Congress, NASA

House appropriators defer on human spaceflight plans

Would members of the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, in the markup of their FY11 appropriations bill Tuesday, signal their willingness to support the White House’s new direction for human spaceflight or defend the existing Constellation program? The answer is… neither. The subcommittee elected not to take a position on the program, instead deferring to authorizers.

“Any major change to the direction of the Nation’s space program should come through an authorization passed by Congress and signed into law by the President,” Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV), chairman of the subcommittee, said in his opening statement. “Unfortunately, a determination about the direction of the space program has been effectively on hold for well over a year. First, we waited for the recommendations of the Augustine Commission; next we waited for the Administration to react to those recommendations; and since early this year, we have waited for the authorizing committees to take action. In the meantime, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have been invested in procurements and technology development that may or may not have a role in NASA’s human exploration future.”

“Until that program is defined through an enacted authorization, this Subcommittee has no business in appropriating even more funding for uncertain program outcomes,” he concluded. “Accordingly, this bill makes the funding for Human Space Exploration available only after the enactment of such authorization legislation.” That puts a new emphasis on, and power to, authorizers in both the House and Senate who have yet to put forward authorizing legislation—bills that in prior years have often been considered useful but not mandatory.

Mollohan, though, made clear in his statement he is no fan of Constellation. “The program of record is fiscally unsustainable and will not serve the purpose of preserving this Nation’s leadership role in space exploration,” he said. “It is time to move forward with a human space program that will fulfill the aspirations of a great nation, but that also has well-defined and realistic costs and goals.”

Few other specifics about the budget proposal have been released by the subcommittee yet. The subcommittee gives $19 billion to NASA overall in its markup, the same as the administration’s topline request for the agency. However, a comparison on an account-by-account basis in the summary table is more difficult presumably because of differences for how they account for funding; the subcommittee’s version has considerably more in Cross-Agency Support Programs at the expense of other accounts.

57 comments to House appropriators defer on human spaceflight plans

  • NASA Fan

    Presidential rhetoric will win the day when votes are finally cast; rhetoric that is soaring in its prose and ineffective in manifesting the vision it speaks to.

    ObamaSpace is going to win out, and Congress will holds its collective nose as the vote goes to the President.

    Democracy; it ain’t pretty, but its the best we humans have come up with yet.

  • Have you been smokin’ something from Oler’s bag? ObamaSpace is stone cold stopped in the Congress and his attempt to GUT HSF is DEAD. Get real.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Constellation is doomed…NASA as we know it is ending Robert G. Oler

  • I’m curious what people think about the possible timeline as far as will this drag on to a continuing resolution well into next year, and what could it look like?

    If there is no agreement until after the elections as The Write Stuff suggests tonight, NASA will be in limbo for a long time.

    I’m asking because we just had a round of contractor layoffs and a lot of them will be hoping to get back to business as usual, or at least have a chance to pick up the pieces Oct 1. If there is no direction by then, won’t this put both the POR and commercial options in a long-lasting budget squeeze?

    Doesn’t seem logical…

  • Mark R. Whittington

    As predicted, things will stretch out until next year and the next Congress and then Obamaspace is dead.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ June 29th, 2010 at 11:48 pm

    As predicted, things will stretch out until next year and the next Congress and then Obamaspace is dead…

    lol. really Mark…you have been wrong every step of the way here…the support you have for big government wasteful programs is impressive. Must annoy you that I have been correct about Bush’s lousy program!

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    Constellation is doomed…NASA as we know it is ending. <– nonsense.

  • Allow me to translate: we want an authorization bill but we’ll only appropriate funds for an authorization bill that kills Constellation – assuming we’re even around after the elections.

  • Major Tom

    “As predicted, things will stretch out until next year and the next Congress and then Obamaspace is dead.”

    This is an goofy statement. The Republicans are running on a platform of fiscal control and deficit reduction. If they take control of the House or Congress, the last thing their leadership will want to do is add $3-5 billion more per year to a low priority NASA budget to restore Constellation or implement some derivative human space flight plan. And if they were stupid enough to try that, the White House would have a field day vetoing the bill and painting the Congress as hypocritical and out of control on spending.

    Think before you post.

    Lawdy…

  • DCSCA

    “The Republicans are running on a platform of fiscal control and deficit reduction.” <- which is meaningless. ("Deficits don't matter" – Dick Cheney). It's about jobs. And Constellation provides them, particularly in the Gulf region. The fate of the space program is in the hands of Congress, not the WH.

  • NASA Fan

    Appropriators have a long history with NASA of appropriating funds in the absence of an authorization bill. An authorization bill is not where the political power is, because its not where the money is.

    IMHO , what you saw yesterday was cowardice in the face of Obamaspace.

    No, after you. No after you. No by all means, after you. No, please after you. Oh, I wouldn’t dare, you first. No you .

    In the face of dithering and cowardice, ObamaSpace will win the day with back door deals made to placate the unhappy Al, Tx, Fl, etc. campers.

    I’m with Oler. NASA HSF as we have come to know it is dead, and the alternative the President is putting forth is ‘cheaper’ in the long run – or so the rhetoric goes.

    Given the state of the economy, don’t look for much from this Congress wrt NASA.

    And I am not for Obamaspace, nor the POR. Sigh.

  • How large will the cuts be, in the FY2012 budget, when fiscal control and deficit reduction remains hot button items?

    That will tell us what the true legacy of Obamaspace shall be.

  • Yuk.

    A useful word. Alone, it can express disgust. In series, it signifies laughter. A little bit of both.

    The aregument can be made that since the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, our national space effort has been all about politics, but it used to be couched in other terms. Now it’s out in the open:

    You want Constellation because you work on it/run the company that works on it.

    You want Constellation because you’re an elected official and it means campaign contributions and/or votes (which are fungible).

    You want Constellation because it was Bush’s program and you’re a Republican.

    You want the new plan because it’s Obama’s program and you’re a Democrat, and besides, it kills Bush’s plan.

    You want the new plan because your contributors and voters may make you an elected official or let you continue one.

    You want the new plan because you are Elon Musk, Robert Bigelow or someone else who runs or works for a company more likely to be a “winner” under this plan.

    Then there are those who will never be happy until their goal (Moon, Mars, asteroid) or method (heavy lift, vasmir, shuttle) is chosen. There are the “space is for science” crowd who thinks if it’s not “good science” its crap, and the subgroup of that which thinks people just get in the way of “good science.”

    What is the motivator to go beyond this and find a direction? On a blog like this, none. In an Administration, some. In a Congress, not much.

    YukYuk.

    Yuk

  • Doug Lassiter

    “Appropriators have a long history with NASA of appropriating funds in the absence of an authorization bill. An authorization bill is not where the political power is, because its not where the money is.”

    That’s not quite true. Actually appropriators have had, for a long time, authorization bills to refer to. Now, those authorization bills haven’t always been passed by Congress and signed by the President, but they’ve made it through one legislative body or another. They are derived by Congress. That they aren’t passed by Congress is not a matter of opposition, but just a matter of legislative priority. A bill that has made it through at least one body, or even a committee in that body, can be informally pointed at as expressing some perspective of Congress.

    But whether this deference to authorization is intended to acknowledge the perspective of Congress, or just a “cover my rear” ploy for the appropriators, doesn’t really matter that much.

    Just a reminder that appropriations are for one year. You don’t design a space exploration plan that way, even if the appropriators are briefed on runout costs (which they may or may not choose to believe). Authorization takes a longer view, and it’s Congress’ sense of the longer view that is needed right now. Yes, the political power is in appropriations, because that’s where the money is, but that’s like saying that the power of our financial systems is in the banks, because that’s where the greenbacks are piled up. That’s a simplistic picture.

  • What is the motivator to go beyond this and find a direction? On a blog like this, none. In an Administration, some. In a Congress, not much.

    YukYuk.

    Yuk

    In a nutshell, all true.

    Double yuk. |-P

  • Special edition “What Would Spock Do?” toon for this morning…

    http://nasaengineer.com/?p=547

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bill White wrote @ June 30th, 2010 at 7:16 am

    How large will the cuts be, in the FY2012 budget, when fiscal control and deficit reduction remains hot button items?

    what is going to be left standing…is a few uncrewed efforts, ISS, access to ISS, a few technology experiments, and whatever the commercial people can make work.

    We are in for a decade long “funk” (or worse)

    Robert G. Oler

  • @ Robert G. Oler

    what is going to be left standing…is a few uncrewed efforts, ISS, access to ISS, a few technology experiments, and whatever the commercial people can make work. We are in for a decade long “funk” (or worse)

    I concur with this. Indeed, I predicted as much to Ferris Valyn during many extended threads over at Daily Kos over the last several years.

    Therefore (IMHO) “humans in space” advocates will need to look overseas and to non-taxpayer sourced revenue.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Spase Blahger wrote @ June 29th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
    >
    > If there is no agreement until after the elections as The
    > Write Stuff suggests tonight, NASA will be in limbo for a long time.

    Yeah its assumed no solid budget, or even program direction, until next year. If the full committe adn congress follows this track, Constellation and Obama’s commercial crew go nowhere until the next congress adn pres can figure out a new idea.

    > I’m asking because we just had a round of contractor layoffs
    > and a lot of them will be hoping to get back to business as
    > usual, or at least have a chance to pick up the pieces Oct 1.
    > If there is no direction by then, won’t this put both the POR
    > and commercial options in a long-lasting budget squeeze?

    Worse. These folks arn’t going to sit around for a year waiting for a new program – they will go on to other jobs in other industries. So there won’t be much industry around to do anyone’s programs.

    As to what program? Both Obam’s commercial crew and Orion/Ares involve increased cost to access the station then currently done with shuttle, possibly more then doubled. Constellation is more like 6 times as much. Hence both are dead.

    There is concern over losing the aerospace industry; so they might fund some newer, big program to support the industry and maintain NASA capacities to some degree – or the lowest cost option is just use the Soyuz taxi service until the station is abandoned. Or something completely different could be choosen. Refit the shuttles, start a new dev program for a new lower cost manned craft, what ever.

  • Kelly Starks

    > DCSCA wrote @ June 30th, 2010 at 5:23 am

    >> “The Republicans are running on a platform of fiscal control and deficit reduction.”

    >- which is meaningless. (“Deficits don’t matter” – Dick Cheney).
    > It’s about jobs. And Constellation provides them, particularly
    > in the Gulf region. ==

    Normally that would be the equation – but the public is EXTREMELY angry about deficits. To be fair they are huge! Obama’s first year had a bigger deficit the Bush’s 8 combined. There is a lot of pressure to cut the spending big time, especially Obama’s multi trillion $ programs.

    As for NASA, its budgets bigger the most federal agencies, but laughable in terma of the big welfare programs, medical, etc – and its high visibility. They could decide to gut NASA to make a example of it – or clean house and go back to the moon with a program much cheaper then Griffen’s or Obam’s to show they are in charge. Or ignore it as trivial. No way to know at this point – though Republicans have generally been more supportive of space and space development then Dems. Don’t know where tea party folks stand no the issue.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “We are in for a decade long ‘funk’ (or worse)”

    With regard to human space flight at NASA for the last thirty or so years, we’re pretty much used to that, aren’t we? It’s not as if we’re headed for some big transition. Same old, same old. Oh, except we didn’t have commercial before.

  • Kelly Starks

    >Doug Lassiter wrote @ June 30th, 2010 at 11:49 am
    >
    > == It’s not as if we’re headed for some big transition. Same old, same old.==

    Actually its exactly like were heading for a big transition. A major cut back of NASA (and US) scale of activities and capacities in space with no follow-on programs in site. This is much more extream adn systemic then the post Apollo shutdown.

  • John Malkin

    How many in Congress are asking to cut NASA budget? If anything they want to increase it. So HSF will have funding, the question is where it will be spent. Both Constellation supporters and New NASA supporters agree on a need for HLV development. Both agree America needs its own spacecraft(s) for Humans to LEO. COTS Cargo is not going to stop.

    Personally I hope Congress scraps the 1st stage of Ares I..

  • Doug Lassiter

    Well, my point was that with regard to exploration, we’ve spent the last twenty years going to mostly the same place in LEO. So the “scale of activities” we’ve been looking at for the last couple of decades has been pretty narrow. The American public is largely uninterested in those trucking deliveries. There are actually plenty of follow on programs in sight now, anchored with a long needed technology development investment. I guess I look at “follow on programs” more broadly than “new agency-developed launch vehicles”, which it’s not clear that we even need.

    The POR claimed to have plenty of follow on programs in sight as well, but it turned out that they were a lot farther away than the POR claimed they would be. I guess we could have spent the next decade avoiding a funk by pretending that new activities and capacities were really within reach.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Doug Lassiter wrote @ June 30th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
    > Well, my point was that with regard to exploration, we’ve spen
    > the last twenty years going to mostly the same place in LEO.
    > So the “scale of activities” we’ve been looking at for the last
    > couple of decades has been pretty narrow. ==

    True, which is especially sad given Shuttle was developed to allow up to build in LEO and move out from there in a big way. Space industrialization, and deep space manned and unmanned mission on a scale no HLVs could ever attempt.

    But we didn’t, and soon we won’t have anything that could for as far as anyone sees.

    >== There are actually plenty of follow on programs in sight
    > now, anchored with a long needed technology development investment. ==

    What Obama’s suggested “research projects”? Projects to research technologies that have been used operationally for decades? No technology development investment there, just pork.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “What Obama’s suggested “research projects”? Projects to research technologies that have been used operationally for decades?”

    • Advanced in-space propulsion
    • Advanced in-space propellant transfer and storage
    • Lightweight/inflatable modules and closed loop life support
    • Aero-assist/entry, descent and landing

    These are the four stated objectives for the Flagship Technology Demonstration Program and, if developed, they would revolutionize space travel. Used operationally for decades? Ha! Get real.

  • John Malkin

    I would like to say that not only Democrats like cancelling Constellation. Constellation is not VSE. I think Obama would have been better off modifying parts of Constellation since really the Ares I is the only major fully funded active program under Constellation. COTS Cargo is fairly small compared to everything else. There isn’t any substantial funding of spacecraft in the foreseeable future to support VSE goals under Constellation. Actually Commercial Cargo was part of the original VSE and this is far closer to schedule than Ares I.

    The new direction is closer to implementing VSE than Constellation. Also if Ares I is so good than it should be able to compete with F9 in an open and free market. I would bet that Scaled Composites Spaceship 3 will be in orbit before Ares I/Orion.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Doug Lassiter wrote @ June 30th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
    > “What Obama’s suggested “research projects”? Projects
    > to research technologies that have been used operationally for decades?”
    > • Advanced in-space propulsion
    Hes pushing VASMIR, which is a specific type of plasma or ion engine. Its not considerd a good one so the company hasn’t gotten any customers. Other better Ion and plasma engines have been used by NASA and on commercial sats for nearly half a century.

    > • Advanced in-space propellant transfer and storage
    Automated propellant refueling via tankers has been in use since the late ‘70’s or ‘80’s. Storage of every type of fuel or cyro (even long term liquid helium storage and transfer) has similarly been done for up to half a century.

    > • Lightweight/inflatable modules ==

    Marketed by Bigelow aerospace. They’ve had two test space stations in orbit with them for years.
    >==and closed loop life support

    NASA been playing with those since the ‘70’s also. They weer going to use noe on the station, but it wasn’t cost effective.

    Technically you can buy small sealed toy versions with shrimp, plants, etc..

    > • Aero-assist/entry, descent and landing

    Used on all reentry craft.

    > These are the four stated objectives for the Flagship
    > Technology Demonstration Program and, if developed,
    > they would revolutionize space travel. Used operationally
    > for decades? Ha! Get real.

    Yeah – used operationally for decades. Guess you could say they were revolutionary when they were new?

  • Kelly Starks

    > .. the Ares I is the only major fully funded active program under Constellation..

    Actually I think Orion has gotten more money so far.

  • >>>John Malkin wrote @ June 30th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
    >>>Both Constellation supporters and New NASA supporters agree on a need for HLV development

    Actually, we don’t. Most NewSpace supporters prefer to demonstrate then operationalize propellant storage and transfer FIRST, since you can use the existing Delta IV heavy to launch Orion and Atlas V 552 or D4H to launch a refuelable EDS and service module. A one-piece depot is much cheaper than HLLV development, especially if it’s Shuttle derived, since that has the $700M/year carrying costs of solids.

  • John Malkin

    Sorry, I meant Ares I/Orion combo since one is pointless without the other in Constellation.

  • Kelly Starks —

    exactly which nation has demonstrated long-term on-orbit cryogenic fuel storage and automated transfer?

    yes, the Russians have done it for many years using storables. and we did it in Orbital Express, and the Euros with ATV.

    But other than little tiny tanks that kept IR detectors cold, what spacecraft has kept tens of thousands of pounds of LOX cold and then pumped it into another tank where it was used to fire an engine.

    I’m not saying it hasn’t been done on the ground. I’m just saying it hasn’t been done in space. THAT is why Augustine featured this specific technology, and why the new budget features it also.

    – Jim

  • Kelly Starks

    > Jim Muncy wrote @ June 30th, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    > Kelly Starks — exactly which nation has demonstrated
    > long-term on-orbit cryogenic fuel storage and automated transfer?

    Long term cryo fuel storage, no one. Cryo storage on smaller scale (as you mentioned) yes.

    On-orbit fuel transfer obviously has long been in use.

    So if your saynig no nitegrated long term cryo fuel transfer platform has been demoed – agreed, but thats not exactly a big leap in technology. Frankly its something NASA should order, – or not – not study.

    Did NASA go out adn study 6 month + fuel and consumable storage and use before ordering Orion?

  • John Malkin

    Correct, there are many old and new space that don’t require heavy. I was just referring to the New NASA under the FY2011 budget. Robert Zubrin for years has said you don’t need heavy lift. I think if you make small steps you can grow into the best size. Shuttle shows that you can’t shrink to the best size. Also smaller systems can be more diverse increasing flexibility. I think a single destination is a mistake.

  • What do we need to know about how to build LEO depots that isn’t best learned by simply building a LEO depot? And then using it to go somewhere?

  • Doug Lassiter

    >> • Advanced in-space propulsion
    >Hes pushing VASMIR

    Sure, that’s one in-space propulsion technology, and there are others. Oh, what were you going to power that VASIMR (you should spell it right) with? Yep, nukes, which is what the new administration space policy commits us to developing. Ain’t such space qualified nukes right now. The ion propulsion engines we have right now that you proudly point to are orders of magnitude away from anything that would be useful for human space flight or even cargo transfer.

    >> • Lightweight/inflatable modules ==
    >Marketed by Bigelow aerospace.

    Yup. They’ve proven inflatability (actually, they like to call it “expandability) and pressure retention on orbit. Are you ready to fly someone in one? NASA isn’t. Why? Because there is lots of work yet to be done to do refinements that are absolutely necessary for human space flight. The earlier Transhab designs had a lot of problems. Those refinements are going to require technology funding.

    >>==and closed loop life support
    >NASA been playing with those since the ‘70’s also.

    Yes, “playing” is the right word. Send those shrimp right on up there to do our space exploration!

    >>On-orbit fuel transfer obviously has long been in use.

    I’m not aware of that. You were asked to identify an on-orbit fuel transfer mission that was proven and in use, and didn’t. I can think of one — Orbital Express (DARPA: Boeing, Ball), an experiment which was very recent, and hugely innovative. That was a small volume test package, and the technology desperately needs some investment to understand how to use it on a useful scale.

    >>> • Aero-assist/entry, descent and landing
    >Used on all reentry craft.

    Nonsense. They’re talking about aerobraking and aerocapture, which our understanding up is highly fragmentary and is hugely enabling to Mars exploration.

    >>Yeah – used operationally for decades. Guess you could say they were revolutionary when they were new?

    The concept of TRL seems to be obscure to you, as is the word “operationally”. What we’re talking about are concepts that have been identified (and opposed to some hand-waving dreamery), and some tests made to exercise those concepts, but raising the TRL to the point that one could use them as part of a human transportation architecture requires some big bucks. That investment is smart, and very much not pork. You want pork? Have I got a POR architecture for you!

  • John Malkin

    What’s the last official time for a moon landing under Constellation? Just curious.

  • Robert G. Oler

    John Malkin wrote @ June 30th, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    What’s the last official time for a moon landing under Constellation? Just curious…

    toward the end of the 2020 decade.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “What’s the last official time for a moon landing under Constellation? Just curious…

    toward the end of the 2020 decade.”

    No, that’s when Ares V would finally be ready (2028). But to get even that date for Ares V readiness, the Augustine Committee pointed out that nothing could have been spent on the hardware that would fly on top of Ares V (Altair lander, EDS, etc.). So allow another 5-7 years for spending on those developments, and you’re looking at the mid-2030s before the first NASA human lunar return.

    FWIW…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Major Tom wrote @ June 30th, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    thank you…I am always trying to be an optimist!

    Robert G. Oler

  • Kelly Starks

    > Bill White wrote @ June 30th, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    > What do we need to know about how to build LEO depots that isn’t best

    >learned by simply building a LEO depot? And then using it to go somewhere?

    BINGO!

    Course that assumes you want results (and to go somewhere) rather then endless studies that your under no pressure to finish.

  • Gary Church

    “exactly which nation has demonstrated long-term on-orbit cryogenic fuel storage and automated transfer? THAT is why Augustine featured this specific technology, and why the new budget features it also.– Jim”

    Cryogenics are a pain in the ass in zero G- much worse than private space fans seem to appreciate. Long term storage and transfer is probably not worth the trouble compared to storables. A hundred seconds of ISP is not going to change much in terms of interplanetary travel. The fact is that chemical propulsion is hopelessly inadequate. When the cosmic radiation problem is addressed then chemical propulsion issues like cryogenic storage become a non-issue because the THOUSANDS OF TONS of plastic and water that will be required to shield humans simply cannot be pushed around chemically. Impossible.

  • Gary Church

    HSF-BEO makes the space industry a nuclear industry. Why does no one ever discuss this inconvenient truth?

  • Kelly Starks

    >Doug Lassiter wrote @ June 30th, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    >>> • Advanced in-space propulsion
    >>Hes pushing VASMIR

    > Sure, that’s one in-space propulsion technology, and there are others. ==

    Never heard any others mentioned. What have you heard?

    >==Oh, what were you going to power that VASIMR == with?
    > Yep, nukes, which is what the new administration space policy
    > commits us to developing. Ain’t such space qualified nukes right now. ==

    No we havn’t built them in decades – but again not a new tech. Not something NASA should research.

    >==The ion propulsion engines we have right now that you proudly
    > point to are orders of magnitude away from anything that would
    > be useful for human space flight or even cargo transfer.

    How? They are rugged, reliable, high efficiency, used both for space probes and commercial sats. Etc.

    >>Marketed by Bigelow aerospace.

    > Yup. They’ve proven inflatability (actually, they like to call it
    > “expandability) and pressure retention on orbit. Are you ready
    > to fly someone in one? ==

    They are safer then the metal ones in the ISS, NASA has already talked with Bigelow about installing them on the ISS – though that didn’t go anywhere.

    ===.
    >>On-orbit fuel transfer obviously has long been in use.

    > I’m not aware of that.

    Mir and the ISS were and are refueled by automated tankers.

    >You were asked to identify an on-orbit fuel transfer mission that was
    > proven and in use, and didn’t.==

    I don’t remember be asked – though I thought I had mentioned these examples?

    ==
    >>> • Aero-assist/entry, descent and landing
    >>Used on all reentry craft.

    > Nonsense. They’re talking about aerobraking and aerocapture,
    > which our understanding up is highly fragmentary and is hugely enabling to Mars exploration.

    Well its been used on Mars probes, but its actually not that useful for bigger craft since Mars atmosphere is to thin.

    These are all things that are well beyond laboratory studies, they are in product development phases, or upgrades to second, or third gen versions. That’s a industry thing. Its past the point where NASA should be studying it.

  • DCSCA

    ObamaSpace is going to win out, and Congress will holds its collective nose as the vote goes to the President. <- Won't happen given the job situation in the U.S. and especially those along the Gulf coast.

  • DCSCA

    @Kelly- “Normally that would be the equation – but the public is EXTREMELY angry about deficits.”

    Only if you watch Fox News. Deficits are a part of life and the public is always angry about something. Americans are seldom happy without something to complain about. They are angry at Congress as a whole but keep re-electing their own specific representative back to office.

  • DCSCA

    @Kelly “A major cut back of NASA (and US) scale of activities and capacities in space with no follow-on programs in site. This is much more extream adn systemic then the post Apollo shutdown.” Yep. Which is why it will never happen. The $ wasted on 90 days of war in Afghastan would fund Constellation’s budget gap for two or three years. The last country that ended up pouring all its resources into guns and skipped on the butter disappeared– their spacecraft carried the letters ‘C.C.C.P.’

  • Kelly Starks

    > DCSCA wrote @ June 30th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
    >> Kelly- “Normally that would be the equation – but the public is EXTREMELY angry about deficits.”

    > Only if you watch Fox News. ==

    Or watch / read any news. Reporters and columnists who’ve been around, and sad the last time they’ve seen a movement this big was the civil rights movement 40 years ago. Million + marches on the Capitol? Congressmen and Senators getting 10 times the normal number of folks coming to their public meeting – and the crowds HEATED. Candidates who were virtual unknowns but won or got close after endorsements from the Tea Party or Palin? Polls of political allegiances swinging strongly to the right, adn for the first time in about ever – list debts and deficits as their top concern.

    No at least for this year the games different.

  • Kelly Starks

    > DCSCA wrote @ June 30th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
    >> Kelly “A major cut back of NASA (and US) scale of
    >> activities and capacities in space with no follow-on
    >> programs in site. This is much more extreme and systemic
    >> then the post Apollo shutdown.”

    > Yep. Which is why it will never happen. The $ wasted on 90
    > days of war in Afghastan would fund Constellation’s budget
    > gap for two or three years. The last country that ended up
    > pouring all its resources into guns and skipped on the butter
    > disappeared– their spacecraft carried the letters ‘C.C.C.P.’

    But it is happening. Congress has failed to get Bolden’s Constellation shutdown reversed, the subcommittee pretty much suggested leaving it for the next congress (which really is all they can do in this late date.” Let it drag for a year and the constellation program will gone, along with the staffs and some of the subcontracting companies. At that point you’ld need to propose some major new program and get it threw fast.

    Another problem is Constellation has “0” traction with the public. I’ve worked with Aerospace execs who never heard of it, and reacted with utter disbelief that shuttle would be phased out and replaced with a retro-Apollo design. The public isn’t excited either. So NASA has a political problem, on top of losing what the public sees as their “brand” flying people in space.

  • Paul D.

    Constellation would have had more traction had it actually made sense. This is the downside of the cynical, integrity-free process by which it was created.

  • Doug Lassiter

    >> Sure, that’s one in-space propulsion technology, and there are >>others.

    >Never heard any others mentioned. What have you heard?

    Hall effect, xenon, FEEP, solar sail, as well as advanced chemical (including tank lightweighting, engine design for high temp biprops giving higher ISP) etc. VASIMR is one clever idea. There are lots of others.

    > [Re Bigelow expandables} They are safer then the metal ones in the ISS, NASA has already talked with Bigelow about installing them on the ISS – though that didn’t go anywhere.

    Making them “go somewhere” costs money. That’s technology development money, and implementing Bigelow-type inflatables are *precisely* what ESMD wants to use some of the tech development money to do. Using expandables is a key element in the ESMD “Flagship Technology Development” program. Sure, it’s not a lab bench tech development, but it’s still what NASA calls tech development.

    >No we havn’t built them [in-space nukes]
    > in decades – but again not a new tech. Not something NASA should >research.

    Give me a break. We’re going to use 1960s technology to develop the next generation of space qualified fission reactors? Don’t send one up over me! Definitely new tech.

    >Mir and the ISS were and are refueled by automated tankers.

    That’s a fair point, but one would really like retanking that can be done on a large scale autonomously. In fact, you’d probably rather NOT have people around while large scale retanking was going on, if you didn’t have to.

    >>The ion propulsion engines we have right now that you proudly
    >> point to are orders of magnitude away from anything that would
    >> be useful for human space flight or even cargo transfer.

    >How? They are rugged, reliable, high efficiency, used both for space >probes and commercial sats. Etc.

    Rugged, reliable, high efficiency, and with a thrust that is about a thousand times lower than what you’d need to move large things quickly. No, it’s not just a matter of scaling things up by a thousand. Doesn’t work that way.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Paul D. wrote @ July 1st, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    > Constellation would have had more traction had it actually made
    > sense. This is the downside of the cynical, integrity-free process
    > by which it was created.

    You mean design for pork and Griffen vanity? A design copying – badly – a quick and dirty high ops costs low flexibility design.

    Yeah – makes sense to me.

    ;/

  • DCSCA

    @Kelly”Another problem is Constellation has “0” traction with the public. I’ve worked with Aerospace execs who never heard of it, and reacted with utter disbelief that shuttle would be phased out and replaced with a retro-Apollo design. The public isn’t excited either. So NASA has a political problem, on top of losing what the public sees as their “brand” flying people in space.”

    Well, it’s disturbing that any competent aerospace executive would be unfamiliar with Constellation simply as a matter of knowing what’s going on in their industry. The public has a lot on its plate and spaceflight is most likely way down the list nowadays given the situations with war and jobs. But make it clear to them at it will be disappearing and they might react. No doubt NASA finds it hard to believe it has to keep trying to sell itself as a viable and relevant concern given its history of successes. Although the failures may overshadow them with the Gen-X crowd. Public excitiment can be generated and some popular culture programming is trying to shed new light and interest on it– from Stephen Colbert to David Letterman. But it’s most likely going to take another ‘Sputnik’ moment to ignite interest on a scale even partially close to the Apollo and early shuttle days.

  • Paul D.

    But it’s most likely going to take another ‘Sputnik’ moment to ignite interest on a scale even partially close to the Apollo and early shuttle days.
    Be careful what you wish for. Interest in space might lead more people to reach the conclusion many of us have reached — that the space program, as it was being conducted, was a waste of money. The relative ignorance of most voters has allowed NASA to get away with much failure and uselessness.

  • Kelly Starks

    >DCSCA wrote @ July 3rd, 2010 at 5:14 am

    >> @Kelly”Another problem is Constellation has “0” traction
    >>with the public. I’ve worked with Aerospace execs who never
    >> heard of it, and reacted with utter disbelief that shuttle would
    >> be phased out and replaced with a retro-Apollo design. The public
    >> isn’t excited either. So NASA has a political problem, on top
    >> of losing what the public sees as their “brand” flying people in space.”

    > Well, it’s disturbing that any competent aerospace executive would
    > be unfamiliar with Constellation simply as a matter of knowing
    > what’s going on in their industry. ===

    Oh yeah!

    >== The public has a lot on its plate and spaceflight is most likely
    > way down the list nowadays given the situations with war and jobs.
    > But make it clear to them at it will be disappearing and they might react. ==

    I do often wonder if the public will react when the news actually does show no shuttles and Astronauts only can fly like the tourists on Soyuz.

    Worse. Soyuz has been having increasing safety issues (Oberg did a good article no that.), and losing a US astronaut or 3, because NASA failed to replace their 30 year old shuttle program and was forced to use the 50 year old Soyuz program.

    >== it’s most likely going to take another ‘Sputnik’ moment to
    > ignite interest on a scale even partially close to the Apollo and early shuttle days.

    I can’t imagine anything that could be that much of a sputnik moment?

  • Kelly Starks

    > Paul D. wrote @ July 3rd, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    > Interest in space might lead more people to reach the
    > conclusion many of us have reached — that the space program,
    > as it was being conducted, was a waste of money. The relative
    > ignorance of most voters has allowed NASA to get away
    > with much failure and uselessness.

    Yeah. Really if you take a hard look at it the space program – and space as a frontier – has failed to deliver. Not that it has to be, but it has been. NASA wants space as a stage for their space spectaculars, and wants no competition there for public applause. But the public wants the vision of large scale access and commercial activity. Mines, factories, big bases, bases on Mars. That hasn’t happened, and handfuls of astronauts repeatedly mugging for the camera gets old after a couple generations. And the money spent is insane by any measure, and far worse in the public’s imagination.

  • Kelly Starks

    One thing that could be a sputnik moment. India or china doing something in space clearly better then we did. Not just winged shuttles – but ones built for low cost large scale ops,suporting lunar bases, etc — all clearly outclassing us.

    That, or some other moment, convincing us we’ve fallen behind in the world (which were doing rapidly) could shock us into a “we must get back out in front” political wave?

Leave a 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>