Other, White House

What will the new national space policy look like?

With all the debate about the future of NASA, it’s easy to overlook the fact that the administration has also been busy crafting its overall national space policy, taking into account commercial, civil, and national security issues. That process has been ongoing for months and appears to be nearing completion. As SpacePolicyOnline.com reports, Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley said Thursday that the policy will be released in the near future, giving responses ranging from “this summer” to “in the next couple of weeks”. That timeframe is not unexpected: at the National Space Symposium in Colorado in April, one official said that he expected the policy to come out this summer.

So what will be in the policy? Donley said Thursday he expected the policy would reflect the changes in the space domain over the last couple of decades, as Earth orbit becomes more congested and even contested. Meanwhile, Laura Grego and David Wright offered their opinions on what should be in the policy in a white paper published by the Union of Concerned Scientists this week. They hope to see the Obama Administration walk back some of the changes in the 2006 policy that represented, in their view, “a more aggressive U.S. approach to space”. They expect the new policy to include language “restoring a balance among civil, military and commercial uses of space”.

Update 6:45 pm: Space News reports that the new policy could come out as soon as Monday. One of the areas of emphasis of the new policy, according to a one-page fact sheet obrained by the publication, is “to strengthen our domestic commercial space industry”; improved international cooperation is another.

94 comments to What will the new national space policy look like?

  • CharlesTheSpaceGuy

    Any policy must start from the fact that we have an independent military/unmanned space program – the military and commercial operators have assured access to space. This is the majority of our space program, measured by budget. Likely the Administration will be hands-off of most of our space budget/policy. They are still wrestling with the manned part of the policy – what should we be doing, what should we spend money on? How quickly do we convert from a government to a commercial rocket, and what do we do with the capsule – build a government capsule or wait around until a commercial one is certified? We will suffer with a few years of indecision there.
    And is it too much to ask to appeal to those people who routinely post the same words, routinely, to try to say something original?

  • red

    It’s from all the way back in the Presidential campaign, but you can probably find some good guesses here:

    http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/policy/Space_Fact_Sheet_FINAL.pdf

  • “The United States is committed to encouraging and facilitating a growing and entrepreneurial U.S. commercial space sector. Toward that end, the United States Government will use U.S. commercial space capabilities to the maximum practical extent, consistent with national security.” – 2006 US National Space Policy.

    I’m not sure this administration can make that any clearer.

    “Refrain from conducting activities that preclude, deter, or compete with U.S. commercial space activities, unless required by national security or public safety” – 2006 US National Space Policy.

    It kinda seems like all that is needed is to make NASA actually read the document…

  • amightywind

    It would be a good idea for the Air Force to use Ares I and V for their future space launch. Heck, an Ares V is powerful enough to launch 2 B-52’s into orbit. It can do anything.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 8:50 am

    . It can do anything….

    LOL it cannt even get off viewgraphs

    Robert G. Oler

  • CharlesTheSpaceGuy

    amightywind wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 8:50 am

    . It can do anything.

    Why would we want to launch 2 B-52s into space??? Actually, the Ares V can’t do anything since it is a concept and not even a final design.

  • B-52s will fly on their own into orbit before Ares V lifts them there :)

    That over, it comes back to the fact nobody has come up with a convincing “why” of a national space effort since “beat the Russians to the moon.” We concentrate on how, and where, and lately even who, but not why. Across GOP and Democratic administrations, nobody has tackled that problem and come up with anything but governmentese.

    Is there a convincing “why” which would garner the support of Congress and the American people to an extent that our national space effort couldn’t descend into a jobs program for the overeducated in certain states and Congressional districts? I’m not sure.

    From time to time, I’ve tried to answer that question. I once wrote an op-ed on the topic (which with me in Benin is away in storage) but I don’t think I’ve been particularly successful. I know what the “why” isn’t, and it isn’t to be a jobs program. It does involve people. It’s more than “good science” or making money.

    Until someone answers that question and frames it in, to paraphrase Jefferson, “words so clear as to command their assent”, we will continue to be subject to fits and starts.

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://www.space.com/news/nasa-obama-space-plan-misunderstandings-100624.html

    this is a pretty good piece and it illustrates the fallacies that people like Whittington and others have used to basically spread “WMD rumors” about Obama’s space policy.

    What is important to remember is that the folks who oppose Obama’s revolution in space affairs (with due respect to Admiral Bill Owens…a great person) is that they support a big government program whose only goal is NASA astronauts doing mindless exploration of space…at enormous cost and with no benefit to the rest of the country.

    They support policies which have seen hundreds of billion spent in human spaceflight and not much to show for it..where the “US” space industry has virtually collapsed. We have lost all the commercial launch business AND a great deal of “our modules” on ISS are built overseas.

    These people use as “American exceptionalism” a program Constellation that has spent 10 billion dollars so far…and accomplished almost nothing.

    That is nonsense. In the end we have tried it there way for 40 years. It is time for a change.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    rich kolker wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Rich…it might be like Afland…in the end there is no real reason.

    In my view the only hope for human space exploration is that at some point because of a human spaceflight industry the cost drop so far that the effort is simply part of the noise.

    That may be difficult as the economy seems to be having some difficulties but as it stands right now, NASA’s efforts at HSF exploration have gotten so expensive, they are by political measures unaffordable.

    BTW if you read the facebook back and forth with my uncle…you can sort of sense I was not all that impressed with Stan.

    and Obama is in most things really floundering

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “It would be a good idea for the Air Force to use Ares I and V for their future space launch.”

    Assuming it could ever be made to work, Ares I is a suborbital launch vehicle. Orion has to perform a lengthy firing to achieve orbital insertion. Aside from Orion, Ares I can’t put anything into orbit, military satellites or otherwise.

    Don’t litter this forum with stupid statements made out of ignorance.

    Learn something before you post again.

    “Heck, an Ares V is powerful enough to launch 2 B-52’s into orbit.”

    The military has no requirement or need to put two stratofortresses in orbit, or anything else that size.

    Stop littering this forum with stupid statements made out of ignorance.

    Learn something before you post again.

    Lawdy…

  • amightywind

    With my previous comment I am highlighting how insanely large the Ares V 400,000lb payload capacity to LEO is. It is in the great American tradition of bigger is better. One must assume that the reader has some mental agility. Alas, you are all very obtuse.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 9:49 am

    we are all still “impressed” with your notion of the FAlcon 9 second stage spinning out of control…those post in rapid fire as the vehicle was coasting in orbit seems well humorous. now we have Major Kong in orbit, not to mention your lack of rocket knowledge on things like Ares 1…

    sorry.

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    Falcon 9 was in clear distress. Was I the only one who noticed? If the role anomaly had occurred on a Centaur it would be grounded and there would be an inquiry. Is commercial space about lowering engineering standards? It seems so.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 9:56 am

    . Was I the only one who noticed?…

    think that question through really heavily and you might learn something….LOL

    Robert G. Oler

  • Smitty

    Robert G Oler wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 9:21 am

    That Space.com piece is nothing but spin. I am still waiting for the substance from where they came up with the budget. Bolden and Administration has yet to deliver details, and time/money are being wasted.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Smitty wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 9:59 am

    “spin” is used to counter “spin”…and most if not all of the opposition to Obama’s plan is “spin”

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “With my previous comment I am highlighting how insanely large the Ares V 400,000lb payload capacity to LEO is.”

    Per the Augustine Committee’s final report, Ares V would only put 160 mT or 350K lbs. into LEO, not 400K lbs.

    Stop littering this forum with stupid statements made out of ignorance.

    Learn something, anything, before you post again.

    “It is in the great American tradition of bigger is better.”

    Unlike the HLV work in the FY 2011 budget, Ares V development wouldn’t have started until beyond the budget horizon. And per the Augustine Committee’s final report, Ares V wouldn’t have been available until 2028 at the earliest and NASA wouldn’t have been able to afford the development of any other Constellation elements for Ares V to launch.

    That’s not better. That’s idiotically late and useless.

    Stop littering this forum with stupid statements made out of ignorance.

    Learn something, anything, before you post again.

    Cripes…

  • amightywind

    Minor Tom

    You seem to have a burr in your saddle this morning. Too much caffeine?

    “Aside from Orion, Ares I can’t put anything into orbit, military satellites or otherwise. ”

    http://www.aerospaceguide.net/spacerocket/aresI.html

    Ares I is a general purpose launcher with a LEO capacity of 25 tons. It will be a great national asset.

  • Major Tom

    “Falcon 9 was in clear distress. Was I the only one who noticed?”

    You’re the only one who made it up.

    “If the role anomaly”

    It’s “roll”, not “role”. It’s an upper stage, not a theatrical stage, genius.

    “had occurred on a Centaur it would be grounded and there would be an inquiry. Is commercial space about lowering engineering standards? It seems so.”

    SpaceX “will investigate the cause of the glitch before launching another Falcon 9″, genius.

    spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/001/100604launch/index.html

    Ugh…

  • Major Tom

    “Ares I is a general purpose launcher with a LEO capacity of 25 tons.”

    No, it’s not.

    “Ares I was developed to do just one job – launch the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle…

    Mission requirements called for the two-stage launch vehicle to insert a 23.27 tonne Orion spacecraft into a -20×185 km x 28.5 deg suborbital trajectory. This would have aimed the spent Ares I second stage toward an Indian Ocean impact while Orion fired its service module engine to complete the ascent to orbit.”

    spacelaunchreport.com/ares1.html

    Stop littering this forum with stupid statements made out of ignorance.

    Learn something, anything, before you post again.

    Oy vey…

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Almightywind,

    I believe that the last estimate of the launch capacity of Ares-I was 16t to ISS or 11t to the orbit of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Orion’s MPS was planned to do the rest. Worse, Ares-I would use up all its upper stage propellent doing this; nothing for a circularisation burn. So, in practice, you would have to halve its payload capacity for launch to LEO parking orbit and halve the payload capacity again to get its payload to GTO. That’s about 4t to GTO, optimistically, in a extremely high-vibration flight environment for the first 120 seconds. That in a vehicle that is twice as expensive as the Atlas-V and Delta-IV, which can launch far heavier payloads and still be cheaper than Ares-I.

    The fact is that Ares-V was too big for any applications in even the mid-term future other than firing large HSF payloads into interplanetary space. The largest commercial launchers have a payload-to-orbit capacity of 20t to 25t and they have a hard time finding payloads (heck, Ariane-V has to double-up payloads to make itself even semi-viable). I think that the next launch of Delta-IVH (23t IMLEO) will only be the third or fourth. There really isn’t any existing or reasonably-foreseen market for anything above that in mass-to-orbit terms.

    Add onto that the fact that Ares-V would be more expensive than the shuttle and Saturn-V put together and I doubt that anyone outside of NASA would be interested in using it.

    No. It’s an idea without merit. Forget about it.

  • amightywind

    BRG

    I was just refuting a foolish assertion made by Minor Tom. This fixation on ‘first stage vibration’ for Ares I is really tiresome. I would be more worried about F9’s apparent flight control problems. Ares V is clearly not needed in an environment where launchers have been tailored to the size of today’s satellites. But for manned missions to NEAs, the moon, or Mars there is not substitute. That is, unless Elon Musk is working on something in his Palo Alto garage that we don’t know about.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    Yes, there are substitutes for Ares-V for interplanetary HSF. ULA have come up with a multi-launch proposal using modified EELVs. NASA’s JSC’s own studies into HSF capabilities and requirements show that Ares-V is simply unneeded.

    If anything, Ares-V’s cost is a limiting factor. Instead of a flexible archetecture using building blocks launched by multiple cheaper launchers, you are wedded to what you can launch on one Ares-V as it is simply impossible in financial terms to fly the behemoth more than twice a year.

  • Byeman

    DOD use of Ares I is ridiculous. It would not be an asset, it would be a negative impact.
    a. It has no more capability than the existing EELV’s for LEO
    b. The Ares I can not perform HEO missions such GTO*.
    c. the large DOD east coast missions are all GTO or GSO, hence no need for Ares I.
    d. The large LEO DOD missions are on the west coast, Ares I has no west coast capability.
    e. Ares I costs more than EELV’s. * If an upperstage is added for HEO missions, it would cost even more.
    f. the DOD does not want to get in bed with NASA again wrt space launch.

    There is no legitimate reason for the DOD to use Ares I. Addtionally, the DOD has no HLV requirements, so Ares V is out.

    Suggestions like these just show that the poster is completely clueless and has no “spaceflight” intelligence.

  • Byeman

    If there is any foolish assertion to refute, it is “It would be a good idea for the Air Force to use Ares I”. It can’t get anymore asinine than this.

    F9’s does not have flight control problems, it had a actuator failure. Anyways, it was a test flight, just like the first Delta IV heavy which also uncovered some issues.

  • I would be more worried about F9’s apparent flight control problems.

    Yes, any idiot would.

  • mark valah

    Perhaps we could get back to discussing the topic at hand: it occured to me that while we’re beating the around the bush on the half-defunct Constellation, the X-37B could be a precursor to a partial shuttle replacement. It makes a lot of sense to synergize between NASA and AF (an item which is on the table at NASA anyway) and crafting a broad national space policy which addresses jointly manned flight and security is actually a way to optimize use of technology. Any thoughts on this line of ideas?

  • I would hope that the new national space policy includes an emphatic statement that NASA will reflect federal law as defined in the National Aeronautics and Space Act:

    http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2010/05/charter-flights.html

    Nothing in the Act requires NASA to fly humans, to explore other worlds or even to own its rockets. It does require NASA to prioritize the growth of commercial access to space, a provision added by the Reagan adminstration in 1984.

    NASA was never intended to be a government jobs program. It was intended to be a crucible for innovative aerospace technology.

    Sending humans on deep space exploration is all well and good, but humanity should go to space as a species, not as individual nations. The cost should be shared by all the spacefaring nations, not just the U.S.

    Since Russian President Medvedev is in town, I hope when he met with Obama that he brought up his informal proposal a few weeks back for a global space summit of the spacefaring nations. I think it would be an enormous step in the right direction — which is up, of course.

  • Vladislaw

    From the link that Wind gave:

    “During the first two-and-a-half minutes of flight, the first stage booster powers the vehicle to an altitude of about 200,000 feet and a speed of Mach 6.1. After its propellant is spent, the reusable booster separates and the upper stage’s J-2X engine ignites and powers the crew vehicle to an altitude of about 63 miles. Then, the upper stage separates and Orion’s service module propulsion system completes the trip to a circular orbit 185 miles above Earth.”

    The Ares I first and second stage only take it to 63 miles, that makes it a suborbital launch vehicle. The Orion service module is what pushes it to orbit. So any satellite launched would need a “service” module?

  • common sense

    @ mark valah wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    “the X-37B could be a precursor to a partial shuttle replacement.”

    Possibly but I seriously doubt it. We’d have to look at the requirements for the eventual “U”-37B. I’d be curious to know what the “X” will eventually become… Anyway.

    “It makes a lot of sense to synergize between NASA and AF (an item which is on the table at NASA anyway) ”

    I don’t agree here for at least 2 reasons: 1) NASA is a civilian agency 2) NASA and the USAF have vastly different requirements. NASA is not about the defense of the country and no they do not (really) serve any national security purposes, not any more.

    “and crafting a broad national space policy which addresses jointly manned flight and security is actually a way to optimize use of technology. ”

    However this is for sure and I believe all national space policy have always followed that sort of direction. But the security part is better left to the DoD. You only want to make sure that NASA’s mission does not impede the DoD mission.

  • Byeman

    “X-37B could be a precursor to a partial shuttle replacement” There doesn’t need to be a shuttle replacement. We have the EELV’s and soon there will be commercial manned spacecraft. The X-37 is a not precursor to a manned spacecraft.

  • The Orion service module is what pushes it to orbit. So any satellite launched would need a “service” module?

    No, for a smaller payload than Orion the second stage could have orbital capability.

  • red

    Getting away from the NASA HSF debate for a second, I’d expect the more notable changes in space policy to be driven by the following points from the campaign:

    “Revising Regulations for Aerospace Export Control: Some sections of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) have unduly hampered the competitiveness of domestic aerospace industry. Outdated restrictions have cost billions of dollars to American satellite and space hardware manufacturers as customers have decided to purchase equipment from European suppliers. While protecting our national security interests, Barack Obama will direct a review of the ITAR to reevaluate restrictions imposed on American companies, with a special focus on space hardware that is currently restricted from commercial export. He will also direct revisions to the licensing process to ensure that American suppliers are competitive in the international aerospace markets, without jeopardizing American national security.”

    “Opposing Weaponization of Space: Space assets are increasingly important to our national security and our economy, but they are also extremely vulnerable. China’s successful test of an anti-satellite missile in January 2007 signaled the beginning of a potential new arms race in space. Barack Obama opposes the stationing of weapons in space and the development of anti-satellite weapons. He believes the United States must show leadership by engaging other nations in discussions of how best to stop the slow slide towards a new battlefield.”

    “Protecting America’s Space Assets: Recognizing their vulnerability, Obama will work to protect our assets in space by pursuing new technologies and capabilities that allow us to avoid attacks and recover
    from them quickly. The Operationally Responsive Space program, which uses smaller, more nimble space assets to make US systems more robust and less vulnerable is a way to invest in this capability.”

    “Collaborating on Climate Change Research: Barack Obama will expand and deepen American collaboration with international partners on climate research, both to increase understanding of climate challenges and to demonstrate American leadership in this arena.”

    “Given the urgency of climate-related monitoring, and considering the time required to design, develop, and deploy Earth observation satellite systems, the Obama administration will lean forward to deploy a global
    climate change research and monitoring system that will work for decades to come.”

  • red

    amightywind: “It would be a good idea for the Air Force to use Ares I and V for their future space launch. Heck, an Ares V is powerful enough to launch 2 B-52’s into orbit. It can do anything.”

    The Air Force needs affordable, reliable, and operationally responsive launch, not a poor duplication of existing launch capabilities at the end of the decade like Ares I or unaffordable and unresponsive mega-launch decades from now like Ares V.

    “With my previous comment I am highlighting how insanely large the Ares V 400,000lb payload capacity to LEO is. It is in the great American tradition of bigger is better.”

    I like the great American tradition of smaller is better (eg: microchips, smallsats), or better yet more affordable is better (eg: innovative American business). Insanely large tends to be insanely unaffordable to build, insanely late, insanely expensive to maintain, and insanely vulnerable to problems.

    The Ares I/Ares V debate is over. Without Griffin they are done. The Shuttle-derived chance, however small it might be, is in sidemount and DIRECT-like variants.

    “But for manned missions to NEAs, the moon, or Mars there is not substitute.”

    There are lots of substitutes for Ares V. Ares V is a boat anchor, not an asset, given how long it would take to build and how expensive it would be to design and operate. Some substitutes for Ares V include propellant depots, more modest HLVs like EELV Phase I or II, Falcon heavy lift derivations, sidemount, or DIRECT, rendezvous and docking, in-space assembly, and various capabilities to reduce the mass/volume needed at launch for a given task like ISRU, ECLSS, inflatables, efficient power systems, aerocapture, etc.

  • Dave Salt

    Please, please, pleeeeeese… STOP FEEDING THE TROLL(S)!!!

    I use to read this board because it tended to host sensible and, on the whole, civil discussions concerning relevant/topical space policy issues.

    Unfortunately, over the last few months, there seems to have been an influx of anonymous “contributors” whose only goal seems to be to ensnare otherwise sensible people into trying to rationalise the totally irrational… over and over again!

    Jeff: is there some way of at least flagging these trolls in order to at least identify them to newcomers as “contributors of questionable merit”?

  • Atkins

    Regardless of your opinion on space priorities, the new direction without a transition plan has postponed and somewhat crippled the future of HSF beyond LEO. IMO, the current leadership couldn’t administer a grocery store, and have shown little aptitude to bring people together for a common goal. Bolden’s successfully dismantled Cx, but it’s a Pyrrhic victory for him and NASA.

  • …somewhat crippled the future of HSF beyond LEO.

    There was no future of HSF beyond LEO with Constellation.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Atkins wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    Regardless of your opinion on space priorities, the new direction without a transition plan has postponed and somewhat crippled the future of HSF beyond LEO. …

    I dont think that is a big deal. There was not much of a future in humans going beyond LEO for exploration period.

    There is simply no reason to do it. None that is explanable to the American people.

    Robert G. Oler

  • @ mark valah

    The estimated cost of developing a manned X-37 type vehicle originally proposed by Boeing was about $11 or $13 billion in 2003 dollars which would probably be about $13 to $15 billion in today’s dollars. If you assume that it would take about 7 years to develop and launch such a vehicle, that would come out to be about $1.9 to $2.1 billion a year in development cost.

    Such a vehicle would probably have a lot of advantages over a Dream Chaser since it could launch both humans in a cockpit plus payload or passengers in a cargo bay.

  • mark valah

    Actually I believe the idea of NASA AF shared propulsion systems is being seriously considered.

  • mark valah

    @M. F. Williams

    Thanks for the details on costs. I’m looking forward to the announced space policy, as there will be synergies, from the budget point of view it makes sense, politics set aside.

  • Atkins

    Simberg, Oler:

    There’s conflicting info out there. For example, Bolden said last week that Bush’s original vision was “almost identical to what President Obama is advocating, but … the destinations withdrew and it became the Moon.” And “the program of record, it is a lunar program … Obama’s program is a deep space exploration program that will probably involve more flights for humans than we would have done under Constellation.”

    So what’s the rationale for Cx providing no HSF beyond LEO (at least in theory, given funding)? Thanks in advance.

  • So what’s the rationale for Cx providing no HSF beyond LEO (at least in theory, given funding)

    Don’t confuse a program’s stated objective with its likely outcome. Shuttle was supposed to provide low-cost reliable routine launch. Constellation was supposed to get us (or rather, a few astronauts) to the moon (at very high cost). But it wasn’t on a trajectory to ever actually happen.

  • DCSCA

    What will the new national space policy look like?

    Oblivion.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 11:45 am
    I would be more worried about F9’s apparent flight control problems.

    “Yes, any idiot would” <- Sound, cautionary engineering thinking at work any capital investor in private rocketeer ventures should keep in mind.

  • Atkins

    Simberg, thanks for clarifying – that’s what I thought you meant, and I agree.

    Bolden’s statements imply that a redirected, fully-funded Cx could facilitate the new goals, which are “almost identical” to the original Cx vision. Or that a transition from Cx to a new program could be workable.

    But he threw a grenade into Cx. I’m still trying to reconcile this with his recent statements. The resultant brain-drain and programmatic / contractual interruption will hamper any new NASA direction for the foreseeable future. Some folks may view his move as a coup-de-grace, while others (such as me) see a lot of opportunity and time lost. The gap to the next phase of HSF will be much longer than it could have been.

    In any case, Bolden / Garver (and Obama for that matter) have a lot to prove about their ability to lead effectively, and work with Congress.

  • DCSCA

    NASA was never intended to be a government jobs program. <- Neither was military service (a hitch is counted as a 'job' since the Reagan days.) Working at NASA is a government job. It's a Federal agency just like any other.

  • DCSCA

    “I dont think that is a big deal. There was not much of a future in humans going beyond LEO for exploration period. There is simply no reason to do it.” IYO. But then, the meek shall inherit the earth.

  • DCSCA

    @RGOler: “What is important to remember is that the folks who oppose Obama’s revolution in space affairs is that they support a big government program whose only goal is NASA astronauts doing mindless [<– your laughable opinion] exploration of space…at enormous cost and 'with no benefit to the rest of the country' [<- a foolish assertion]."

    They [<- Americans] support policies which have seen hundreds of billion spent in human spaceflight and not much to show for it..[<– another foolish assertion from someone who never looked, or jealously looked away] where the “US” space industry has virtually collapsed. [<- collapsed? That'll win over investors- good grief.] . We have lost all the commercial launch business [<– Earth to Conestoga 1; it was there to develop; the skies are full of satellites] AND a great deal of “our modules” on ISS are built overseas [<-ROFLMAO a great deal of EVERYTHING is built overseas- from TV sets to cars, coffee cups and toothpaste. Good grief.]

    These people [<– Americans] use as “American exceptionalism” a program Constellation that has spent 10 billion dollars so far…and accomplished almost nothing.[<– absurd, but then the American, Goddard, was shunned by government and private sector as well and it took a German facist to perfect his ideas. The histories of American's playing catching up are amusing.]

    That is nonsense. In the end we have tried it there way for 40 years [<- and it has been amazingly successful]. It is time for a change. [Indeed, fully fund government managed and operated manned space programs. A clear change for the better.]

  • spacermase

    DCSCA, if you don’t mind me asking, what exactly *is* your favored position on all this? From what I gather, you aren’t at all a fan of the current FY2011 Plan, are very skeptical of commercial crew, but don’t seem to be particularly enthused about Constellation or the previous administration’s handling of NASA. Are you pro-Shuttle? DIRECT? Sidemount? Space Elevator? None of the above? Do you just like to complain about things? :-)

    If you had been running NASA for the last 10 years, what would you have done?

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    you are happy to go try and sell exploration by humans in space as something that should get more federal dollars.

    you cant

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bennett

    what exactly *is* your favored position

    Well, he sighs a lot, rolls on the floor a lot, refers to himself as “this writer”, and seems to be a rather bitter fellow.

    Position? Where can you go from there?

  • DCSCA

    @Bennett. This writer’s position has been posted several times.

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 6:19 pm To borrow a familiar phrase–‘Yes we can.’

  • Major Tom

    “I was just refuting a foolish assertion…”

    Which was?

    Don’t make things up.

    “…made by Minor Tom.”

    Still with the same, lame namecalling?

    Havn’t you realized yet that your screenname is a flatulence joke from a mockumentary about folk music?

    “This fixation on ‘first stage vibration’ for Ares I is really tiresome.”

    I havn’t said anything about Ares I thrust oscillation issue in this thread.

    Don’t make things up.

    “I would be more worried about F9’s apparent flight control problems.”

    And those multiple problems are?

    Don’t make things up.

    “Ares V is clearly not needed in an environment where launchers have been tailored to the size of today’s satellites.”

    Finally, you learned something before you posted.

    Congratulations, genius.

    Cripes…

  • DCSCA

    @spacermase wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 6:13 pm “If you had been running NASA for the last 10 years, what would you have done?”

    Why 10? Howzabout 30. For decades this writer has consistently supported a return to the moon as the central focus for America’s manned spaceflight activities, which went further askew when the ISS was wrongfully approved– a project championed by aerospace contract queen Lori Garver, then in her NSS days. She has changed little. Rather than it sailing along 300 miles above Earth, the greater challenge would have been to have it firmly anchored to the floor of the Ocean of Storms 240,000 miles away. But the damage has been done; several generations of engineers lost to other fields.

    A return to the moon is the logical focus for expanding the human presence out into space, as Armstrong, Cernan et al have noted. A ‘new’ NASA should shed the shackles of the past two decades and in the near term (15 years) refocus solely on manned spaceflight centered on perfecting Earth-Moon space operations. This writer is on record generally supporting the ultimate goal of Constellation but less inclined to support the Ares family of LVs. The smart move is to fully fund Orion, keeping a general purpose spacecraft in the pipeline to phase in for shuttle; adapt it to and man-rate existing LVs in inventory and get the thing flying; developing a lunar lander in the midterm years and a long term lunar facility for research and exploration to be manned on a permanent basis. The experience, techniques, skills and hardware necessary for that harsh environment can then be adapted and modified in out years for a manned expedition to Mars. There’s your manned space program for the next 30-40 years. It’s along the line of what Armstrong, Cernan, Lovell, Kraft/Kranz/Lunney, etc. advocate. It is a logical and definitive progression ourward. The rest- lassoing asteroids; space elevators etc., is pie in the sky paper projects for unproductive space bureaucrats collecting paychecks with too much time on their hands.

    Focus on the moon. Dump the ISS. It’s a colossal waste. Sell/lease the U.S. interest in it to China, a consortium, complete with shuttle operations by U.S. personnel to keep the work force operating as Orion comes on line. They can work out the contracts, but get it off the NASA books– or just deep six it. But get Orion gonig. Jettison the moonbeamers– the NASA dweebs wasting resources and time pushing space elevator projects and the like; slash several layers of shuttle management; by 25% across the board– early retirement, and reduce the ‘elite’ astronaut corp by 40%. Too many of them for the number of flights available – and by the time a lunar program is up and running, most of them won’t be needed for the next phase. Younger ones will be eager and recruited. Transfer all non-space related research and centers absorbed from NACA and other agencies along the years off to parellel agencies that can best adapt and absorb it– DoD, FAA, NOAA, etc. In short, streamline the civilian space agency.

    Assets that can’t be transferred, sell/lease– to private rocketeers for experimentation and development. That’ll make them happy and draw revenue in as well as ease any anticipation investors may have with NASA still in the ‘wings.’ Transfer the minimal planetary exploration not directly related to or in support of human space exploration and astronautics (HST, etc.) to a university consortium to operate in tandem w/int’l space agencies. If they can’t fund it- let it die. Plenty of other countries can poke and probe the planets and asteroids if they want to. But this writer sees NASA needing to focus on the moon and manned spaceflight, and little else.

  • DCSCA

    @ pacermase wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 6:13 pm And frankly, the agency truly went off course when the Reagan administration infected it with the silly notion of trying to make it a profit center. Won’t happen in this era. Maybe 150 years from now, but not in these times.

  • Ferris Valyn

    DCSCA – Your right, yes we can.

    We can build a successful human spaceflight industry, that lowers the cost of spaceflight. Yes we can, build an architecture that can grow as we regain our footing as a country. Yes we can build space infrastructure that enables sustainable space exploration AS WELL as spuring the growth of private investment in space. Yes we can successfully do propellant depots, and avoid needing things like Super-Heavy lift. Yes we can figure out how to take people into space without needing to dump dangerous perchlorates into the atmosphere

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 11:58 pm

    at one point (well before ISS flew) I supported making the Moon a focus point of our activities. Problem is that ship has sailed. I find it amusing that people talk about dumping100 billion dollar assets that are functioning…and then want to spend another equal amount to make something similar.

    And if you think you can sell a lunar exploration program…good luck. it has about the same chance as a snowball in hell.

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    Ferris Valyn wrote @ June 26th, 2010 at 12:02 am <- Suggest you revisit the hope and promise of private rocketry when of Conestoga 1. Yes, they could… it was launched 28 years ago.

  • DCSCA

    Per reds posting of candidate Obama’s space policy paper, ‘Candidate Obama’ has certainly embraced ‘change’– his own.

    Embracing Human Space Exploration:

    “Human spaceflight is important to America’s political, economic, technological, and scientific leadership. Barack Obama will support renewed human exploration beyond low earth orbit.”

    “He endorses the goal of sending human missions to the Moon by 2020, as a precursor in an orderly progression to missions to more
    distant destinations, including Mars.”
    Oops! Change you can believe in… President Obama, not so much.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Atkins wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    Simberg, Oler:

    There’s conflicting info out there. For example, Bolden said last week that Bush’s original vision was “almost identical to what President Obama is advocating, but ……………

    I dont think that either Obama or Bush or really anyone who is likely to occupy the oval office really cares a fig about actually having humans explore anywhere outside of GEO.

    When Bush made his speech a lot of the people here who are now against Constellation (and some who were still for it) were all reved up about how it was a major change, it was great etc. Go track back around that time my reaction to the speech and I pretty much nailed it…

    No President in the modern era is willing to commit to an actual program that goes to any place outside of GEO because the cost are so high and the benefits both real and political are so minor.

    This is why Bush could give a great speech and then sit idly by while his NASA administrator so screws up the effort…morphing it into a conventional NASA effort designed to merely keep all the pieces in place. The reality is that no one really cares anymore about keeping all the pieces in place…the program has gotten so expensive.

    There is no real upside politically for any President to have a real program to “go back to the MOON” or go anywhere.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris Valyn

    And then they actually made it work with the Atlas V and Delta IV.

    This can work. Yes, a liberal who believes that the marketplace can work (when its used properly).

    I repeat – yes we can, even in space

  • DCSCA

    it has about the same chance as a snowball in hell.
    Hmmm.

    Hell, Michigan….snowballs do fairly well there.

  • DCSCA

    @RobertGOler: “at one point (well before ISS flew) I supported making the Moon a focus point of our activities.

    Hmmm. Yet on another thread you stated, “I really dont think we need a “national space exploration agency”. I’d take the first 50 years of aviation over the first 50 of spaceflight any day.” Disingenuous at best.

  • common sense

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ June 26th, 2010 at 12:44 am

    “When Bush made his speech a lot of the people here who are now against Constellation (and some who were still for it) were all reved up about how it was a major change, it was great etc.”

    Well I was among them. Nothing like JFK far from it but yes suddenly NASA had the goal of exploring. The O’Keefe’s approach was a kill joy approach as it was obvious it would take for ever. After the Griffin’s approach it now looks so much better. So yeah if you care about space and about NASA it was very refreshing to hear something like the VSE. But I’ll admit it I was not so much versed in the politics of it and a dreamer. Much less so today.

    “No President in the modern era is willing to commit to an actual program that goes to any place outside of GEO because the cost are so high and the benefits both real and political are so minor.”

    This really is a NASA/industry failure at this stage. They were given an opportunity, a golden one. Instead of going about it in a smart way they chose to make it a “toy” program: I want a big rocket program. Not a space exploration program. Unfortunately such programs happen(ed) to be mutually exclusive with the available budget. They did not think.

  • Frediiiie

    It’s nice to see the thread back on some sort of track in the last few posts. (however marginally).
    So to look at what should be in the govt plans for space.
    Total NASA budget <$20B.
    Total US space activity $139B.
    (2006 the last year I could find figures for. By the way these figures are from the April 2008 FAA report “The Economic Impact of Commercial Space Transportation on the U.S. Economy.” )
    This $139B figure includes everything space related. Sat manufacture & ground support. LV, GPS, comms, anything you can think of that's space related.
    The interesting thing is just how many business are now based on working with some aspect of space.
    And as you can see the total swamps NASA.
    And if you look at the FAA reports the space industry is growing at rates much higher than GDP.
    So what should be in the Space Policy?
    Commercial.
    Commercial.
    and Commercial.
    Space is now bigger than civil aviation.
    Bigger than the wine industry, and growing.
    Supporting and encouraging Commercial Space – one of the major growth areas in the economy – should be the key plank in the policy.

  • DCSCA

    @commonsense “I want a big rocket program. Not a space exploration program.” That actually does make sense. Ares is the wrong way to go.

  • DCSCA

    So what should be in the Space Policy?
    Commercial.
    Commercial.
    and Commercial.

    Too many commercials and Americans tune out. You drive the Edsel. Rand drives the Tucker.

  • Frediiiie

    Sigh.
    While I was looking up the numbers on the space economy the thread veered right back to Cx.
    Oh well.
    I think it sucked too.
    3 real rockets Atlas V, Delta IV and Falcon 9
    trump fantasy rockets (Ares 1 & V) any day.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ June 26th, 2010 at 1:22 am

    @RobertGOler: “at one point (well before ISS flew) I supported making the Moon a focus point of our activities.

    Hmmm. Yet on another thread you stated, “I really dont think we need a “national space exploration agency”. I’d take the first 50 years of aviation over the first 50 of spaceflight any day.” Disingenuous at best……….

    I realize it is hard to grasp, but as conditions change people who have “reason” change their positions on certain things. People whose thoughts are simply ideological based dont take into account present “realities”.

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    @RobertOler- Which does not explain your oft-repeated position in boisterous opposition to human spaceflight, citing it as a 40 year waste of resources, un-productive, stating a preference to the first half century of aviation over the first 50 years of space flight, yet, in contradiction, indicating you supported the moon as a focus of activities at one time. Doesn’t wash. And doesn’t matter.

  • DCSCA

    amightywind wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 8:50 am
    “It would be a good idea for the Air Force to use Ares I and V for their future space launch. Heck, an Ares V is powerful enough to launch 2 B-52’s into orbit. It can do anything.”

    Ares? Uh… suggest you view an old classic Thanksgiving episode of ‘WKRP in Cincinnati’… the one with Carlson’s punchline: “As God is my witness. I thought turkeys could fly.”

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ June 26th, 2010 at 5:18 am

    @RobertOler- Which does not explain your oft-repeated position in boisterous opposition to human spaceflight, citing it as a 40 year waste of resources, un-productive

    that is merely stating a fact or at least my view of reality. You are pleased to believe that the 100 or 200 billion spent since 1980 have had some value for the cost. There are some people who find value in things that others dont…but the overwhelming evidence is that human spaceflight since Apollo has not changed the lives of the entirety of the American people for the better. INdeed the spending might have made things worse.

    the question is do we allow that path to continue. You seem to think that the value has been there for the cost…I dont so I dont see the need of continuing on that pathway.

    For the cost I dont see any value now in human exploration of space. I do see value in trying to make products and services in Near Earth orbit that involve humans and if that can be found then we are on a good road.

    people like y ou seem to have the need to be “excited” by things.

    Robert G. Oler

  • I will point people to something I wrote for my own blog titled When Did I Know. Yes, the AIAA campaign did inspire that essay.

    The piece is long for a blog. Very briefly, when I was a child I got interested in space because there was a great deal of talk about it. Some of that talk was aimed at children. I lost interest as Apollo progressed. That happened to large numbers of Americans. Reading O’Neill’s book “The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space” got me interested again. While I did learn that such things were far in the future, this was, as far as I can remember, the first time I saw space as something for all humans, not just a few astronauts and scientists.

    Now I will go back to my usual lurking.

  • DCSCA

    that is merely stating a fact or at least my view of reality. <–uh, your 'view of reality' is not necessarily factual.

    people [<- Americans] like y ou [me] seem to have the need to be “excited” by things. <– Hmm. Life and progress can be exciting. In your case, that appears to have ceilinged out circa 1953.. you know, 'the firstb 50 years of aviation.'

  • Bennett

    DCSCA wrote @ June 26th, 2010 at 5:30 am

    That was a memorable episode. Thanks for the flashback.

  • Kelly Starks

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 9:21 am
    >
    > What is important to remember is that the folks who oppose Obama’s
    > revolution in space affairs (with due respect to Admiral Bill Owens…a
    >great person) is that they support a big government program whose
    > only goal is NASA astronauts doing mindless exploration of space…at
    > enormous cost and with no benefit to the rest of the country.

    Aside from being highly biased and inaccurate about opponents of Obama’s plan – its also a inaccurate description of the differences between “Apollo on Steroids” and Commercial crew. Commercial crew is in no way revolutionary, nor is it projected to reduce “a big government program whose only goal is NASA astronauts doing mindless exploration of space”. NASA (the gov program) isn’t getting smaller, or reducing its cost. Though I will give you NASA won’t be sending astronauts out to explore space with commercial crew – most Obama plan supporters think it is.

    As to you assuming a space program or retaining a space industry is of “no benefit to the rest of the country” — I think most space advocates of either Griffen or Obama program preference would disagree with you.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Ferris Valyn wrote @ June 26th, 2010 at 12:02 am
    >
    > We can build a successful human spaceflight industry that lowers
    > the cost of spaceflight.
    > Yes we can, build an architecture that can grow as we regain our footing
    > as a country.
    > Yes we can build space infrastructure that enables sustainable space exploration
    > AS WELL as spuring the growth of private investment in space.
    > Yes we can successfully do propellant depots, and avoid needing things
    > like Super-Heavy lift.
    > Yes we can figure out how to take people into space without needing to
    > dump dangerous perchlorates into the atmosphere

    Yes – but were not planning to. Were planning at the moment to lay off most of our space industry. Keep launches in a high cost – low rate model – even more so then before. Droping sustainability or exploration efforts. And SRBs have a lot of political support – some I’m percolates might be locked in for a while.

    ;/

  • Kelly Starks

    > Robert G. Oler wrote @ June 26th, 2010 at 12:22 am
    >
    > And if you think you can sell a lunar exploration program…good
    > luck. it has about the same chance as a snowball in hell.

    It got funding and support in congress – so it sold ok. So unless hells a lot cooler then reported I think your odds making is off.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Frediiiie wrote @ June 26th, 2010 at 1:34 am
    >
    >Total NASA budget Total US space activity $139B.
    >==
    > This $139B figure includes everything space related. Sat manufacture &
    > ground support. LV, GPS, comms, anything you can think of that’s space related.
    >= April 2008 FAA report “The Economic Impact of Commercial Space Transportation on the U.S. Economy.”

    That’s about as misleading as counting everything from Tang to Teflon sales as related to NASA as its “a space related activity”. Or counting everything related to trucking as a economic impact of commercial trucking. Or counting GPS and comm. Sats as a economic impact of military space.

    Similar pro NASA “analysis” credited the Apollo program as having trillions in current $’s worth of economic impact. Or you could count all of aerospace admits economic impact on the US economy since a good fraction of folks got into aerospace because Apollo excited them.

  • Kelly Starks

    > DCSCA wrote @ June 26th, 2010 at 5:30 am
    >
    >==: “As God is my witness. I thought turkeys could fly.”

    LOL! ;)

  • MrEarl

    Oler:
    I don’t know why you keep trying to compare space technology with aircraft technology. Two completely different things. One flys in the atmosphere the other through the atmosphere.

    WKRP Turkey Drop episode probably the funnest 30 mins of TV ever aired.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Yes – but were not planning to. Were planning at the moment to lay off most of our space industry. Keep launches in a high cost – low rate model – even more so then before. Droping sustainability or exploration efforts. And SRBs have a lot of political support – some I’m percolates might be locked in for a while.

    1. Yes, the Obama budget proposal allows for doing this.

    2. We wouldn’t have been forced into this position if it weren’t for the Shelby amendment.

    3. We aren’t keeping them at the high cost-low rate model, if there are more customers, (which evidences seems to be mounting that this is the case

    4. Support for SRBs were so strong that a program BUILT around them crashed and burned.

  • Kelly Starks

    > MrEarl wrote @ June 28th, 2010 at 10:27 am
    >
    > I don’t know why you keep trying to compare space technology
    > with aircraft technology. Two completely different things. One flys
    > in the atmosphere the other through the atmosphere.

    Actually there is much less difference then you’d think, though space craft tend to be simpler and not as well made, since they aren’t driven to commercial degrees of ruggedness. It was really highlighted for me in ’08 when I was shifted from working requirements no the Orion life support and thermal control systems, to 787 HVAC

  • Kelly Starks

    > Ferris Valyn wrote @ June 28th, 2010 at 10:31 am
    >
    > 3. We aren’t keeping them at the high cost-low rate model,
    > if there are more customers, (which evidences seems to be
    > mounting that this is the case

    I’m not sure I’ld say evidence. Bigelow has options for a huge number of flights – but won’t say anything about who or how many customers hes lined up.

    > 4. Support for SRBs were so strong that a program
    > BUILT around them crashed and burned.

    Yeah, Griffin’s Constellation was a design to pork system. 2.5 times what NASA estimated it would cost to develop a RLV CATS system to go to the moon. In real money, they were going to spend nearly as much just developing Constellation as the cost of the total Apollo program including all the lunar mission costs!

    Worse, not everyone figures that’s what a lunar program must cost, so don’t try to do one.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Bigelow isn’t the only one. There are more than just Bigelow.

    And its worth noting that Russia is increasing its production of Soyuz so it can answer the commercial market.

  • The new Space Policy has been released and it appears the press conference began and ended before many even knew it was scheduled.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_space_policy_6-28-10.pdf

  • Kelly Starks

    >Ferris Valyn wrote @ June 28th, 2010 at 11:05 am

    > Bigelow isn’t the only one. There are more than just Bigelow.

    Its the big dog in this as far as I can remember?

    >== And its worth noting that Russia is increasing its production
    > of Soyuz so it can answer the commercial market.

    Curious – they said they couldn’t increase Soyuz production when Commercials asked for it a few years ago – adn their Soyuz production capacity is kind of unraveling. How cuold they boost it now beyond what they agreed to support NASA flights?

  • byeman

    “But this writer sees NASA needing to focus on the moon and manned spaceflight, and little else”

    Which is the last thing NASA needs to do.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Bigelow Aerospace is the one who have put up the largest piece of the pie, at this point. But they aren’t the only ones.

    As for how could the Russians could boost capacity – you’ll have to ask the Russians.

  • It appears to me that the following language has been excluded from the newly released Obama Space policy (it was included in the Bush 2006 Space policy):

    Implement and sustain an innovative human and robotic exploration program with the objective of extending human presence across the solar system;

    Did I overlook something?

  • Kelly Starks

    >Ferris Valyn wrote @ June 28th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
    >
    > As for how could the Russians could boost capacity – you’ll have
    > to ask the Russians.

    But often they lie.

    ;)

Leave a Reply to mark valah 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>