorry for ignoring your previous post.
    First, the Falcon 9 can only lift 10 mT to LEO and SpaceX is charging $59million to do it. I admit that I don’t know what the ULA is charging to use the maximum lift of the Delta IV and Atlas V’s ~25mT but if it is the $500 million you quote then the $450 to $600 to launch the 85 to 100 mT payload of the proposed SD HLV is truly a bargain.

    You wrote:
    “Not slighting the good engineers at NASA, it’s just that the business and organizational models allow SpaceX to do a specific job (using some of the best folks who ever worked at NASA, ULA, and Boeing) in half the time for tenth of the cost.”
    You forgot to say that it would look the coolest going up too!

  • Happy Fathers Day, Robert!

    I concur with that sentiment.

  • Where-as you guys believe without question every word that comes from the mouth of Musk while vilifying everything from the anti-Christ that is Shannon.

    I have not said anything against John Shannon.

  • I believe both you and Elon, however, without a precise definition of “profitable” it is difficult to figure out what he means.

    I think it’s pretty simple — revenues greater than expenses.

  • Gary Church

    “the proposed SD HLV is truly a bargain.”

    It is, and that is exactly why these private space sycophants freak out when it is discussed. It is the right course, and it would sink Space X and the rest of the junk rocket peddlers without a trace. Their swindle would be thwarted. They cannot allow that to happen- anything that opposes the dismantling of the evil empire that is NASA must be buried in endless posts of technobabble and insults. That is space politics.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ June 20th, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    My dealings with both SpaceX and Shannon’s findings have been, “this is interesting, lets check the numbers”. Where-as you guys believe without question every word that comes from the mouth of Musk while vilifying everything from the anti-Christ that is Shannon

    to be fair to Simberg (gasp) he is not the one who questioned Shannon’s numbers or honesty. I did. I still do.

    Second to be fair to me I dont believe or take for granted every word that Musk says. Every post I write about Musk is something like “If he can make his cost numbers”

    Shannon and JSC Nasa have demonstrated that they cannot make any cost numbers. To believe Shannon we have to come to the conclusion that the same group (because they would be in charge of it) that has spent 10 billion dollars to build Ares 1/Orion and has nothing to show for it can somehow with a hand waving come up with the magic formula that does a far more complicated vehicle, for less money then already spent.

    This is the old NASA two step. “WE get it” or “we have gotten new marching orders” or “we have really changed” and then before you know it the old program looks like the same faces and has the same problems.

    Go study UAL and TED. TED was going to be the low cost carrier that would fix all the problems UAL had in its 737 fleet competing against low cost carriers. ALL the people who ran UAL’s 737 fleet moved to TED and so did all the problems.

    I dont take every word Musk says as “gospel” but I am growing confident in his abilities and predictions as he seems to be meeting them (with the schedule slips which are common). The problems with Iridium are not show stoppers (ie the Vandy pad and the multiple dispenser…all those things are not that difficult.

    A friend who has looked very closely at SpaceX has written a nice report looking at the parallels between the Falcon9 and the Model 299. it is an interesting comparison.

    We will see how it works out. I would bet 10000 dollars that Musk works it out. I would bet the trust fund that NASA couldnt meet its cost claims on anything much less an SDV.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Thanks for the Father’s day wishes…it is a first for Miss Lorelei in our presence. Robert

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ June 20th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
    There are designs for spaceships, orbital power stations, ect. that would require 75mT or more launch capability. One of those “transformitive technologies”, VASIMER, would need a nuclear power generator or huge solar cells that will need every pound of that 75mT. If it was available it would be used.

    there might be decisions but the cost of the rocket launch on a sDV will keep them being that forever.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ June 20th, 2010 at 12:42 am

    MW: Then I guess you’re not talking about NASA or our government’s 60 year investment in space technology which has helped to advance and to grow this economy.

    human spaceflight is not part of this no matter how many times you say it

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bennett

    MrEarl wrote @ June 20th, 2010 at 12:17 pm That’s a nice little straw-man you threw out there.

    I don’t think so, and I’m guessing that “padawan” is something from a Star Wars movie. I saw the first three in a movie theater when they came out and then ignored what came after. I am not a “grasshopper” for anyone who posts here. But I do enjoy reading the fact based comments by quite a few of the “regulars”.

    Regardless, I was sincere in my request for someone to list a few things that required a HLV to get into orbit, so thanks. The nuclear reactor is a valid point, but I don’t know the science or the size required. I suspect that we may need some form of HLV down the road, but I think that 99% of what we need in the short term (20-30 years) can be done with medium to heavy lift EELVs. Fuel depot development and implementation.

    Getting that in place while commercial LEO deliveries work out the bugs and the costs involved seems like a great way to spend HSF funds. If we really need something to boost 75mt, we’ll know it by 2015 or so, and as Flex Path lays out, we’ll decide what to build.

  • Gary Church

    “seems like a great way to spend HSF funds.”

    Your boyfriend Musk would agree; but anybody who understands that NASA is the only organization that can make heavy lift happen, and that HLV is the number one requirement for BEO exploration, is going to agree. Commercial space will end HSF for decades to come; except for a short list of billionaire space clowns before the junk rocket companies go bankrupt.

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sd-hlv-assessment-highlights-post-shuttle-solution/

    the BS is pretty thick on this. the savings are fanciful and mostly illusion. Some friends have sent some other stuff from Shannon’s shop…what a farce.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Gary, I disagree with both of your assertions without proof, as do many other people. Now what? More name calling? How is this productive?

  • Gary Church

    Like I said,

    the proposed SD HLV is truly a bargain.”

    It is, and that is exactly why these private space sycophants freak out when it is discussed. It is the right course, and it would sink Space X and the rest of the junk rocket peddlers without a trace. Their swindle would be thwarted. They cannot allow that to happen- anything that opposes the dismantling of the evil empire that is NASA must be buried in endless posts of technobabble and insults. That is space politics.

    For you private space sycophants that weep bitter tears over the vast treasure NASA “wastes” every year;

    The U.S. Defense Department said Wednesday it will modify an existing contract with Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. and pay the contractor $8.4 billion for the VH-3D executive helicopter special progressive aircraft rework induction.

    That is a drop in the DOD bucket- not even worth commenting on when talking about defense spending. But there is wailing and gnashing of teeth over NASA.

    7.8 billion for a HLV that is a prerequisite for any BEO exploration- and vacuuming the carpet on the presidents helicopters costs 8.4.

    But it’s a farce. Right.

  • Gary Church

    “Now what? More name calling? How is this productive?”

    You brought me back to space clown town with your Space Review comments about my posts; now suck it up. Your righteous indignation is so worn out.

  • Gary Church

    This makes SpaceX chump change;

    Also key to the findings, the proposed HLV is part of a larger mission architecture, one which could provide additional support for the International Space Station (ISS) if required, mainly via cargo capability, but also via crewed versions of the vehicle, and on to Lunar mission support and beyond.

    The presentation also noted that the crewed HLV version would utilize the Orion in its original role of transporting astronauts into orbit and back, as opposed to the FY2011 proposal of an interim role only as a Crew Rescue Vehicle (CRV) on the ISS.

    “The HLV is primarily for cargo and provides an excellent foundational capability for heavy-lift. It can deliver 80 metric tons (mt) of gross cargo to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), 45 mt to the International Space Station (ISS), 30 mt to Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO) and 8-10mt to the lunar surface.

    “A capsule such as the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) can be added to the top of the PLC to carry crew to the ISS or do manned lunar or other crewed missions. A Launch Abort System (LAS) can be added to this crewed configuration which would significantly improve the estimated loss of crew (LOC) rate by a factor of 5 to 10 compared to the current Space Shuttle.”

    Thanks for the article Mr. Oler.

  • vulture4

    Using existing hardware for a new program isn’t necessarily an advantage when operational costs are considered. The CEV was designed for the lunar mission, not LEO logistics. It carries only 4 (vs 7 for the Dragon) and much less cargo., vet it weighs more than twice as much after landing. The large CEV service module isn’t needed for LEO transport, and the Dragon has a large cargo volume instead.

    As for the HLV booster, ULA already advertises Delta growth versions up to 80MT to LEO, and no actual payloads in this class have been funded or even seriously proposed, so it is hard to see why NASA needs to spend billions to develop a new launch vehicle in this class now. Moreover, unless the Shuttle program is extended, which would be great f it occurs but seems unlikely since about half of NASA is still fighting it, the expensive LC-39 infrastructure would have to be maintained for years to support a handful of HLV launches of payloads yet to be funded.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Gary Church wrote @ June 20th, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    articles like this are entertaining. I am reminded of the scene where the short guy comes out to Mr. ORouke shouting “da plane the plane” it is all fantasy

    Shannon’s numbers are about as good as they have always been…bogus

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    MrEarl wrote @ June 20th, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    First, the Falcon 9 can only lift 10 mT to LEO and SpaceX is charging $59million to do it.

    Falcon 9 list price is $56M, not $59M. At $56M for 23,050 lbs to LEO, that would be $2,430/lb. They are also advertising their Falcon 9 Heavy variant, although they don’t have announced orders for it yet. The price of the Falcon 9 Heavy has not been listed, but if we assume 3X the -9, that would be $168M to put 70,548 lbs into LEO, or $2,381/lb. It would become the largest operational launcher in the U.S. inventory, and yet there are no payloads for it to launch right now. There aren’t even any payloads for the slightly smaller Atlas V Heavy, and that one has been potentially available for a number of years.

    I admit that I don’t know what the ULA is charging to use the maximum lift of the Delta IV and Atlas V’s ~25mT but if it is the $500 million you quote then the $450 to $600 to launch the 85 to 100 mT payload of the proposed SD HLV is truly a bargain.

    ULA has publicly stated the following:

    – $1.3B (non-recurring) to upgrade Delta IV Heavy & launch facilities to be man-rated, then $300M/launch for Orion or ???
    – $400M (non-recurring) to upgrade Atlas V & launch facilities to be man-rated, then $130M/launch for commercial crew or ???

    Let’s assume that once they upgrade Delta or Atlas, then it’s the same price going forward for crew or cargo. Delta IV Heavy can lift 49,470 to LEO, which would be $6,064/lb.

    Let’s take your example of how much it would cost to put 100 mT (220,462 lbs) of payload into LEO:

    For Atlas V, it would take 11 launches, and cost $1.43B
    For Delta IV Heavy, it would take 5 launches, and cost $1.5B
    For Falcon 9, it would take 10 launches, and cost $560M
    For Falcon 9 Heavy, it would take 4 launches, and cost $672M

    These are fully burdened launcher list prices, meaning that the R&D, NRE, facilities and all the overhead costs are reflected in their prices. In other words, they make a profit

    What would the equivalent price be for HLV? So far all we know are the projected per/unit prices, not the fully burdened ones.

    I’ve done a lot of the math here to show what current launchers would cost to put payload into LEO. Why don’t you (or anyone) take someones HLV non-recurring & recurring costs and price out how many launches it would take for an HLV to become competitive with the Atlas/Delta and Falcon 9 family of launchers?

    If you truly believe in the cost effectiveness of HLV’s, show us the cross-over point of yearly tonnage that makes HLV’s more cost effective.

  • Gary Church

    You keep juggling numbers around while ignoring the reason for an HLV’s existence; heavy lift.

    If you want to put something heavy up there in one piece you simply cannot do it with the toy rockets you mentioned. I could ask you to show me how the “falcon family” (chuckle) is going to put up an 80 metric ton nuclear power plant but what would be the point? It cannot do it for any amount of money. So your whole technobabble infomercial repeated over and over and over argument is nonsense. Kerosene junk rockets cannot do the mission so you can take all that math and feed it into the shredder Ron. Thanks anyway.

  • Gary Church

    And Mr. Oler,

    I would take Shannon’s “word” over Musk’s any day of the week. His cluster’s last stand is not just a cluster, it is a cluster……

  • Robert G. Oler

    Gary Church wrote @ June 20th, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    And Mr. Oler,

    I would take Shannon’s “word” over Musk’s any day of the week

    ok curious…what has Shannon predicted in the past that has given you such confidence?

    you realize that there is not a single price that Shannon et al has predicted that has come anywhere near to “close”

    Robert G. Oler

  • brobof

    Gary Church wrote @ June 20th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
    Gary as one who professes to know so much about nuclear… 80 tonnes?

    SP-100 ~10 tonnes last time I looked: DRM 3.0 and its even lighter now I’ll bet. Anyway the best idea I saw on NASASpaceflight.com was a triple launch using EELV. Two subcritical fuel ‘pods’ and a ‘mating’ reactor shell. Just to keep the environmental movement happy.

    And as you no doubt are fully aware the design mass goal for the SP-100 is 4000 kg!

    http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep533/SPRING2004/lecture23.pdf

  • MrEarl

    Well Ron: I’ll have Shannon’s full report sometime next week but from the piece in NASASpaceFlight.com they are looking at an HLV with 80mT initial capacity for $7.8 development and between $600million to $450million per launch, $7.5 to $5.6 million per mT

    Delta IV Heavy at 23mT and $300million would be 3.5 launches to get to 80mT at a total of $1.04Billion would be $13million per mT.

    Falcon 9 heavy at 32mT and $168million would require 2.5 launches to get to 80mT at a total of $420million and would be $5.25million per mT.

    Even at the $600million per launch the price per mT is better than the Delta IV and close to the estimated costs for a Falcon 9 Heavy.
    Still neither launcher can lift 80mT in one launch, with it’s contingent of 27 motors the Falcon 9 may prove to be difficult to control just going by the experience of the Soviet Union with the N1 and both of these designs would have reached their maximum growth potential whereas the SD HLV would be at the beginning.

  • Gary Church

    “ok curious…what has Shannon predicted in the past that has given you such confidence?”

    It does not matter what he “predicted”, he is selling hardware that has been performing and constantly improved for the last 30 years and has put over 10,000 tons of metal into space a hundred plus times. SRBs and SSME’ -and the external tank. It will work as advertised. You want to hem and haw about a billion either way when…..how many times do I have to repeat this; ONE TRILLION F*ING DOLLARS IN DEFENSE SPENDING FISCAL YEAR 2010!

    You know what I am concerned about- the survival imperative. That is my concern and it is valid. It is not business to me- it is life and death.

    “Gary as one who professes to know so much about nuclear… 80 tonnes?”

    Yes, when trying to put up a nuclear pulse propulsion system any limit to the weight of the engine is a limit to the efficiency- the ISP. The bigger the engine, the more thousands of ISP you get, bigger is more efficient. So the more lift the more you come out ahead. You can’t put it together in more than a couple or three pieces which is why smaller launchers are show stoppers. No way around it. Go sidemount!

  • Gary Church

    “with it’s contingent of 27 motors the Falcon 9 may prove to be difficult to control”

    Let’s not do this again, please. One side says it is the greatest thing since sliced bread and the other side says it is not just a cluster- it is a clusterF*.
    It has been argued to death.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ June 20th, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    First off those numbers are fiction.

    Go back and read the “numbers” associated with the development cost of Ares, the proposed ops cost etc etc and you find the folks who put them together missed them by a large number.

    Second the numbers miss some things…like infrastructure changes at the Cape. There is no second stage yet so its development would have to “go forward”.

    Falcon’s numbers might need to be verified but they are firming up. Delta/Atlas are pretty firm.

    Second there are no 80mt payloads…NASA is going to have to invent them and those are not paid for.

    as for the 27 engines. The N1 had no “control problems” as best as one can tell…it had serious quality control issues. there is no hint that Falcon 9 heavy would have control issues just because of the number of motors.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Gary Church wrote @ June 20th, 2010 at 11:02 pm

    so you dont have any reason to trust the numbers are real. after that the discussion is over.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Gary Church

    “Second there are no 80mt payloads…NASA is going to have to invent them and those are not paid for.”

    Nobody has to “invent” any heavy payloads- payloads are made to fit the launcher. The heavier the launcher, the bigger you can make the payload. Bigger is better- and for any Human Space Flight Beyond Earth Orbit they are going to be huge. You may not believe in HSF Mr. Oler but many of us believe that is where we should be going and the only thing holding us back is…….ONE TR- no, I won’t say it again.

  • red

    MrEarl: “I’ll have Shannon’s full report sometime next week but from the piece in NASASpaceFlight.com they are looking at an HLV with 80mT initial capacity for $7.8 development and between $600million to $450million per launch, $7.5 to $5.6 million per mT”

    That’s worse than the $2.6B Block I/$4.0B Block II cost that Shannon presented to the Augustine Committee last year. It also doesn’t cover the Block III in the NASASpaceFlight article.

    From the NASASpaceFlight article:

    “The total side mount HLV development cost to reach a full operational capability was estimated to be $7.8 billion (plus about $1B cost to develop the EDS)” … “KSC infrastructure costs were not included.”

    The $1B EDS plus KSC infrastructure costs (not cheap) … ouch.

    “At a flight rate of 6 launches per year, the estimated cost for each HLV launch would be $600M (fixed year $2009), once the side mount Block II HLV has become fully operational.”

    That’s a 6x$600M … $3.6B/year for operations, just for launches. If $3.6B/year is too expensive (it is), lower the launch rate, and watch the per-launch cost skyrocket.

    Given that we have the $4.5B or higher Orion CRV that might need to be squeezed into the budget, and a possible budget cut by the time all is said and done, we don’t have any money for this, let alone the amount of money they’re talking about.

    It’s interesting that they look ahead to a Block III and a switch from sidemount to inline, but where would we get the money for all of that?

    They should have taken the budget seriously, and looked at how they could make it cheap. Could they get by with Block I at least for a few years, and keep most or all of Block II expenses out of the 2011-2015 budget range? The money we probably have to work with is some fraction of the $1.9B KSC modernization and $3.0B heavy lift/propulsion budget. The study happened before that budget was released, but even then that was in the ballpark of what they should have been working with.

  • Gary Church

    “discussion is over.”

    Not it’s not.

  • Vladislaw

    Gary wrote:

    “It is, and that is exactly why these private space sycophants freak out when it is discussed. It is the right course, and it would sink Space X and the rest of the junk rocket peddlers without a trace.”

    So this is the role of the federal government, to “sink” private enterprise and leave the Federal government with a monopoly. So what other private enterprises should be sunk and taken over by the government? I mean if it works for space launches why screw around, let’s have full blown communism. You are a communist at heart if you want to sink private enterprise and have the government take over.

  • Gary Church

    “That’s a 6x$600M … $3.6B/year for operations, just for launches. If $3.6B/year is too expensive (it is), lower the launch rate, and watch the per-launch cost skyrocket.”

    Maybe they could cut back on the 8 billion dollar presidential helicopter renovation contract a little? Or those B-2 bombers- or V-22 ospreys- or B-1 bombers- or B-52 bombers- or…..a dozen other DOD money pits. Ya think?

  • Gary Church

    “You are a communist at heart if you want to sink private enterprise and have the government take over.”

    No. I am not. You are not even worth arguing with. Try again.

  • Bennett

    Although his spoutings are amusing at times, I wonder what effort Gary has put into lobbying his federal representatives about his SciFi dreams? I’m as big a fan of HSF and the “promise of NASA” as anyone, but I understand the grim realities of politics and budget and the priorities of government.

    He seems to be oblivious to the simplest of things.

  • Gary Church

    “I understand the grim realities of politics and budget and the priorities of government.

    He seems to be oblivious to the simplest of things.”

    You do not understand the end of your nose. Go write a love letter to your boyfriend.

  • Gary Church

    I see this is devolving into the high school insult space clown hour again. So good night. I love the way everyone gets their licks in after I sign off. It is so funny.

  • Coastal Ron

    MrEarl wrote @ June 20th, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    they are looking at an HLV with 80mT initial capacity for $7.8 development and between $600million to $450million per launch, $7.5 to $5.6 million per mT

    Falcon 9 heavy at 32mT and $168million would require 2.5 launches to get to 80mT at a total of $420million and would be $5.25million per mT

    Ok, so if we’re talking about consumables or bulk supplies, then an SD-HLV would not be the cheapest. Thanks for clarifying that.

    Of course, your figures don’t take into account amortizing the $7.8B non-recurring, so the actual cost/launch for the SD-HLV are really higher. Nor have they answered the question of where the cross-over point would be where an SD-HLV would be more cost effective for bulk cargo than current launchers.

    For instance, for $7.8B SD-HLV non-recurring, Delta IV could put 1,286,220 lbs of payload into LEO before one HLV ever lifted it’s first payload. Or, Falcon 9 Heavy could put 3,245,208 lbs of payload into LEO. That’s a lot of payload that an HLV would have to make up before it would be the most economical alternative to our current launchers.

    Granted we’re talking bulk payload here, not payload size or mass, but that’s because no one knows how big the actual payloads are that are supposedly too big for current launchers.

    To summarize: The SD-HLV would not be the least expensive bulk cargo option – Falcon 9 Heavy would be cheaper.

    For specific sized cargo, the answer is still TBD (no defined payloads yet), as it is for crew. More calculations coming though…

  • Gary Church, In case you did not notice, federal, state, and county employees- all paid by tax dollars, are well over 20 percent, add in the contractors being paid by tax dollars and you have the largest employer in America.

    Well, at first, I thought, “this is probably true.” The government is rather intrusive. But I don’t usually trust intuition, so I decided to look up the statistics. According to BLS and Census.gov your statement is wholly and utterly incorrect. The civilian labor force is around 154 million (139 million employed, but you should go by the labor force as a whole), the number of federal, state, and local government employees is around 18 million. That’s between 11% and 12% aggregate government employees. And to be realistic you should not count local employees (12 million) because firefighters and policemen and local utility people are not representative of government pork (they are effectively self-sufficient governments that run through the communities themselves and local government is essential for society to function).

    It is no wonder you have no problem being accused of being a red commie pig (which is what Trent essentially did), because you clearly believe that we already live in a red state and “what more government” can hurt, right?

    You are just repeating THE BIG LIE like everyone else that is trying to put NASA’s budget in their pocket- that NASA is an evil empire.

    The big lie is that NASAs budget has been for the longest time anything but a porkfest. When it costs as much to build a launch pad as it does to build a rocket, it becomes clear that government isn’t doing things as effectively as the market could.

    Try talking about the DOD and their 8 billion dollar contract to rework the presidents helicopters; not even a drop in their bucket. While you private space advertisers weep bitter tears about NASA trying to build a decent rocket. You are pathetic.

    For every decent rocket that NASA builds private enterprise could build several. That’s a fact. Please if you think that government running everything is a good thing (and you clearly do when you think American government is 20% of our labor force), go to Cuba or North Korea for your space access endeavors.

    Do not perpetuate the lie that American government is as big as socialist states and that NASA is fine and dandy doing everything itself through government bureaucracy.

  • I think that when a thread has devolved to arguments between Oler and Church, it has been effectively Godwinized.

  • Gary Church

    According to the Department of Labor’s web site, “With more than 1.8 million civilian employees, the Federal Government, excluding the Postal Service is the Nation’s largest employer.”

    The “true size” of the federal government stands at 14.6 million employees, said Paul C. Light, the study’s author and a government professor at New York University.

    How was this number arrived at? The Bureau of Labor Statistics said there are about 2 million civilian jobs and the armed services is about another million. Too many estimates include state and local governments.

    Not 20%. Only about 12 huh. Could have sworn it was 20 or close to it. Maybe it was the high unemployment rate that threw me off. You know, all those jobs that private industry moved to other countries so they could get cheap labor? It is such a great example how the market takes care of itself.

    But the fact remains- the federal government is the nations largest employer. And THE BIG LIE you space clowns keep telling endlessly is that NASA is wasting money. Bullshit. The DOD is wasting money. You just want NASA dismantled and will use any excuse to make your tourist fantasies come true. Space clowns.

  • Gary Church

    “no one knows how big the actual payloads are that are supposedly too big for current launchers.”

    Still trying to baffle everyone with your B.S. Ron?

  • Gary Church

    Oh, don’t let me get between you and Mr. Oler, Rand. You two are such great proponents of private space.

    Proof that the market does eat its young.

  • Gary Church

    “To summarize: The SD-HLV would not be the least expensive bulk cargo option – Falcon 9 Heavy would be cheaper.”

    And I am into sci-fi? You space clowns are pathetic. 27 engines- that’s not a cluster, that is a clusterf*ck.

  • Gary Church, NASA is wasting money if a company can build a rocket for less than the cost of their launch pad. This is a fact and you are a fucking idiot for not realizing it.

  • Gary Church

    Josh Cryer,

    You are just another space clown- just more asinine than the rest. Cheap junk rockets and cooking the books to look good are just another way of stealing. And stealing is what private space is all about. It is what you are about; one more lying con artist trying screw up my country worse than the other lying con artists posing as red blooded good ole boy entrepreneurs. You make me sick.

  • Gary Church, I hope you remember you said that bullshit when Falcon 9 is carrying our men to the ISS, and when we have SHLLV for 5 times or less than what anyone within the bureaucracy could’ve come up with using SDV. Liars are people who present Ares I-X as a representative test of Ares I. Con artists are people who say “we need to keep the manned gap short” while denying funds to the very agency they’re expecting to do it. Capitalist entrepreneurs built this country, and if you want a socialist utopia feel free to leave.

  • Gary Church

    You were a coward to flame me after I signed off. Obvious.

  • Gary Church

    “Capitalist entrepreneurs built this country”

    More lies. Unions and firearms are the only reason the U.S. is not “Brazil North” with 1 percent living in gated luxury while the other 99 live in cardboard boxes working 12 hours a day for pennies. It is the oldest game there is- your conservative heroes are all thieves and stole everything till there was nothing left. Then dumped it in the progressives lap for us to clean up. Liars and con artists, all of you.

  • Gary Church, just remember this nonsense dude. Remember it. The American Space Program is going places, and it ain’t the dead in route that Griffin put it down. Remember it. Don’t forget I said this. Cx is dead, get over it.

  • Gary Church, the only thieves are those conservatives who are trying to keep Cx around. Democrats, even Bill Nelson, are behind the President’s decision to cancel Cx. The progressives are changing things for the better. The progressives are embracing a good, smart, efficient capitalism. And it’s about time.

  • Gary Church

    Whatever “dude.” I am sorry but I will forget everything you said- it is all garbage. Good night. Flame away “dude.”

  • Gary Church, bye bye pork barrel spending for NASA. Too bad the rest of government can’t be managed the way NASA is being managed. Payment *after* results, not before. You don’t measure success by how many failures you have.

  • Josh, please don’t answer incivility with incivility, you’re better than that.

  • brobof

    Gary Church wrote @ June 20th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
    “an 80 metric ton nuclear power plant”
    Gary Church wrote @ June 20th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
    “when trying to put up a nuclear pulse propulsion system”
    William Shakespere wrote 1603-1607
    “a poor player…
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
    And then is heard no more: it is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.”
    Back under the bridge.
    shun

  • WOW, folks. I am truly impressed by Oler’s acumen on all subjects SPACE. Jeez, this guy should be heading up NASA, he is so brilliant about manned space flight and all.

    Frankly, Oler and his ilk strike me as 99 percent of the bloggers out there today, full of feces as a Chrismas Turkey. Oler and his ilk are akin to the ACADEMIC, full of bloviating commentary and continually be jerk of the group. The type of person in junior high school who kept getting the snot beat out of him by the regular people.

    Frankly, I continue to be amazed that Oler is posting here and there are those dumb enough to believe his bull feces. I would be willing to put money on Oler, just like Lori Garver are in bed with SpaceX and their propaganda has the ultimate aim of feathering their own nest at the demise of those aerospace engineers who are taking it in the shorts because of the Obama/Bolden/Garver/Holdren stupidity. OR might it be cupidity, could there be more nefarious skanky goings on in this push to GLORIFY SpaceX? Methings there are some huge things rotten in Denmark.

    These yahoos continue the idiocy that the MARKET ALWASYS DOES IT BETTER. Hmm, let’s see, BP, the Financial Market companies, Wall Street, yep, that sure increases my belief in this stupid mantra about the market always being right.

    Tell me Oler, were you always a butthead, or is it something that you worked at all your life? Did agreat job on that task if it was.

    Funny how those folks who have been there, done that in the Manned Space Flight programs all disagree with this SpaceX fan club of dunces.

  • amightywind

    John Cryer wrote:

    “The progressives are changing things for the better. The progressives are embracing a good, smart, efficient capitalism. And it’s about time.”

    What is efficient about 10% unemployment, higher taxes, and a corrupt bloated public sector? What is better about healthcare rationing, carbon taxes and government control of 60% of the economy? No, in a virtual replay of the late 1970’s the liberal hegemony is nearing an end.

    Constellation enjoyed bipartisan support in congress and still does. The President and his cronies have cunningly disrupted it, no doubt about that. The rabid SpaceX hype has also done damage, but congress is not deceived. A GOP congress and some restructuring will put Constellation back on firm footing.

  • MrEarl

    Ok, this dead horse has been sufficiently beaten.

    NEXT!!!!!!

  • John Academ

    “Oler and his ilk are akin to the ACADEMIC, full of bloviating commentary and continually be jerk of the group. The type of person in junior high school who kept getting the snot beat out of him by the regular people.”

    You ‘regular people’ got all the answers.

    Would you like some cheese with that tea bag whine?

  • Space Cadet

    @ Robert:

    “Look the conversation about HSF exploration would be quite different IF two things were going on 1) there was some reason for HSF that made money not required it…2) if the cost to do human exploration of space were an order or two of magnitude cheaper then what it is.”

    The cost is < 1% of the federal budget (NASA's entire budget is < 1%). Are you suggesting that if it was < 0.1 % then there would be some significant increase in public support?

    The average American thinks NASA's budget is ~ 30% of the federal budget. Some of them think that (inaccurate) level is worthwhile and some think it is not worthwhile. If the HSF budget were reduced from 0.2% to 0.02% most taxpayers/voters would still judge the value as if it were costing 30%.

  • Gary Church

    “A GOP congress and some restructuring will put Constellation back on firm footing.”

    There are some bizarro people out there. There will never be another GOP congress. That party committed suicide under Dubya.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Space Cadet wrote @ June 21st, 2010 at 11:02 am

    first it does not matter how little or much something spends if it is spent badly. The right wing complains bitterly about PBS (it competes with private enterprise), NEA funding (it is trivial but the right wing doesnt like what it funds…it would only cost 3 billion dollars a year to build the alternate engine for the F-35…

    all chump change but in the end worthless.

    NASA is a bloated bureacracy that takes 100 people to do the job of 10…and is growing. It has made exploration unaffordable on what are reasonable sums of money.

    If SpaceX can build and fly a vehicle to orbit on under 1/2 billion dollars…and NASA cant get Ares 1 to orbit on 10 something is wrong.

    As for the amount most Americans believe are spent on NASA…irrelevant.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Harvey wrote @ June 21st, 2010 at 8:54 am

    were you the person in High school who we all knew was never going to college?

    badly written comment. Almost on “almightywind” level

    Robert G. Oler

  • Gary Church

    “If SpaceX can build and fly a vehicle to orbit on under 1/2 billion dollars…and NASA cant get Ares 1 to orbit on 10 something is wrong.”

    Yes, something is wrong….I would say it is creative book keeping enron style. Space flight is inherently expensive. If NASA is wasting money then, because it is a government agency, it can be reformed. But having lived in the military as a career I believe NASA is super-efficient compared to any DOD activity. Why do I say this? Because they managed to make the shuttle fly after being nickel and dimed into that bastardized spy plane no escape system airliner by half a dozen conflicting interests; none of it was NASA’s fault. They did the best they could. The profit motive- pushing launches to make or save a buck, and underfunding are what have caused all of NASA’s equipment and management failures. It is your space agency- it is not your SpaceX. That is the difference that matters. There is no cheap.

  • amightywind

    “There is no cheap.”

    I must echo this sentiment. Of course vapor rockets are cheap. Of course spacecraft that won’t fly for seven years are on schedule. Does the billionaire adventurer have a better idea? 50 years of experience says no. F9 is a child’s imitation of early NASA launchers. You deserve better America!

  • John Malkin

    F9 had done something the Ares I hasn’t done, orbit. How much have American spent on F9 so far compared to Ares I?

  • John Malkin

    How many government run airlines are in the US? The general public will never get to space on government spacecraft. It’s too expensive because the government doesn’t look for other customers to share the cost except DOD (more government).

  • amightywind

    “F9 had done something the Ares I hasn’t done, orbit.”

    Looking at the video of the harrowing F9 ascent, I’d say just barely.

    “The general public will never get to space on government spacecraft.”

    I am not suggesting they do. Virgin Galactic and other like concerns are how Joe Six Pack will eventually reach space. But don’t spend my money on it! In the meantime NASA is more analogous to the military. Squeaky clean astronauts in blue coveralls flying dangerous machines.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Of course, your figures don’t take into account amortizing the $7.8B non-recurring, so the actual cost/launch for the SD-HLV are really higher.

    Nor the carrying cost of the Shuttle supply chain while the SDLV is being developed I presume, or is this imagined in parallel with Shuttle extension?

  • Gary Church

    “How many government run airlines are in the US?”

    The airline industry is the most heavily government subsidized industry their is next to nuclear power. What now Einstien?

  • DCSCA

    Today John Glenn has voiced criticism of the Obama space policy. The former U.S. senator and Mercury astronaut ( for the children of the shuttle era, Glenn was one of the ‘Original Seven’ Mercury astronauts and the first American to orbit the Earth in 1962 aboard Friendship 7 and a MS aboard STS-95 in 1998) recommends continued United States access to space for manned spaceflight by extending limited shuttle flights to to the ISS in tandem with Soyuz.

  • I say we create a special topic where Gary Church and A Mighty Wind can just bloviate to each other about how Obama’s plan is wrong because it is too capitalist or not capitalist enough. Or some such nonsense.

    HEY IDIOTS!!!!! Would you please go back to your left/right wing nutbaggery farms and leave the rest of us alone.

  • Martijn Meijering

    The irony of this was pointed out on spacetransportnews.com: someone should ask Glenn if he remembers the last time he personally flew on an Atlas!

  • brobof

    DCSCA wrote @ June 21st, 2010 at 4:53 pm
    I would suggest rereading what he said!
    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1406
    Indeed the relative lack of rhetoric and criticism is noteworthy. He lays out a pretty fair assessment of where you are and then makes some sound comments.
    If anything he has lobbed the ball into Congress’ court to get their ‘act’ together, find some funding and continue with the Shuttle.
    He seems to like Mars tho’ which is where he and I part company!
    Phobos First!

  • DCSCA

    … when Falcon 9 is carrying our men to the ISS. <- That's quite a leap of faith for a vehicle that has to date lofted a gyrating piece of space junk; has yet to orbit an operational, crewed spacecraft capable of sustaining life, reentered the atmosphere, splashed down safely and recovered a crew alive.

  • brobof

    DCSCA wrote @ June 21st, 2010 at 5:30 pm
    19th Dec 1972 19:24:59 PM
    It’s been some time America… Festina Lente!

  • DCSCA

    @brobof- suggest YOU re-read his assessments and recommendations– and listen to him on NBC News. Glenn’s been consistent regarding the need for basic fundamental research for decades. Much of his position is worth considering– some less so. Still, funding/WH support has always been an issue from the days when he flew. But private rocketeers will dismiss his comments with grace and glee.

  • DCSCA

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ June 21st, 2010 at 5:24 pm “…someone should ask Glenn if he remembers the last time he personally flew on an Atlas!” Maybe you should. He’ll tell you it worked just fine and, unlike any payload flown atop a Falcon 9, his spacecraft kept him alive fo three orbits and had no onboard computer, and parachuted him safely down into the Atlantic.

  • DCSCA

    I dont take every word Musk says as “gospel” but I am growing confident in his abilities and predictions as he seems to be meeting them (with the schedule slips which are common). <- ROFLMAO. suggest you review the security nightmares spawned at Paypal and the economic status of Tesla Motors. This guy will sell off SpaceX.

  • suggest you review the security nightmares spawned at Paypal and the economic status of Tesla Motors.

    The Tesla Motors that’s doing an IPO at the end of the month? That Tesla Motors?

  • Ferris Valyn

    DCSCA – In case you missed it, the irony about Glenn & the Atlas is that a lot of the vehicles being talked about launch on an Atlas V.

    In case you missed that

  • brobof

    DCSCA wrote @ June 21st, 2010 at 4:53 pm
    Today John Glenn has voiced criticism of the Obama space policy.
    No he hasn’t! Indeed the only mild criticism is one levelled at Congress and it’s appropriations…
    DCSCA wrote @ June 21st, 2010 at 5:42 pm
    Glenn’s been consistent regarding the need for basic fundamental research for decades.
    Consistantly silent. Citations?
    And by the way you do know that basic fundamental research is what FY 2011 is all about! Or did you not read that too. http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html

    Finally
    Senator John Glenn wrote:
    “What is new is placing 100% confidence in smaller, less experienced companies if the Shuttles are retired, with no backup, for extremely complex missions. I am glad to see multi-company interest in commercial space development, but at this early stage of their experience they should be phased in only after they demonstrate a high degree of competency and reliability, particularly with regard to safety concerns.”
    DCSCA wrote @ June 21st, 2010 at 5:42 pm
    “But private rocketeers will dismiss his comments with grace and glee.”
    Really? I think not.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Consistantly silent. Citations?

    Huh? How could you cite someone who is consistently silent?

  • Gary Church

    “launch on an Atlas V.”

    Atlas V is a different machine than the old ICBM Glenn flew on- Just a name. In case you missed that.

  • amightywind

    “Atlas V is a different machine than the old ICBM Glenn flew on- Just a name.”

    The problem is the Falcon 9 is not much different than the olde ICBM Glenn flew on 50 years ago.

  • red

    NASA release some information that clears up one aspect of the original subject of the thread:

    “All the money—$100 million total—would come out of the Exploration portion of the budget, although the document doesn’t specify what specific areas of Exploration would lose money to fund these initiatives (the original $40 million was to come from Constellation closeout costs.)”

    From

    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jun/HQ_10-150_NASA_Budget_Amendment.html

    “The amendment would provide up to $40 million in aid for Florida’s Space Coast and a maximum of about $60 million for other affected regions. These funds specifically would be made available from the Constellation Program transition element of the agency’s exploration request. The amendment does not increase the total of the administration’s fiscal year 2011 budget request.”

    So … none of the funds are coming from technology demonstration and development, robotic precursor missions, commercial crew and cargo, human research, or heavy lift and propulsion accounts. That’s good.

  • puzzled

    Man, the more I read here… PDS, BDS, ODS, even Roosevelt DS. Now Glenn DS, Atlas DS, and always SpaceX DS. No wonder I am puzzled…

  • Ferris Valyn

    Gary – and Ares I is very different from Shuttle, as is Direct, and any SDLV. The only difference is that Atlas V has flown over 20 times

    abreakingwind – and no one is talking about sole-sourcing CCrew.

    Jim Muncy – I really have nothing to add to your statement, given GC and Abreakingwind’s most recent comment

  • Better tears. They are tasty.

  • Gary Church

    ‘The only difference is that Atlas V has flown over 20 times”

    And the shuttle system- which is the SRB’s, SSME’s, and external tank that will make up the SDLV- has flown 100 plus times and put over 10,000 tons of metal in space. It makes everything else out there a joke. And it is what will sink private space without a trace. Go Sidemount!

  • Space Cadet

    @ Robert Oler:

    I agree NASA is inefficient. I’m still curious about your point of view on valuation: when you wrote “Look the conversation about HSF exploration would be quite different IF … the cost to do human exploration of space were an order or two of magnitude cheaper then what it is,” were you suggesting that human exploration of space *is* worthwhile if it costs say, 0.02 % of the federal budget, but *not* worthwhile if it costs 0.2% ??

  • Space Cadet, you won’t find one person here who isn’t for NASAs budget jumping that high. The key is that “more funding” isn’t coming. We’ve had 30 years to get NASAs budget to grow, it’s hardly stayed within inflation. The money just isn’t there. So practically speaking, we cannot expect the money to magically be there.

    So we look at the budget, and like adults, determine the best way to achieve our goals. That way is reducing costs to LEO and building our technology base. That way we can do more with what little we got.

  • DCSCA

    brobof wrote @ June 21st, 2010 at 6:31 pm “Really? I think not.”

    That’s obvious.

    This writer suggests, for a start, you revisit the archives of the broadcast networks — or the Congressional Record over the past 30 or 40 years for ‘citations’ by astronaut/Senator Glenn regarding his consistent comments on the premise of ‘basic fundamental research’ with respect to manned spaceflight. Glenn’s comments on safety considerations are no different from those of Armstrong or Cernan. As Cernan said, private rocketeers ‘don’t know what they don’t know yet.’

  • DCSCA

    Ferris- in case you missed it (or the past 49 years), the Atlas of today has little in common with Glenn’s Atlas of 1962— except perhaps, the name.

  • DCSCA

    By January 2009, Tesla had raised US$187 million and delivered 147 cars. In a standard S-1 update filed March 26, Tesla added fourth-quarter 2009 data to the initial filing. According to the update, Tesla sold 937 Tesla Roadsters to customers in 18 countries and generated US$126.8 million in revenue as of Dec. 31, 2009.On May 21, 2010, Tesla announced a “strategic partnership” with Toyota, which agreed to purchase US$50 million in Tesla common stock issued in a private placement to close immediately after Tesla’s planned IPO.In June 2010, it was reported that Tesla sold a total of US$12.2 million zero emission vehicle credits to other automakers, including Honda, up to March 31, 2010. On June 15, 2010, Tesla announced terms for its highly anticipated IPO stating they plan to raise US$167 million by offering 11.1 million shares at a price range of US$14-US$16.Yeah, that Tesla Motors. the one that’s sold under 1000 cars and is forced to partner to raise capital. But then, we always have PayPal’s stellar history to review as well. Musk will sell SpaceX PDQ.

  • DCSCA

    @brobof -Today John Glenn has voiced criticism of the Obama space policy. “No he hasn’t!”
    Uh, yes he has. NBC News aired it. =sigh=

  • Martijn Meijering

    Atlas V is a different machine than the old ICBM Glenn flew on- Just a name.

    And with all the accumulated wisdom and improvements of long service and an impressive record it is vastly more reliable than the old Atlas ICBM it is ultimately based on and that Glenn flew on.

  • The problem is the Falcon 9 is not much different than the olde ICBM Glenn flew on 50 years ago.

    It is vastly different. It is much more affordable, much more reliable, and was designed from the start to carry crew. It’s not a converted ICBM.

  • brobof

    DCSCA wrote @ June 22nd, 2010 at 2:11 am
    Links? No don’t bother, I prefer the source to the spin.

  • Space Cadet, you won’t find one person here who isn’t for NASAs budget jumping that high.

    I’m not for it. Not unless they start spending the money a lot smarter. Constellation shouldn’t have been funded even if NASA had ten times the budget.

Leave a Reply to John Academ 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>