Congress, NASA

Senate version of NASA authorization bill due next week

[Apologies for the tardy post; I’m out of town visiting relatives.]

Senate authorizers appear ready to put their stamp on the proposed new direction for NASA, according to a report published late Thursday by the New York Times. The NASA authorization legislation, scheduled to be marked up next Thursday by the Senate Commerce Committee’s space subcommittee (although the hearing doesn’t yet appear on the committee’s online calendar) would, as many have expected, add “at least” one more shuttle flight to the manifest and also accelerate the development of a heavy-lift booster. It would also “restore full capabilities” to the Orion spacecraft, meaning it would be developed as a full-fledged spacecraft for missions beyond Earth orbit instead of as just a lifeboat for the ISS.

The Times article was based in part by comments from Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), the ranking member of the space subcommittee. The committee’s chairman, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), confirmed many of those details in a meeting with reporters in Orlando Friday morning. “We’ve got quite a few senators that are coming together, senators that have been very critical of the president’s proposals,” Nelson said, according to the Florida Today report. “I think that by next Thursday we’ll be able to join all together.”

What this means for other aspects of the White House’s proposed changes for NASA are uncertain. The Times article states that the bill would “slow down a rush to invest in commercial rockets by requiring companies to demonstrate their capabilities” before they could get “large contracts” for ISS crew transportation. However, the plan calls for $6 billion in funding over the next five years to develop capabilities for crew transportation, and would not (presumably) immediately award contracts for such services. Also left unstated is where the funding would come from to pay for extended shuttle operations (through all of FY11, most likely, to cover an additional mission), accelerated HLV development, and any changes to Orion, assuming they don’t change the proposed $19 billion overall budget proposed for NASA in FY11.

Incidentally, while Sen. Vitter is among the bipartisan group working on this authorization bill, according to the Times article, he took some time yesterday to criticize the agency and the administration. Speaking at a ceremony for the delivery of the final shuttle external tank, he took aim at the “radical” proposals for NASA, according to Florida Today. “You all deserve better, and the nation deserves better,” he said, also commenting on Bolden’s widely-discussed comments in his al-Jazeera interview.

Update: Saturday’s Florida Today article has a few more details about the “compromise” bill the subcommittee is drafting, which suggest the changes to the president’s plan aren’t nearly as radical as one might have previously thought (in particular from the New York Times headline). The $6 billion for commercial crew development will still be in the bill, Sen. Nelson said, but will be spread out over six years instead of five. The technology development program could be trimmed to cover costs for other programs but would still be “robust”, Nelson said. He believes the White House understands that, under this proposed bill, “the biggest part of the president’s goals are being fulfilled.”

170 comments to Senate version of NASA authorization bill due next week

  • morn

    hmm…they can talk talk talk but if no money there will be no more pork…simple :)

  • Kelly Starks

    This is very good news. It’s basically just congress doing a little clean up, and kicking the can down the road – but its better then Obama’s “burn the place down” plan.

    Surprising to see the Senate and congress actually stand up to Obama on something? Especially on space, which is not going to save them from voter ire?

  • Christopher

    so i guess the end result is that NASA gets to neuter any commercial space initiative, yet again.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Christopher wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    > so i guess the end result is that NASA gets to neuter any commercial
    > space initiative, yet again.

    Obama’s was a pretty lame attempt at that. If anything it would so bloat it it would cost more then the shuttle, and require a lot of dev work.

    Really it would mainly set commercial spacer back by cutting so much money out of the industry. The worst of all worlds. The Senate concept isn’t great with just a streamlined Apollo on steroids – but it seems like a stalling tactic to get well into next year without letting Obama trash a lot of stuff and close down a lot of future options for congress and NASA.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Nothing changes…Obama gets his space program Robert G. Oler

  • MrEarl

    Oler:
    Riiiiiiiiight.
    It is DOA on the Hill. They admit to a flawed roll-out but 6 months later there is no clarification.
    I think Kelly is right, it seems to be a stalling action on the part of congress to get past the elections and reach a compromise/consensus next year.

  • CessnaDriver

    ObamaSpace is fading and has been a failed plan from the get go.
    Poorly conceived, not socialized with congress, poorly introduced, nebulous goals and uninspirational. No attempt at all to build any kind of reasonable consensus with congress or the space community.
    Few champions for it other then mostly administration people.
    Congress has clearly had enough. Obama has burned bridges with congress.
    ObamaSpace IS *dying* the death it deserves.

  • amightywind

    Robert Oler has been in denial for a while now.

    Senator Nelson has been playing both sides against the middle. Florida voters need to remember this. It looks like Obamaspace was just a bump in the road for Constellation. If congress restructures Constellation, so much the better. This is one of very few areas where bipartisan consensus in the congress can be reached. It might be wise to replace Bolden with someone aligned with congress’s pragmatic view of human space flight, and soon. I don’t see how he or Lori Garver survive this stinging rebuke.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    not so much. you have to keep your eye on the big picture…here it is

    “Also left unstated is where the funding would come from to pay for extended shuttle operations (through all of FY11, most likely, to cover an additional mission), accelerated HLV development, and any changes to Orion, assuming they don’t change the proposed $19 billion overall budget proposed for NASA in FY11.”

    the entire “change” dies when no one can or will pay for it.

    In this event time is the enemy of the folks who want something different…

    sorry. I know its kind of fun to get caught up in the “chicken poop” but one has to keep ones eye on the prize.

    In the end, you will be wrong and I will be right.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    The devil is in the details. I doubt the authorization language would require any real programmatic changes to NASA’s FY11 budget. For example, it’s hard to see the authorization bill specifying a particular HLV design or heritage or a particular level of HLV design decision in 2011. In response to authorization language dictating an HLV design decision in 2011, NASA could simply state that the HLV will employ a LOX/kerosene engine and have at least 50mT of lift and leave the level of specificity at that until more informed and detailed decisions can be made in a few years. Similarly, with authorization language dictating a deep space Orion variant, NASA could argue that it is pursuing such a “Block 1″ variant by developing the “Block 0″ CRV. Or use the language as justification to recompete Orion to create something more affordable within the resources provided by the appropriators, who didn’t provide additional funding for Constellation, ESMD, or NASA overall. (The devil is also in the budget.)

    Of course, unlike appropriations bills, which combine NASA’s budget with funding for other departments and agencies, it’s easy to derail or veto standalone authorization bills. If the Administration doesn’t like what it sees in the authorization bill, it’s relatively easy for NASA legislative affairs to raise issue after isse until the bill dies in subcommittee or committee, and the appropriators are forced to act. Or for the White House to simply veto the bill outright if it gets that far.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “If anything it would so bloat it it would cost more then the shuttle, and require a lot of dev work.

    Really it would mainly set commercial spacer back by cutting so much money out of the industry.”

    NASA’s FY11 budget adds $6 billion for commercial crew. It doesn’t cut any “money out of the industry”.

    Don’t make stuff up.

    FWIW…

  • MrEarl

    Keep whistling through that grave yard Oler and clinging to every bare thread you can. The appropriations committee has already stated they will follow the authorizations committee’s lead. That’s where the money will be doled out.

  • MrEarl

    Tom, I think you’re doing a bit of wishful thinking like Oler.
    Cessna Driver has clearly stated the present situation of ObamaSpace and it’s not a pretty sight.

  • amightywind

    The ax had to fall on the Obamaspace fantasy sometime. It has taken about six months for diverse opposition to coalesce. Proponents of Obamaspace should take heart. Their beloved SpaceX is still funded. They still have an important role for ISS resupply. But any notion of them ‘playing with the big boys’ will be put off until their performance merits it, which is as it should be.

  • GeeSpace

    ““Also left unstated is where the funding would come from to pay for extended shuttle operations (through all of FY11, most likely, to cover an additional mission), accelerated HLV development, and any changes to Orion, assuming they don’t change the proposed $19 billion overall budget proposed for NASA in FY11.”

    If additional money is not added, obviously, the money will come from a re-allocation of programming within the Obama proposed 2011 NASA Budget

    It is really way to soon, to KNOW what the 2011 NASA budget will consist of or how much funding will be included.

    Perhaps, a good thing is that the Senators are discussing actual possible funding rather than publicly speaking to get some sort of political points,

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    Keep whistling through that grave yard Oler and clinging to every bare thread you can. The appropriations committee has already stated they will follow the authorizations committee’s lead…

    they wont find “more money”…and they will do what Obama wants. What I find amusing is the fact that the deficit cutters are going to be the ones who kill the shuttle extension and Cx…

    its a joy

    Robert G. Oler

  • tps

    Well windy it seems like they didn’t think too much of your beloved Ares I either.

  • Major Tom

    “The appropriations committee has already stated they will follow the authorizations committee’s lead.”

    Only on ESMD funding, which the appropriators have capped. Even if the authorization language is highly prescriptive, there’s not enough in the ESMD budget for any meaningful HLV or Orion acceleration over what the White House has already proposed, especially when the authorizers get done paying for an extra Shuttle flight and whatever else they want.

    The White House has already boosted HLV funding from $20 million per year (Griffin’s Constellation budget) to $400 million-plus per year (NASA’s FY 2011 budget). And they’ve committed to spending at least $4.5 billion on Orion CRV. What more can be spent on these projects and where are those dollars going to come from when the appropriators have already capped NASA and ESMD funding levels?

    And that assumes at the authorization isn’t wide enough to drive a truck through (the usual case), that an authorization bill gets passed this year (a rarity) and that the White House doesn’t veto it (unlikely).

    “Cessna Driver has clearly stated the present situation of ObamaSpace and it’s not a pretty sight.”

    Not to piss on the other poster, but I see no analysis of the budgetary or legislative endgame in that post.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “The White House has already boosted HLV funding from $20 million per year (Griffin’s Constellation budget) to $400 million-plus per year (NASA’s FY 2011 budget).”

    Correction — the $400 million-plus figure above is actually $560 million-plus.

    FWIW…

  • amightywind

    “Well windy it seems like they didn’t think too much of your beloved Ares I either.”

    Where do you see that? No mention was made to cut Ares I development that I saw. To be honest I am happy with a full featured Orion. There aren’t that many options to launch it. And Ares I flew!!

  • MrEarl

    You’re right Robert, they won’t find extra money. In fact they’re not even looking for extra money. The funds will come from gutting the R&D, commercial crew and Earth sciences part of Obama Space.
    It’s a shame, If the WH had only worked with the congress there was a good chance that they could have gotten most of what they wanted. Now we get the committee approach to spaceflight and I’m betting it ain’t gonna be pretty.

  • Major Tom

    “But any notion of them ‘playing with the big boys’ will be put off until their performance merits it, which is as it should be.”

    The appropriators have already provided full funding for commercial crew. The authorizers can demand various review gates, but at this point, that won’t change the program from being funded as the FY11 budget requested.

    Don’t make stupid statements out of ignorance.

  • I’m not sur how people are tagging one shuttle flight, a more well-defined HLV schedule, and a return of Orion capability as a ‘stinging rebuke.’

    Judging on prior comment from the administration re:HLV and STS, neither of these things are actually outside of the FY2011 plans. The HLV timetable is perhaps a bit more agressive than envisioned by FY2011, but again, the 2015 date was a drop-dead date. Any date prior to 2015 is a totally valid outcome for selecting and constructing an HLV in the terms that were set out.

    As for STS, both the executive and legislative branches have shown willingness to consider the idea of another shuttle flight. This is the first somewhat concrete sign of it tipping toward reality, but it’s not new or a drastic departure from FY2011.

    The re-re-scoping of Orion is another matter. It is a bit of a rebuke, I’ll admit. But when the escape Orion was pitched a few months back, a small bit of wording was overlooked and underephasized.

    “Obama stated, when the lifeboat Orion was announced that it would be the “technological foundation for advanced spacecraft to be used in future deep space missions,” he offered few details beyond pledging to commit NASA to undertake “a set of crewed flights” in the early 2020s to “test and prove the systems required for exploration beyond low Earth orbit.” ”

    http://www.spacenews.com/policy/100416-president-nasa-plan-orion.html

    Similar comments regarding retaining Orion to preserve beyond Earth orbit capability were made by both Garver and Bolden at the time. Again, the senate bill is different, but this is not a radical deviation. A course correction, yes, but not a deviation.

    And as for the commercial change, it’s practically a non-issue. Did anyone here, even the commercial supporters really believe NASA was going to sign a crew launch contract without seeing demonstration of vehicle capabilities? And what company was even proposing that? Boy it’d be nice to have contracts signed before any commercial manned vehicles are even built. But while the CorpSpace heads, old and new, dream big, they generally don’t hallucinate.

    I like the Senate’s changes and aside from the question of where the money will come from for another STS and accelerated HLV, it’s not much of a change at all.

  • Major Tom

    “No mention was made to cut Ares I development that I saw.”

    The appropriators didn’t fund Ares I, and there’s nothing in two articles about the authorization bill indicating the authorizers want it either.

    Don’t make stupid statements out of ignorance.

    “And Ares I flew!!”

    Ares I-X flew suborbitally. Ares I has never flown, or even been assembled.

    Don’t make things up.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    You’re right Robert, they won’t find extra money. In fact they’re not even looking for extra money. The funds will come from gutting the R&D, commercial crew and Earth sciences part of Obama Space…

    nope. you know as much about this as you do autoland.

    There isnt enough money…

    when you end up being really wrong…I’ll remind you trust me.

    Robert.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    To be honest I am happy with a full featured Orion. There aren’t that many options to launch it. And Ares I flew!!

    Well the Congress will be happy to hear that Ares I is operational, and that they don’t need to spend anymore money on things like the 5-segment SRB’s or the upper-stage development.

    Woo hoo, light that candle and send windy to space!

  • Major Tom

    “The funds will come from gutting the R&D, commercial crew and Earth sciences part of Obama Space.”

    For Earth Science and commercial crew, they can’t. The appropriators only gave the authorizers flexibility within the ESMD budget. Earth Science lies outside that. (And if you think Mikulski is going to let the authorizers rob Earth Science/Goddard funding, you’re living in a fantasy world.) The appropriators also fully funded commercial crew.

    It’s just a question of exploration R&D versus HLV/Orion balance. And given HLV/Orion costs and how much NASA’s FY11 budget is already spending on HLV/Orion, there’s not enough exploration R&D budget to make significant dents in the schedules/capabilities of HLV/Orion.

    FWIW…

  • MrEarl

    Tom, Oler:
    No details have been leaked yet, just the general outline of the authorizations so debating the “the budgetary or legislative endgame” is a little pre-mature.
    What is obvious though is that a Democrat congress has sent numerous signals to the WH that they are confused, not fully in support of, and generally leary of the president’s FY’11 budget for NASA. I think by the wording chosen by many of the Democrat committee leaders they were looking for more information and negotiations with the WH. That never happened so they are striking out on their own buy protecting what they perceive to be key projects, Orion, HLV and another shuttle launch.

  • “And Ares I flew!!”

    No, no it didn’t. Ares I-X was no more like Ares I than Falcon 1 was like Falcon 9.

    “You’re right Robert, they won’t find extra money. In fact they’re not even looking for extra money. The funds will come from gutting the R&D, commercial crew and Earth sciences part of Obama Space.
    It’s a shame, If the WH had only worked with the congress there was a good chance that they could have gotten most of what they wanted. Now we get the committee approach to spaceflight and I’m betting it ain’t gonna be pretty.”

    Now THAT’s a critique I can agree with. I think if ObamaSpace falls apart it will be through a long series of legislative hoop-jumping over years and not a resounding “no” from congress in an appropriations bill. And that is precisely why we need to foster commercial. Even if Obama capitulated and revived Cx in total with twice the requested funding and it was miraculously approved by congress I guarantee it would be nickel and dimed back into oblivion like it was the first time around within a few years. It was true of Apollo and STS, it was true of Cx, and it will be true of anything Obama promotes even if it receives bipartisan support.

    NASA will forever be fighting a war of attrition it is destined to lose unless American, nay global, culture radically changes in respect to space. We need companies whose business model depends on the continuation and full funding of a program. Can it get us beyond LEO? Probably. Beyond the moon? Perhaps, but that’s more questionable. But at the very least it can get us LEO vehicles that won’t go away because Senator Needs the Votes decided to play fiscal responsibility with the science budget. And hopefully it can get us more than 1.

  • I’m not sur how people are tagging one shuttle flight, a more well-defined HLV schedule, and a return of Orion capability as a ‘stinging rebuke.’

    Through some toxic combination of delusion and wishful thinking.

  • Oler and MajorPain- I love you two… you guys could stand on a lifeboat from the TITANIC and say “Hey, was that a great submarine or what?”

    ObamaSpace is sinking fast, you two better shove an old lady or two aside so you can find a seat in the lifeboat.

  • Major Tom

    “No details have been leaked yet, just the general outline of the authorizations so debating the “the budgetary or legislative endgame” is a little pre-mature.”

    With an appropriations bill all the way through committee, it’s not. That sets hard budgetary and legislative limitations on what the authorizers can and cannot do from now until the end.

    And any idiot who knows how bills get enacted (or not) can also figure out what has to happen in the House and at the White House for this authorization bill to make it into law.

    And anyone who’s spent the better part of a decade or more working on or watching NASA legislation (or any other authorization) knows that authorization bills are typically toothless and that the chances of passing them are usually pretty slim.

    “I think by the wording chosen by many of the Democrat committee leaders they were looking for more information and negotiations with the WH.”

    That hasn’t been the wording chosen by Sen. Rockefeller, the Democratic chair on Senate appropriations, and he holds the purse strings.

    Nevertheless the rest of Democrats (and Republicans running on platforms of fiscal responsibility).

    “That never happened so they are striking out on their own buy protecting what they perceive to be key projects, Orion, HLV and another shuttle launch.”

    We’ll see how specific the authorization language is next week, but based on history, I’d bet NASA could drive a truck through it, that the authorizers won’t do the hard work to get it passed into law, and that the Administration can kill or veto it even if it’s specific and gets to the floor of both houses.

    The authorizers only have to look like they’re fighting to their constituencies back home to help with their reelection campaigns. They don’t actually have to do the hard work to win real changes in budgets and programs. Heck, unlike the appropriators, they don’t even have to get a bill passed into law for the government to continue functioning.

    Honestly, a more likely scenario is that the House appropriators will cut below the Senate budget mark and the Administration’s request, as the more fiscally conservative House usually does. At that point, any authorization fantasies about additional Shuttle flights, accelerating HLV, and enhancing Orion over what the Administration is already funding go out the door. They’ll be fighting just to get the Administration’s request for NASA against other competing federal budget priorities.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “Oler and MajorPain- I love you two… you guys could stand on a lifeboat from the TITANIC and say “Hey, was that a great submarine or what?”

    ObamaSpace is sinking fast, you two better shove an old lady or two aside so you can find a seat in the lifeboat.”

    Thanks for the namecalling, insightful analysis, and the facts that you brought to the table.

    Please come back when you decide to grow up.

  • I have to say I rather like this compromise (except for the final Shuttle flight which is far too expensive for its worth). It strikes me as getting rid of some of the deadwood in Constellation, while preserving the best in both government development and the entrepreneurs. It preserves the development of a deep space capability that the entrepreneurs are not yet ready to take on, potentially providing markets they can address down the road (in the same way the ISS is one of the key markets they are addressing now).

    The fact is that SpaceX and Orbital have been given the opportunity to show that they can deliver, and a change along these lines will not change that. Once they have delivered cargo for a few years, it will become much harder to deny them the ability to deliver crew. . . .

    — Donald

  • Mrearl

    I think you’re onto something Donald. Well said.

  • aldksj

    I hope you fools wishing for big government and the downfall of commerce do NOT get what you are asking for.

    Billions spent on more shuttle flights? For what?

    Billions spent on another HLV? Why? For what?

    Billions spent on Apollo-capable Orion? With no lander, WHY?

    Billions NOT spent on closing the gap with SpaceX and Boeing? WHY?

    Billions taken from R&D to pay for all this? WHY?

    You fools have no one to blame but yourselves for your downfall.

  • Michael Kent

    Donald F. Robertson wrote:

    The fact is that SpaceX and Orbital have been given the opportunity to show that they can deliver, and a change along these lines will not change that. Once they have delivered cargo for a few years, it will become much harder to deny them the ability to deliver crew. . . .

    While this is true, it is also true that if this “compromise” becomes policy, it will likely double or triple the gap compared to the administration’s FY11 budget proposal.

    FY11 funds development of two or three commercial spacecraft. At least two likely commercial crew providers (Boeing and SpaceX) have said publicly that their first flight will occur about three years after contract award, or about the end of 2014. That means the gap under FY11 is about four years.

    The Augustine Committee found that first flight of Ares I / Orion would be in the 2017 (earliest credible date) to 2019 (most likely date) timeframe. It also found that the most likely first flight date of the Ares V would be 2028. But in order for those dates to happen, Shuttle had to end in 2010 and Station had to be deorbited in early 2016 to free up funds for Ares I / Orion.

    This compromise funds Shuttle through 2011 (consuming about $3 billion) and Station through 2020 (consuming about another $10 billion), meaning that the HLV / Orion would have about $13 billion less money than Ares I / Orion did. So even if there is no commercial crew, no unmanned percurser missions, and no tech demo missions, the $13 billion shortfall would push the gap into the 2020’s. Funding any of those other things pushes the gap out even further.

    In addition, the HLV will not be Ares I. It will of necessity be a larger and more complex vehicle than Ares I but be developed *by the same organization* as Ares I. The likelihood that it will be less expensive than Ares I is practically nil. That pushes the gap out well into the 2020’s.

    It is obvious that even under this compromise, the only way to end the gap before the mid 2020’s is commercial crew. If that’s the case, why not just get right on it? Why make a bad situation much, much worse?

    If this compromise has any legs, it will be a disaster for American manned spaceflight. Hopefully it will be greatly watered down as it goes from subcommittee to committee to the full Senate to the House / Senate compromise committee to the White House.

    Mike

  • Isn’t it interesting that multiple messages with multiple names all appear around the same time that appear to have been written by the same person?! Why, you’d almost think someone is using multiple personae to create the false impression people agree with him … :-)

  • aldksj

    Under the White House fiscal year 2011 budget request released in February, NASA and the Energy Department would each receive $15 million next year to restart production of plutonium-238 isotopes. It’s unclear whether Congress will approve the spending after denying the Obama administration’s similar proposal in 2009.

    congress doesn’t care about space. wake up.

  • Setting aside for the moment the apparent multiple-personality disorder of one individual …

    From the article, it looks like a clear win for Obama.

    To begin with, relying upon as the main source of the story a Republican senator who’s in the minority and is solely interested in continuing pork to his state is hardly credible.

    “Requiring companies to demonstrate their capabilities before receiving large contracts for delivering astronauts to the International Space Station” means nothing. Does the bill define what a “demonstrated capability” is?! Probably not. So all it means is that SpaceX, ULA, or whomever simply has to launch a rocket. SpaceX has already done that, and ULA’s been doing it for years. It’s a bureaucratic speed bump, nothing more.

    “The bill would direct NASA to fly one more space shuttle mission in the second half of next year.” Eh, okay. So what. That means it goes as early as July 1, 2011. The last launch is currently scheduled for February 2011. Congress will accept the risk that the deaths of NASA astronauts are on their hands if there’s an accident and no rescue vehicle.

    “The bill would also in effect restore full capabilities to the Constellation program’s Orion crew capsule by telling NASA to build a spacecraft that can undertake deep-space missions to destinations like the moon or an asteroid.” Pork, nothing more. It’ll never fly. NASA builds the craft and it goes straight to a museum.

    “The authorization also directs NASA to start development of a new heavy-lift rocket immediately rather than waiting as late as 2015 in the president’s proposal.” Again … Eh, okay. So what. “Development” is a vague term. It could mean, “Draw a sketch on a piece of paper and set it aside for the next four years.” It doesn’t mean select a design now and immediately build it.

    It’s all bureaucratic gobbledygook designed to give the pork-lovers some bacon to bring home to their states. Obama wins.

  • Major Tom

    “This compromise funds Shuttle through 2011 (consuming about $3 billion) and Station through 2020 (consuming about another $10 billion), meaning that the HLV / Orion would have about $13 billion less money than Ares I / Orion did. So even if there is no commercial crew, no unmanned percurser missions, and no tech demo missions, the $13 billion shortfall would push the gap into the 2020′s. Funding any of those other things pushes the gap out even further…

    It is obvious that even under this compromise, the only way to end the gap before the mid 2020′s is commercial crew.”

    Good analysis.

    “In addition, the HLV will not be Ares I. It will of necessity be a larger and more complex vehicle than Ares I but be developed *by the same organization* as Ares I. The likelihood that it will be less expensive than Ares I is practically nil.”

    You’re right that no HLV is likely to be less expensive than Ares I and that NASA will ultimately be in charge of its development. But under the agency’s current leadership and plan, it wouldn’t take on the same, cumbersome, engorged Constellation management structure. And it would leverage EELV/F9 military/commercial infrastructure and cost-sharing, rather than carrying a costly STS-derived infrastructure entirely on NASA’s books. And it probably wouldn’t be a 100mT+ monster, but a 40-70mT booster. It remains to be seen if that approach produces a reasonably affordable HLV, but there’s a lot more hope for that than the previous approach under Constellation.

    FWIW…

  • DCSCA

    “It would also “restore full capabilities” to the Orion spacecraft, meaning it would be developed as a full-fledged spacecraft for missions beyond Earth orbit instead of as just a lifeboat for the ISS.” As predicted and expected. It’s a logical compromise. Adapt Orion for flight a top existing LVs, man rate them and press on.

    “The Times article states that the bill would “slow down a rush to invest in commercial rockets by requiring companies to demonstrate their capabilities” before they could get “large contracts” for ISS crew transportation.” Duh! Common sense prevails. Memo to Musk; knock off the drama queen op-eds about your personal life that does little to endear you to investor and get your rocket and spacecraft flying.

  • DCSCA

    Kelly Starks wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 3:00 pm <- Yep.

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 3:26 pm <- "Denial" is a river in Egypt, too.

  • Major Tom

    “Duh! Common sense prevails. Memo to Musk; knock off the drama queen op-eds about your personal life that does little to endear you to investor and get your rocket and spacecraft flying.”

    Memo to DCSA — the rocket has flown.

    Duh.

    Don’t make stupid statements out of ignorance.

  • DCSCA

    Christopher wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 3:04 pm <- Nothing on Earth is stopping private enterprise from forging ahead into the cosmos but the very 'free market' that very private enterprise is trying to peddle those goods and services to. The risk and limitations of that market in this era does not outweigh the benefit of return on that investment at this time. The history of rocketry development over the past 80-plus years should tell you that government funded programs, in various political guises around the world, pushed the technology forward, with private enterprise a follow-along, cashing in along the way where it could. But nothing (except turning a quarterly profit for investors) is stopping private enterprise from constructing a launch site, assembling the infrastructure, training crews, building spacecraft, leasing recovery vessels and start flying.

  • With all this talk of indefinite shuttle extension, I feel the need to repeat:The only thing filling the gap is myths. http://bit.ly/9EeoLu

  • DCSCA

    Major Tom wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 8:54 pm Once, Tommyboy — and the test flight wasn’t exactly perfect, what with surprise roll rates. And operational spacecraft has not. All the more reason for Musk to stop the drama queen op-eds and press on flying. Don’t make stupid statements out of ignorance.

  • DCSCA

    “If this compromise has any legs, it will be a disaster for American manned spaceflight.” Obamaspace was the disaster. And restoring full capabilities to Orion and pressing on with a new spacecraft to replace shuttle is a sane and logical compromise that was inevitable. Obamaspace just was too nebulous, decidely uninspiring and a paper plan with a mission or nowhere.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    Major Tom wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 8:54 pm Once, Tommyboy — and the test flight wasn’t exactly perfect, what with surprise roll rates. And operational spacecraft has not..

    this from someone who thinks Star Trek watching means support for human spaceflight.

    Musk has far more an operational vehicle then Ares/Orion is…he is it looks like doing the Gemini Titan test card…

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    Ok. This thread is pretty well played out. The short of it is Constellation has made a comeback, Obamaspace has had a setback. The rest is Minor Tom and Robert Oler and Ryan Simberg in their respective mother’s basements with their fingers in their ears saying, “la la la la la, I can’t hear you. la la la…”

  • amightywind, PLEASE go away. They’re talking shuttle extension, not Ares. Get a clue, preferably ELSEWHERE.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Major Tom – a question,

    Could the HLV stuff be leveraged, in a way similar to what is going on with the BAA, such that it can incorporate Prop depots in its designs (or some variation on that)?

  • Bennett

    I think dcsa IS the windy one, and church to boot. I mean really, three guys with the same IQ showing up here at the same time? What are the odds?

  • Major Tom

    “Once, Tommyboy”

    What’s with the juvenile namecalling? No one has called you names in this thread.

    Grow up or get out.

    “— and the test flight wasn’t exactly perfect, what with surprise roll rates.”

    You’re making a mountain out of molehill. The roll rate didn’t affect payload delivery. Crewed Gemini flights had worse unexpected roll rates.

    Don’t make stupid statements out of ignorance.

    “And operational spacecraft has not.”

    Has not what?

    Can’t you even write in complete sentences?

    Oy vey…

  • juggler

    so, how about a question for some frame of reference; will probably get wildly different answers, and it’s a tad off-topic, but here goes: For the sake of inquiry, setting aside the question of whether it could happen, assume that the purse strings were loosened completely, and there was NO restriction on the budget that NASA could have for the forseeable future, then:
    1. how long would it take to build Ares I and V?
    2. how long would it take to have an operational beyond-LEO Orion?
    3. how long would it take to have an operational lunar lander?
    4. how long would it take to have an operational nuclear reactor for power on a beyond LEO spacecraft?
    5 following on 4., how long would it take to have a useful VASIMIR (not the test article for the station)?
    6. how long would it take for SpaceX to have Dragon operational?

    The reason for asking these questions includes trying to get an understanding of just what is physically possible over the coming decade. There continues to be a lot of qualitative statements here about Ares I taking until ~2019, Ares V til late 2020’s, etc. These seem to be loosely based on the inputs given to Augustine, which were a very restricted NASA budget profile in the coming outyears (even less than proposed by Griffin in his last go-round), and which of course leads to very lengthy development times. So, the question is: how much of those lengthy Constellation (and other) development times are driven by the real timescales needed for development, and how much driven by the restricted funding spigot?

    Enquiring minds want to know (or at least hear your thoughts).

  • Major Tom

    “The short of it is Constellation has made a comeback”

    What Constellation “comeback”? Even the NY Times article states:

    “… neither has there been a groundswell to keep the current moon program, known as Constellation, which would need a large increase in financing to put it back on track.”

    nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html?_r=1

    Read, think and comprehend before you post.

    Moreover:

    – Ares I remains cancelled in Senate FY11 appropriations and authorization.

    – Ares V remains dead in Senate FY11 appropriations and authorization.

    – Altair remains dead in Senate FY 11 appropriations and authorization after Griffin zeroed its budget in his last years.

    – And per the NY Times article, Orion is restored only “in effect”. The authorization only tells “NASA to build a spacecraft that can undertake deep-space missions”. It doesn’t appear to specify Orion.

    There’s nothing left of Constellation, in either the Administration’s budget or Congressional legislation.

    Don’t make things up.

  • Major Tom

    “Major Tom – a question,

    Could the HLV stuff be leveraged, in a way similar to what is going on with the BAA, such that it can incorporate Prop depots in its designs (or some variation on that)?”

    Like I wrote above, it depends on the specificity of the authorization language. But I’d be shocked if there was anything in the authorization language that ruled out NASA’s current approach in the BAA for the Heavy Lift & Propulsion Technology Systems Analysis and Trade Study where the HLV is evaluated in terms of overall deep space transportation system — including “the use of propellant transfer or depot” and “capability gaps associated with all other technical elements of the in-space space propulsion element, e.g. tanks, propellant and pressurization systems, cryogenic fluid management, integrated system health management, auxiliary propulsion systems, avionics and control systems, structures, autonomous rendezvous and docking [and the] test and integrated demonstrations to mitigate risk associated with the gaps.” The authorizers would have to be unfathomably bone-headed to direct NASA not to conduct system-level trades or otherwise tie the agency’s hands.

    And even if some authorizers are that stupid, historically, Congress just doesn’t specify technical solutions. They know that they lack the necessary expertise and that doing so overreaches and treads on Executive Branch perogatives and responsibilities. Congressional leadership won’t be that irresponsible, and it would make the bill immediate and easy veto bait.

    Politics is the art of the possible, and there’s just not much more HLV possible in FY11 within the budget box that the appropriators have drawn, the HLV spending that the Administration has already proposed within that box, the costs of an additional Shuttle flight, the fact that Congress almost certainly won’t specify a technical solution in legislation, and the reality of getting a bill through the floors of both houses and past the White House.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “1. how long would it take to build Ares I”

    At least to 2017, even if an additional $5 billion per year was added to the $19 billion NASA budget, per the final report of the Augustine Committee.

    This is also constrained by J-2X development. It’s the long pole in the tent, and per GAO, it’s at least a seven-year build.

    “and V?”

    At least to 2028, even if an additional $5 billion per year was added to the $19 billion NASA budget, per the final report of the Augustine Committee.

    2. how long would it take to have an operational beyond-LEO Orion?

    Circa 2035. Per the final report of the Augustine Committee, even if you add $5 billion per year to the $19 billion per year NASA budget, Ares V development eats up all the available funding, which means spending on a deep space Orion variant has to wait until after Ares V development is finished in 2028. Assuming a 5-10 year development for a deep space Orion variant, you’re looking at circa 2035.

    “3. how long would it take to have an operational lunar lander?”

    Circa 2035, same as a deep space Orion variant, driven by spending on Ares V development. See directly above.

    For the record, Griffin had to terminate what little Altair funding there was in NASA’s current budget to pay for Ares I/Orion. That should give you some indication of just how egregiously expensive and outside the budget box Constellation systems were.

    “4. how long would it take to have an operational nuclear reactor for power on a beyond LEO spacecraft?”

    With Constellation as a baseline, who knows? It would remain over-the-horizon, for all intents and purposes.

    Again, for the record, Griffin terminated most of NASA’s space nuclear reactor work to pay for the Ares I/Orion start. And again, that should give you some indication of just how egregiously expensive and outside the budget box Constellation systems were.

    “5 following on 4., how long would it take to have a useful VASIMIR (not the test article for the station)?”

    Same as the nuke answer.

    “6. how long would it take for SpaceX to have Dragon operational?”

    According to SpaceX, 2013-14. According to NASA, no later than 2016.

    “These seem to be loosely based on the inputs given to Augustine, which were a very restricted NASA budget profile in the coming outyears… the question is: how much of those lengthy Constellation (and other) development times are driven by the real timescales needed for development, and how much driven by the restricted funding spigot?”

    The Augustine Committee sought, and gained approval, to examine and recommend options at much higher budget levels. And they did so. As one committee member stated during one of their seven (I think) public meetings, Santa Claus could give NASA Ares V tomorrow and the agency couldn’t afford to operate it.

    FWIW…

  • Derrick

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 7:41 pm :

    “NASA builds the craft and it goes straight to a museum.”

    Easy to see that happening. Sad but true…

  • Rhyolite

    Michael Kent wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    You make an interesting point with respect to ISS. I have been surprised at how little commentary there has been on the extension of ISS. Constellation required splashing ISS to free up a funding wedge for Ares V and the BEO components of Constellation. The survival of ISS – which appears to have no opposition in congress – is effectively the cancellation of the Constellation as anything more than a LEO taxi.

    ISS, regardless of its own merits, makes an interesting test of Congresses motivations. If their true motivation was a Moon mission along the lines of Constellation as some say it is, then they would call for killing ISS. However, if their true motivation is preserving their existing steams of pork, then they would keep it going. They are choosing to keep it going so can conclude that pork outweighs the Moon in their priorities.

  • Rhyolite

    aldksj wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    The issue of finding $15 million for P238 production is striking. The availability of P238 has a greater effect on our ability explore Mars and the outer solar system than all of that the billions being spent on HSF. Even if human beings reach these destinations – and that is likely to be decades from now – we will still get do most of our exploration data from unmanned systems that need P238 to be effective in these environments. Congress cares about pork more than it cares about exploration.

  • Click here for the Florida Today article on the subject. Straight from Senator Nelson.

    It says the committee proposal would spread out the money for commercial access to LEO to slow it down. Well, all I can say is those committee members better not whine about relying upon the Russians because that’s what their proposal does. The longer we wait for commercial access, the longer we rely on the Russians.

    It’s all pork, plain and simple, but once you trim all the fat you see that Obama wins. The Senators larded it down with pork but it’s clear Constellation is dead and commercial access is the future.

  • Major Tom

    “Click here for the Florida Today article on the subject. Straight from Senator Nelson.”

    Also relevant to some of the earlier posts, Nelson expresses his preference for a Shuttle-derived HLV but states “it was not the committee’s place to design rockets.”

    Also interesting is that the the bill adopts the “‘flexible path’ exploration approach that would first pursue a mission to an asteroid instead of the moon.”

    “It says the committee proposal would spread out the money for commercial access to LEO to slow it down.”

    It looks like the authorizers and appropriators are going to bump heads on this. The appropriators were very clear that they provided the full funding for commercial crew.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom wrote:

    Also relevant to some of the earlier posts, Nelson expresses his preference for a Shuttle-derived HLV but states “it was not the committee’s place to design rockets.”

    Yeah, you’ll notice it calls for a design that includes solid rocket boosters just to keep the Utah porkers happy. Oink.

  • Paul Vaccaro

    Well to quote Reagan a bit Obamaspace will placed on the trasheap of history, for all you folks who cant read or refuse to read anything positive I recently spoke to someone whom I know and he confirmed an article from NASA itself that Orion and it’s systems could have a human rated flight as early as 2013 not 2018 or beyond as long as ATK has the first and second stage ready which according to them if Obama will keep his hands off will be ready as well. NASA just produced a report that Orion PASSED yes PASSED all final critical design reviews.
    Listen I am not opposed to commercial space just NOT until they prove their capabilities, as for Ares 1 and Ares V , get real folks using proven technology as a starting point to bigger and better things has always proven the smarter way to go, Gunther Wendt who recently passed away used to come into my store in Titusville he worked with my father at KSC for years we talked space often , he told me once you never let go of what you do and do well because they will with new ideas lead you to bigger and better, spaceflight breeds new and innovative ideas all the time one of the most important things to remember is consistent flightas and the ability to have vehicles that are flrxible and can have new technologies integrated to make them better.

  • Paul Vaccaro

    Hey major tom , those porkers you talk about ATK, let me tell you about those boosters, it’s about tonnage and they are reuseable so why not use them to get initial tonnage into space besides the vehicle in space is whats important , it’s capabilities and functions for exploration are the key.

  • Justin Kugler

    Paul,
    I suggest you do a little more research next time. ATK is not responsible for the liquid second stage of Ares I. That was given to Boeing. Additionally, Orion just passed the Phase 1 safety review. It did NOT pass CDR, which isn’t expected until at least 2011.

  • Paul Vaccaro wrote:

    … let me tell you about those boosters, it’s about tonnage and they are reuseable so why not use them …

    There are many reasons not to use them, one of which being it’s a lot more expensive to build them for reuse than to be expendable. Reusable boosters have to be sturdier, have to be retrieved, have to be refurbished.

    And once they’re lit, there’s no way to turn them off. See Challenger.

  • I suggest you do a little more research next time.

    He might also learn where the period key is on his keyboard. Man, what a run-on sentence.

  • Robert G. Oler

    “Update: Saturday’s Florida Today article has a few more details about the “compromise” bill the subcommittee is drafting, which suggest the changes to the president’s plan aren’t nearly as radical as one might have previously thought (in particular from the New York Times headline).”

    so much for the “analysis” of Mr Earl, Mightywind, Whittington and all the other Cx Tree huggers.

    You folks really need to get a life. (or learn to not let your passions blow you down)

    sigh

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Paul Vaccaro wrote @ July 10th, 2010 at 9:00 am

    Listen I am not opposed to commercial space just NOT until they prove their capabilities, as for Ares 1 and Ares V , get real folks using proven technology as a starting point to bigger and better things has always proven the smarter way to g…

    the phrases you and other “dont change” people use remind me of the line from the Heywood Floyd character in 2010…as Hal was repeating that he had the greatest enthusiasm for the mission for the millionth time Floyd said something like “he regretted he had ever written that line”.

    The “joy” of the Rovian tactics the GOP uses are that people like you get phrases and they sound good and you quote them endlessly almost verbatim.

    I find it humerous that people like you think that “commercial space needs to prove itself” (in a country born on Free enterprise that is itself a hoot…no one is calling on “privatizing social security to prove itself” )…in an era where government space has not only gone endlessly over budget but stretched timelines…and killed 14 astronauts by sloppiness…

    but then again facts never matter to folks who bought the line “as dangers gather near our shores”.

    brainless people

    Robert G. Oler

  • MrEarl

    First …..
    I’m not a Cx supporter. As I told the Augustine committee last year during public comments, I have no dog in this fight. But I don’t see the reason for wasting a perfectly good HLV like we did with the Saturn V. (Each sides views about the “standing army” have been debated ad-nausium without effect on the other so there is no need to debate that again)

    Second…….
    My main concern has always been for HSF beyond Earth orbit. I’m for a policy and plan to extend the human presence in space through and orderly development of capabilities. NASA would be the trail blazer and risk taker creating opportunities for commercial ventures to re-supply and taxi crews, ect. They can then use those capabilities to exploit other opportunities like resource utilization, tourism and commercial scientific resurch.

    Third………….
    The FY’11, as proposed, dose not do any of that. It throws HSF to commercial totally and BEO is reduced to some R&D and demonstration projects. When any human activity BEO is mentioned it’s more along the lines of flags and footprint missions that do very little to really expand the human presence in the solar system.
    Frankly, I’m surprised that supporters of commercial HSF don’t see the dead-end created by this “plan”.

  • MrEarl

    Oler:
    I still find it amusing when you try to lecture anyone on free enterprise when you haven’t received a paycheck that didn’t have some attachment to the federal trough for years. The concept of “Rick/Reward” is just so foreign to you as to be incomprehensible.

  • Major Tom

    “Well to quote Reagan a bit Obamaspace will placed on the trasheap of history, for all you folks who cant read or refuse to read anything positive I recently spoke to someone whom I know and he confirmed an article from NASA itself that Orion and it’s systems could have a human rated flight as early as 2013 not 2018 or beyond as long as ATK has the first and second stage ready which according to them if Obama will keep his hands off will be ready as well. NASA just produced a report that Orion PASSED yes PASSED all final critical design reviews.”

    Orion was never the long pole in the tent. The J-2X engine for the Ares I upper stage was, and based on SSME experience, GAO has stated it won’t be finished until 2017 at the earliest. No J-2X, no Orion flight.

    “Listen I am not opposed to commercial space just NOT until they prove their capabilities, as for Ares 1 and Ares V , get real folks using proven technology as a starting point to bigger and better things has always proven the smarter way to go”

    Proven? As in proven orbital flights?

    As in Atlas V and Delta IV have dozens of proven, orbital flights?

    As in Falcon 9 has one, proven, orbital flight?

    As in Ares V has no proven, orbital flights?

    As in Ares I has no proven, orbital flights?

    C’mon…

    “Hey major tom , those porkers you talk about ATK,”

    I havn’t called anyone at ATK a “porker”. Don’t put words in my mouth. And don’t call other people names.

    “let me tell you about those boosters, it’s about tonnage and they are reuseable”

    SRBs are not reusable if you damage them on recovery, as happened on the Ares I-X suborbital flight.

    Let’s think before we post.

    FWIW…

  • Anyone else here ever notice that these threads ALWAYS turn into… MajorPain, Oler, MajorPain, Major Pain, everone else (for about 3 posts) then, MajorPain, Oler, MajorPain, Major Pain, everone else (for about 3 posts), then MajorPain, Oler, MajorPain, Major Pain, everone else (for about 3 posts).

    Who has that kind of time? These guys have to be employed in the basement of the White House fed on sprouts and whipped coffee drinks or something. Talk about the brainwash squad. I can see it now, some Obama staffer, in the coffee shop across the street from the whitehouse- so it would not be an “official” meeting, “Okay, now here’s two free laptops, you guys are assigned to NASA and spaceflight- go push whatever Obama wants.”

    Sheeesh.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ July 10th, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    Oler:
    I still find it amusing when you try to lecture anyone on free enterprise when you haven’t received a paycheck that didn’t have some attachment to the federal trough for years. …….

    lol

    having started three businesses and more or less failed at two… (third time is a charm) I have some reference to the subject.

    But the two things at play here are kind of like looking at the IRaq effort of Mr. Rumsfeld…It doesnt take Von Clauswitz to figure out that it was inept…

    and it doesnt take a genius in free enterprise to figure out that 1) a government program that has cost and timelines like Cx is nothing resembling free enterprise and 2) that to say “commercial must prove itself” and then give the agency that killed 14 astronauts through incompetence a pass…is rhetoric.

    And it does not take a genius to recognize that you mis interpreted the NY Times story. All one has to do is read your previous post on the subject.

    As I told you…when this is over I will be more correct and you will be “more wrong”. I know its annoying

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ July 10th, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    Second…….
    My main concern has always been for HSF beyond Earth orbit…

    really? so you were supporting an effort that didnt have a chance to get beyond earth orbit for two decades and another 100-200 billion?

    odd

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mrearl

    Oler:
    Read “First…….”. To find out why your last post is wrong.

    P.s. The 3 business I started were successful……
    Just saying…

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    To me, the most important thing is to get commercial crew launch off of the critical path. As has been pointed out before Congress, under the ‘pure’ ObamaSpace plan, the potential commercial crew launch providers simply cannot be allowed to fail. This potentially turns them into as much of a money pit as ‘pure’ CxP. Building Orion and having a high-confidence and low-R&D launcher for that system will give them time to develop their products to a necessary level of reliability. If properly designed, an HLV can have a fairly well-proportioned LEO crew launch variant, so you don’t have the spectacle of a Saturn-V-class LV being used to launch 23t to LEO.

    In the fullness of time, the commercial crew launch providers will demonstrate sufficient reliability that Orion to ISS will be come wasteful and unnecessary. Focus can then be moved to BEO. Irrespective of the time-scale that emerges for this, I, for one, would like to see an attempt to put an Orion into lunar orbit to celebrate the Apollo 8 hemicenteniary in 2018.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mrearl wrote @ July 10th, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    no my first two were failures. (one was with another person on this board…he, I and two others)..they were not decapitating failures…ie they didnt wipe us out or endanger (a great deal) our standard of living.

    But they were never going to become more then just barely self sustaining and the trick is to know when to “exit”. Plus they taught me a lot…and the third has survived (so far) even teh Bush near depression.

    there is nothing free enterprise about Cx…it is a total big government program

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ July 10th, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    To me, the most important thing is to get commercial crew launch off of the critical path. ..

    to me the most important thing is having commercial crew launch on the critical path with no real back up.

    The government back up cost to much..for every dollar put into commercial space we are having to put oh 10 or 20 into the government option.

    this is a nation of free enterprise. We need to go strongly and boldly down that path.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “But I don’t see the reason for wasting a perfectly good HLV like we did with the Saturn V.”

    First, the STS is not an HLV. Even the simplest Shuttle-derived HLVs require billions of dollars of development. There is no Shuttle-derived HLV today.

    Second, even if it existed, like Saturn V, a Shuttle-derived HLV infrastructure would be relatively expensive to maintain and operation, and therefore not “perfectly good”. Relative to the $10 billion NASA annual human space flight budget, it would be a very expensive mode of space transportation — several billions of dollars per year — for which NASA would have to foot the entire bill. That’s not true of EELV- or Falcon-derived alternatives.

    “NASA would be the trail blazer and risk taker creating opportunities for commercial ventures to re-supply and taxi crews, ect. They can then use those capabilities to exploit other opportunities like resource utilization, tourism and commercial scientific resurch… The FY’11, as proposed, dose not do any of that.”

    Yes, it does. NASA’s FY11 budget request invests $6 billion over five years in commercial crew. It also undertakes the propellant depot demos needed to create a market for commercial in-space propellant resupply. And it funds the robotic precursor missions necessary to identify resources in high enough concentrations that they can be exploited by commerce.

    Don’t make stuff up.

    I know you don’t agree with the Constellation approach, but it’s important to point out that the prior budget did none of this. No commercial crew. No in-space propellant resupply market. No robotic precursors after LRO. And it was going to put a multi-ten billion dollar base on the lunar south pole when the highest concentration of lunar water now appears to be in a crater in the Moon’s north polar region.

    From the perspective of enabling commercial markets in the wake of government exploration, it was about as counterproductive a strategy as could be imagined.

    Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb…

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “Anyone else here ever notice that these threads ALWAYS turn into… MajorPain, Oler”

    No, they don’t. I didn’t at all in the prior thread, for example.

    Don’t make stuff up.

    And what’s with the juvenile namecalling? No one has called you a name in this thread.

    Grow up or get out.

    “These guys have to be employed in the basement of the White House fed on sprouts and whipped coffee drinks or something.”

    I was in a bar until 2AM last night drinking gin gimlets and absinthe. I’m paying for it today.

    Don’t write about things you know nothing about.

    Ugh…

  • Major Tom

    “To me, the most important thing is to get commercial crew launch off of the critical path. As has been pointed out before Congress, under the ‘pure’ ObamaSpace plan, the potential commercial crew launch providers simply cannot be allowed to fail. This potentially turns them into as much of a money pit as ‘pure’ CxP. Building Orion and having a high-confidence and low-R&D launcher for that system will give them time to develop their products to a necessary level of reliability. If properly designed, an HLV can have a fairly well-proportioned LEO crew launch variant,”

    It’s good for the government to have a backup strategy, but the problem with the Orion/HLV backup is that it costs many times more than the primary commercial crew path. An Orion ISS crew transport variant alone is in the neighborhood of another $10 billion worth of development (on top of the billions that have already been poured into it). Even the cheapest Shuttle-derived HLV requires $6-8 billion of development, on top of the billions needed to keep the STS workforce around until that HLV is ready to fly. You’re looking at something in the neighborhood of $15-20 billion minimum to field that system, versus $6 billion for commercial crew.

    The only affordable backup strategy is to pursue more than one commercial crew provider. And that’s a sound strategy given that Atlas V, Delta IV and now Falcon 9 are all flying. And that’s what NASA’s FY11 budget does.

    FWIW…

  • MrEarl

    So… Tommy’s a heavy drinker.

    That explains alot!

  • Bennett

    MrEarl wrote @ July 10th, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    You are falling into the realm of trolldom. I know it’s hard when your interpretation of a news story is shown to be illogical, but that doesn’t mean you have to abandon all honor and go into personal attack mode.

    You can discuss and debate without being childish, one hopes.

  • MrEarl

    Oh Bennett….
    I would expect nothing less from the the MT/Oler toady.

    So when Oler makes this statement, “As I told you…when this is over I will be more correct and you will be “more wrong”. That isn’t childish? All that’s left is the “nanner, nanner” at the end.

    Tom’s one track commentary of, “Don’t make things up” isn’t childish?

    Good to see that you picked on on the mis-interpretation spin.

    Find your own voice Bennett.

  • Space Cadet

    I have to chalk this one up as a victory for the WH budget proposal because of the long term momentum: (1) The only way to stop milestone-based space transportation (i.e. COTS as contrasted to Constellation) would have been to not let COTS providers even get their foot in the door (for example as Lockheed and Boeing did by negotiating a 10-year contract with the Air Force to exclude new competitors). The longer new commercial companies continue with successful flights (Falcon 9) and the more new entrants arrive (e.g. Orbital providing station resupply, the less credible the “not proven yet .. not proven yet …” cries become. (2) The further NASA goes down the road of shutting down Constellation contracts, the more folks get laid off and the more expensive it becomes to restore Constellation (particularly Ares I).

    So momentum is on the side of the new direction for HSF. The compromises recently reported are face saving gestures for a few politicians which will have little effect on the long-term direction. Constellation’s end will become more certain with every layoff and contract end date, while commercial will get stronger with each successful launch.

  • Excellent news! One of the biggest problems with the Ares I/V architecture and the Obama plan was that there was no immediate funding for a heavy lift vehicle. This plan could enable NASA to have an HLV in less than 7 years.

    Having an HLV and an Orion will make it much easier to provide funds to develop lunar landers and lunar habitat modules for establishing a permanent human presence on the Moon. Hopefully, the Orion will use an ACES 41 for the service module instead of a hypergolic fueled SM.

    Bolden is probably going to push for a hydrocarbon HLV. But Congress is likely to push for a hydrogen fueled shuttle derived HLV that will preserve some of the remnants of the Shuttle and Ares I programs in order to maintain broad Congressional support.

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ July 10th, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    Having an HLV and an Orion will make it much easier to provide funds to develop lunar landers and lunar habitat modules for establishing a permanent human presence on the Moon.

    I see you also mentioned ACES 41, so I would agree with the flexibility a system like that provides, but I have to quibble with your HLV and Orion thoughts.

    If you fund an HLV, and you fund Orion, then you also need to fund a launcher for Orion. That launcher would hopefully be an existing commercial one (Delta IV Heavy for example), but that still needs funding to be “man-rated” (ULA says $1.3B). Delta IV Heavy is already a capable cargo carrier, and with the ACES 41/71 system, there is less need for an HLV.

    ULA doesn’t even have customers for the more capable Atlas V Heavy, so only a government payload would create demand for a government HLV. That is a recipe for high operational costs, and a drag on the space program going forward (spending money on a operations force instead of space hardware).

    If commercial cargo launchers are used, even if they are smaller in payload, then NASA can devote a lot more budget to payload & spacecraft instead of infrastructure. This is the fundamental concern I have with a government HLV program, is that it sucks up NASA money regardless if you launch something or not (like the Shuttle program).

    If an HLV is really forecasted as a national need, then an alternative way would be to define the capabilities, open the bidding to U.S. companies, and award a COTS like contract for a specific number of launches. Existing launch companies already have operations staff for other product lines, so an HLV would be an incremental increase to their workforce, and not the only product to be supported if the government operated one.

    My $0.02

  • Bennett

    MrEarl wrote @ July 10th, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    It seems you won’t be happy until folks view you with the same disdain as they view windy, church, and dcsca.

    Why bother participating if no one respects your opinion?

  • MrEarl

    Bennett:

    I could ask you, why participate if you are only parroting the opinions of others?

  • David C

    I come here for comic relief, not for any further increase of knowledge about US politics or Space capabilities; and today gentleman (did someone come in?? they all chimed!!) you have out done yourselves; proving that if anything, the people in the Government, are wiser than you bunch of Stooges;
    it does my heart glad Jeff, that you have seen fit to provide a sand box for this level of intelligent “converstation” and “debate”, proving that the Three Stooges are not dead, they just moved to Space Politics dot com ;0

  • Bennett

    MrEarl, Do me a favor and show me where I’ve ever parroted someone’s opinion. Or you can simply respond with another put down.

  • David C

    been away watching the Rosetta space craft flyby 21 Lutetia asteroid;

    I want to amend what I said earlier, to correct the impression that you may have that I don’t value YOUR posts, Jeff; that I do, does require saying; it is the comment content that would make great fodder for a stand up comic, like Jeff Dunham;

  • common sense

    @ DCSCA wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 8:20 pm

    “Duh! Common sense prevails”

    Yes! I always do prevail thank you. Takes awhile sometime though.

    Oh well…

  • Doug Lassiter

    One delightful thing about the news on Senate Authorization, and their small changes to the Obama plan, is that we’re now listening to Congress, talking about real agency policy, and not to al-Jazeera about what’s on Charlie Bolden’s mind.

    That was a news bubble that desperately needed to get popped. The Administration kept their head down on that one, and they were right to do so.

  • Bob Mahoney

    Yawn. More fatuous blather that accomplishes nothing.

    Has anyone conducted an analysis to determine, regardless of the original content of the posting by Mr. Foust, how long it typically takes each of the usual contributors (I use the term loosely) here to chime in with their personal favorite (and endlessly reiterated) bugaboos? It obviously doesn’t matter what the original content was, they ALWAYS end up strolling down their same old well-worn pathways, always to no resolution or much value.

    I say again: Yawn. At least Mr. Foust usually has something interesting to say at the top…

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ July 10th, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    So when Oler makes this statement, “As I told you…when this is over I will be more correct and you will be “more wrong”. That isn’t childish? ..

    not really. IF I had say “nah nah nah nah nah” and then the sentence, that would be childish.

    It is not childish to point out a situation in terms of who is getting statements correct.

    This is what you noted in this thread

    “Keep whistling through that grave yard Oler and clinging to every bare thread you can. The appropriations committee has already stated they will follow the authorizations committee’s lead…”

    and you were delightfully wrong in terms of what the authorization committee was advocating to start off with.

    Look one has to follow the trends. It use to annoy people on the McCain blog that every week I would post “the trend” and the last month it went heavily against McCain. They couldnt kick me off…I gave to much money…and I was correct. From week 2 after the convention McCain was sinking.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bob, I think you just defined “Politics”.

  • amightywind

    Bob Mahoney wrote:

    “Mr. Foust, how long it typically takes each of the usual contributors (I use the term loosely) here to chime in with their personal favorite (and endlessly reiterated) bugaboos?”

    No, you are wrong. And Ares I lives and George W. Bush was justified in hanging Saddam Hussein.

  • Paul Vaccaro

    1. I am aware that ATK is not doing second stage I should have been a bit more specific, In an article on yahoo space news I had read that a spokesman from ATK made a few comments from conversations with Boeing about Ares progress , sorry for not being clear on that. 2. I am also aware of the accomplishments of Atlas and Delta launch vehicles since I have probably watched everyone launch since they were built, Ares 1 and Ares V are sound designs and highly capable of doing this counry a good service. 3. Obama Space must go you cant just shock the system and dump a space program on the commercial guys when they have not proven themselves they have stockholders to please profits to make thats why they are in business. 4. Let’s get real folks NASA is not a jobs program like some think it is one of the only agency that you can see an actual return on your investment, i know it’s not perfect it needs work but society has had a huge return on it’s investment. 5. Constellation is NOT A RERUN OF APOLLO, there are no astronauts today that have the common frame of reference to do the job of deep space exploration, using the moon in the short tern is smart , gain the skills then push outward deeper into the solar syatem and with a government owned vehicle, when the commercial boys are up to speed bring them along for the ride.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Paul Vaccaro wrote @ July 11th, 2010 at 12:29 am
    4. Let’s get real folks NASA is not a jobs program like some think it is one of the only agency that you can see an actual return on your investmen..

    I think most of your statements are well not accurate…but this one is really nuts.

    “the only agency that you can see an actual return on your investment”? Are you kidding.

    NASA is one of the few, at last in human spaceflight that has almost no return on investment.

    How long do you think that the aviation industry would exist in The Republic if the FAA did not run the ARTCC network?

    #4 at least is pure nonsense.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Paul Vaccaro

    How can you say that the return in science , aeronautics, medicine , enviromental systems, computers etc have been greatly advanced by NASA and our human spaceflight program. As far as being accurate I don’t know you Mr. Oler I cannot judge you or your knowledge but I can tell you this I have lived around NASA my entire life my family has over 50 years of experience in NASA my father was an enviromental engineer on Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, and the early days of the Space Shuttle, my father-in law was a NASA chief and engineer so I may not have all the fancy college background like im sure some here have but I have seen and lived most major milestones and tragedies in the program. I have a complete understanding of how it works and what NASA is capable of I learned a lot from these men and others associated with NASA , I’m not much for politics but I do know common sense and Obama space is not common sense, I’m not totally oppsed to his ideas but it’s just not smart to shock a program as importand as NASA., he needs to take an incrimental approach.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Paul, I apologize, I did these out of order, you’ll have to forgive me for that.

    How can you say that the return in science , aeronautics, medicine , enviromental systems, computers etc have been greatly advanced by NASA and our human spaceflight program.

    Defend that. What specific inventions/patents were developed that could not have been done another way that demanded humans in space?

    I am also aware of the accomplishments of Atlas and Delta launch vehicles since I have probably watched everyone launch since they were built, Ares 1 and Ares V are sound designs and highly capable of doing this counry a good service.

    Despite the technical problems that have come up, the underlying issues related to Ares I & V were not, and never have been, technical. They have been programmatic – specifically, the cost. The NASA budget is not large enough, and by a substantial amount, to afford the OPERATION of those 2 rockets, let alone the development costs. And NASA is not going to get any super large increase – and this isn’t a reflection on whether NASA deserves an increase, its not going to get it. That being the case, they can be the perfect rockets, but we can’t afford them.

    Obama Space must go you cant just shock the system and dump a space program on the commercial guys when they have not proven themselves they have stockholders to please profits to make thats why they are in business.

    Ok
    1. Having to produce profits, and please stockholders, is actually likely to increase support for space development, since, you have clear measurable results.

    2. No one is talking about dumping the space program on the commercial guys. No one.

    3. Please explain how Boeing hasn’t proven itself, or ULA. You say you are aware of them, but you haven’t explained why we can’t trust them to build a human spacecraft on a fixed price contract, that can fly NASA astronauts to LEO (either to ISS, or a Deep Space SpaceShip)

    Let’s get real folks NASA is not a jobs program like some think it is one of the only agency that you can see an actual return on your investment, i know it’s not perfect it needs work but society has had a huge return on it’s investment.

    Thats how Congress treats it. If they viewed it as a true national priority, you would see a lot more Congress people, who don’t have local stakeholders involved, take a much larger role. Thats not there. Further, there would certainly be more money available – look at how much money is made available for other things. If Congress viewed it as a real necessity, rather than a jobs program, NASA would’ve had the budget it needed to deliver the Constellation program.

    Constellation is NOT A RERUN OF APOLLO

    Programatically, it is. Its a cost plus, price is not object contract for 2 rockets, one very large and one super duper large, as well as a capsule (with price being no object) and a lander (also price being no object). It produces no in space infrastructure, or overlapping infrastructure for alternative users anywhere, from the vehicles its developing. Hell, some people are trying to sell it under the guise of a new space race, only with China.

  • Paul Vaccaro

    First of all in the U.S. patent office there are over 6,000 spin offs from NASA their own website has a section on this alone, second I spoke to Gunther Wendt at the dedication of the Apollo monument in Titusville , the point I was trying to make was something he had told me once, we created technology that didn’t exist, we created machines and tools that didn’t exist in all he told me they didn’t realize what they were doing, they were focused on beating the Russians they just didn’t realize the technology explosion they were creating it seemed to be an afterthought.
    As for Boeing they are proven as for building space hardware what I am looking for is can they build and run a space trensportation system let them get their feet wet one step at a time
    As for Constellation I see your point but as Mr. Armstrong pointed out in the last Senate hearing he is nearly 80 years old and no astronauts today have the skills for descent and ascent outside earth orbit thats why the moon seems to be a practical short term teaching ground.
    I agree the China thing is bogus, oh and thank you for not being like some here that think im not the sharpest knife in the drawer, i respect your views thank you for respecting mine.

  • Ferris Valyn

    As for Boeing they are proven as for building space hardware what I am looking for is can they build and run a space trensportation system let them get their feet wet one step at a time

    They have – its called Space Shuttle (and if we REALLY want to get into this, they’ve built Apollo, Gemini, and even Mercury). They built it (Ok, at the time it was Rockwell, but we all know its now owned by Boeing). And a partially owned subsidiary, USA, operates a space transportation system – also called the Space Shuttle. So, what more is there for them to do, before we attempt to put all those pieces together, with a service agreement using a fixed price development program, rather than a contracting agreement that is cost plus.

    As for Constellation I see your point but as Mr. Armstrong pointed out in the last Senate hearing he is nearly 80 years old and no astronauts today have the skills for descent and ascent outside earth orbit thats why the moon seems to be a practical short term teaching ground.

    I actually agree. I think there is a lot to be said for doing lunar exploration, with the caveat that we have to do it intelligently. But that brings us back to the issue of money – we don’t have enough to assume Constellation can deliver in the timeframe its suppose to. So, it turns out, that it’ll be another 20-40 years before we have someone actually relearning the operational skills needed for deep space ships. So, we need to figure out a way to do it, that doesn’t require a lot more money, and do so in a reasonable timeframe, because Constellation fails those tests.

    First of all in the U.S. patent office there are over 6,000 spin offs from NASA their own website has a section on this alone, second I spoke to Gunther Wendt at the dedication of the Apollo monument in Titusville , the point I was trying to make was something he had told me once, we created technology that didn’t exist, we created machines and tools that didn’t exist in all he told me they didn’t realize what they were doing, they were focused on beating the Russians they just didn’t realize the technology explosion they were creating it seemed to be an afterthought.

    What has been the specific value of that ROI? How much money have we gotten back? Because the ROI values I have seen are all over the place (and, frankly, the most conclusive studies on that tend to suggest its not as great as has been claimed).

    Further, Wendt’s comment points to a huge problem – that the spinoff defense is a very very weak defense for human spaceflight. Its wonderful that you get these things. But they are hard to measure, and frankly, impossible to predict. In otherwords, its like winning the lottery. Now, my father plays the lottery pretty regularly, but he isn’t planning on his retirement around that. And its a bad idea to build a defense for NASA around that. The reason we had money during Apollo was because we served a national need – kick Soviet @$$. The spinoff arguments don’t serve a national need.

    Finally, concerning respect

    Well to quote Reagan a bit Obamaspace will placed on the trasheap of history,

    when you start with comments like that, you’ll probably rub a few people the wrong way (and myself included)

  • Just HOW MANY freaking more decades do our astronauts have to keep running circles in Low Earth Orbit?!?! What are we really learning there, anyway? The ISS wouldn’t last three months, without near-constant re-supply missions. I suppose that that first manned jaunt to the asteroid will receive visits from the Russian Progress drones, every other month? Yeah, looks like Mr. Obama has resolved all the hidden logistics of crew provisions, when he commands NASA to do a manned NEO mission! I swear, if Congress doesn’t stop this Obama-space nuttyness, come 2030, humankind will STILL be stuck doing the LEO ferris wheel!!!!

  • Ferris Valyn

    Chris – were you and abreakingwind separated at birth?

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 9:06 pm No, ‘this’ from someone accepting the obvious, that space-related literature and various media has thrived due to an inherent interest in the public- that interest being supported by the profits said media have generated. But you go on and keep believing it doesn’t. ‘Denial’ is a river in Egypt as well.

  • DCSCA

    Major Tom wrote @ July 9th, 2010 at 4:47 pm <- The WH proposes; the Congress disposes. Get with the program, Tommyboy. You and Oler are in denial.

  • DCSCA

    @Bennett- As Cernan so rightly noted, these commercial space advocates don’t know what they don’t know yet. Ya gotta wish’em good luck and give’em high marks for advocacy but the very rationale behind a private enterprised space venture (to return a profit on a quarterly basis for investors) with a limited market is ultimately working against them at this point in history.

  • DCSCA

    Max Peck wrote @ July 10th, 2010 at 12:41 pm <- What's more noticable is Musk's personal life spewing out into the media. Investors clearly see he has a challenge managing his personal life so any deep-pocketed investors will note it. A session on Oprah's couch would be nice, too. A far cry from a confident Von Braun explaining his vision for space exploration with Walt Disney back in the day.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Paul Vaccaro wrote @ July 11th, 2010 at 2:47 am

    First of all in the U.S. patent office there are over 6,000 spin offs from NASA their own website has a section on this alone,..

    big deal.. none of them have paid back a fraction of the cost that it took to achieve them. In other words nothing from the hsf part of NASA has come anywhere near close to paying value for cost.

    The ARTCC system does every day. It cost “about” the shuttle budget to run…and without it America would be a different place. Stop the shuttle, grind it all into pieces and the economy nor our lifes nor our future (at this point) would change.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ July 11th, 2010 at 6:29 am

    ‘Denial’ is a river in Egypt as well….

    wow zounds yet another internet(s) catch phrase.

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    @RobertGOler- “NASA is one of the few, at l[e]ast in human spaceflight that has almost no return on investment.” See –>Paul Vaccaro wrote @ July 11th, 2010 at 2:47 am, for starts, then stop embarrassing yourself.

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 11th, 2010 at 7:32 am <- and in this case…. accurate.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ July 11th, 2010 at 7:39 am

    the only people who think those stats have any currency in this debate are people who think Trek is indicative of support for HSF.

    Those stats are the problem. They are so weak as to be nebulous and valueless. Without the ARTCC system the country changes overnight. HSF not so much.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Brian Paine

    Reality bites, and by now it should be biting you all quite equally regardless of your political affiliations. Obama space means a downgrading of US manned space flight, plain and simple.
    What (further) concerns me is the reported behaviour of Bolden. Has he really requested a seat on the last shuttle flight? If so his skin is thick enough to withstand re-entry all by itself.

  • Silence Dogood

    Sigh.

    Is anyone troubled by the fact that we will be taking money from the technology development program to keep these things afloat?

  • Dennis Berube

    All of you who complain about spending money on future shuttle flights and the Constellation program, well I ask you: Do you think it is better to spend NASAs money on paying other countries to get us into space? We should utilize our own money for our own space program, period. 335 mil. to Russian for taxi service is rediculous, especially when they are supposed to be our partners! Private industry has yet to prove itself, in any manner, with regards to placing people into space! It is along ways off! America needs a deep space manned spaceship like Orion. We must as a species keep progressing into deep space, if we are to survive. As to Aries X-1 flying, well the proto-type did and was very successful. It shows the system can indeed work. Now whether Aries will still be the vehicle that takes Orion to orbit, has not been addressed. I think it should be, as it will in the end be the cheaper and easier way to go. It is reusable, utilizes solid fuel, which means no expensive plumbing for liquid fuels, etc. etc… the list goes on. Lets hope Orion does get the go ahead in its full original configuration for deep space!!!

  • Git Lost

    It’s spelled ‘Ares’ you ignorant git.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Dennis – You’d do better to complain about that issue to Griffin. That was the plan under Constellation. As for private industry having to prove itself – again, please explain to me why Boeing, the company that built every US spacecraft going back to Mercury is incapable of build an Earth to LEO transport on a fixed price contract, or why they are incapable of operating it.

    As for Ares being cheaper – if it was cheaper to use solid fuel, explain why large diameter solids are not used as the first stage all over the industry. Because they are aren’t. Your etc doesn’t actually exist.

  • As for Constellation I see your point but as Mr. Armstrong pointed out in the last Senate hearing he is nearly 80 years old and no astronauts today have the skills for descent and ascent outside earth orbit thats why the moon seems to be a practical short term teaching ground.

    That was a problem in the 1960s. It is no longer. Assuming that astronauts really do this (it’s much more likely to be automated), we have much better simulators for it now than we did then.

    Now whether Aries will still be the vehicle that takes Orion to orbit, has not been addressed. I think it should be, as it will in the end be the cheaper and easier way to go. It is reusable, utilizes solid fuel, which means no expensive plumbing for liquid fuels, etc. etc… the list goes on.

    Every cost analysis done indicates that that’s nuts. Ares is the most expensive possible vehicle, in both development and operations, of everything looked at.

  • red

    Brian Paine: “Reality bites, and by now it should be biting you all quite equally regardless of your political affiliations. Obama space means a downgrading of US manned space flight, plain and simple.”

    Why are you calling the new plan “Obama space”? Is that an attempt to make the portion of the electorate that doesn’t like Obama dislike NASA’s current plans?

    How does the new NASA plan mean a downgrading of U.S. manned space flight?

    Are you comparing it to Constellation, which wouldn’t have the money to keep the Shuttle flying long enough to finish the ISS, wouldn’t use the ISS well, wouldn’t add to the ISS, would dunk the ISS in the ocean in 2015 (before which it would use the Russian Soyuz for crew transport), wouldn’t have the money for U.S. commercial crew, would have a limited U.S. commercial cargo because of limited development funds, short ISS, and lack of ISS use, would only be able to reach ISS with Ares I/Orion around 2019 after the ISS was gone, would only get the Ares V HLV around 2028, and might under amazingly unlikely political and budget circumstances be able to repeat Apollo by 2035.

    Are you comparing it to U.S. manned spaceflight in pre-VSE ISS build timeframe, when that was just about all U.S. manned spaceflight did?

    With the new NASA plan, U.S. manned spaceflight gets:

    – better funded U.S. commercial cargo
    – U.S. commercial cargo with at least one anchor destination (ISS) that will last
    – U.S. commercial cargo with at least one anchor destination (ISS) that will be well-used and expanded
    – U.S. commercial crew
    – Orion-derived crew return vehicle that will also be a technology base for beyond-LEO missions
    – a number of large robotic precursor missions to the Moon, asteroids, and Mars to do work specifically designed for U.S. manned spaceflight (e.g.: scout for resources, evaluate hazards, test technologies, etc)
    – a number of small “scout” HSF robotic precursor missions
    – various robotic HSF precursor instruments flown on science missions
    – data systems and other work in support of the robotic precursors
    – serious work on affordable heavy lift rockets for manned spaceflight starting right away instead of Constellation’s “way in the future”
    – major infrastructure modernization at KSC
    – an efficient solar electric power technology demonstration mission (possibly taking some instruments to Mars) that ma open the door to efficient cargo transport in space, and after more ambitious demos, crew transport
    – an inflatable habitat demonstration at the ISS that may open the door to more efficient space transport modules, surface habitats, and commercial space stations
    – a propellant depot technology demonstration that may open the door to technology that can dramatically increase our flexibility for space transportation architectures, and that may give a big boost to U.S. commercial space (depots and/or supplying depots)
    – an aerocapture technology demonstration (possibly at Mars, or back to the Earth)
    – a closed-loop life support technology demonstration to make manned spaceflight supply needs smaller
    – an autonomous rendezvous and docking technology demonstration that also gives us a vehicle that may act as a space tug
    – manned exploration technology development work on ISRU, more powerful electric propulsion, space fission, telerobotics, and autonomous precision landing
    – various future technology demonstration and development efforts that will be layed out in the future
    – various “human research” technology and research efforts
    – numerous general space technology projects that will in some cases benefit U.S. manned spaceflight (e.g.: use of commercial suborbital RLVs)

    Not only that, but what about those of us who are interested in robotic spaceflight (for commerce, exploration, science, intelligence, military use, etc), science, aeronautics, etc (whether or not we’re also interested in manned spaceflight)? NASA’s plans for those areas are improved, too (e.g.: the general space technology work I mentioned, more Earth observation and Aeronautics funding, synergy between robotic science and HSF in NASA’s new plan, etc.

  • Justin Kugler

    Dennis,
    With all due respect, the facts do not support your conclusions. NASA will be paying for Soyuz rides for access to Station regardless of which direction we take. As the schedule for Constellation continues to stretch, even with money freed up from Shuttle retirement, that is an absolute certainty with the status quo.

    Private industry has launched operational boosters, some of which deliver the military and intelligence community’s most expensive and sensitive satellites. Ares I-X was not an operational Ares I with a five-segment first stage, a functional liquid second stage, or active payload and did not even reach orbit. I wouldn’t even go as far as to call it a prototype. It was an expensive configuration demonstration.

    Additionally, the GAO expressly stated that NASA had not made the business case for proceeding with the implementation phase of Constellation and that cost issues and a “poorly phased funding plan” threatened NASA’s ability to meet its projected first crewed launch in 2015. The analysis in the Augustine Committee’s review suggests NASA will not be able to reach that milestone until 2017 and, even then, there will be no money for lunar systems until the next decade.

    Put things in perspective here. All of the money spent so far is just to get Orion to the Space Station and even that isn’t anywhere near ready. Lunar requirements have been deferred. You’re constructing a false dichotomy, sir.

  • Bob Mahoney

    I’m the last person who would try to defend HSF based solely on its tangible spin-offs into the economy, but the historical record is irrefutable (See Ceruzzi’s Beyond the Limits as but one reference) regarding how the decision to pursue onboard integrated circuits for the Apollo spacecraft contributed mightily to the jump-starting of the microelectronics industry.

    One can propose or theorize or speculate that the Minuteman missile program alone (or some other imagined but unspecified military application in parallel) ‘inevitably’ would have demanded the necessary volume of chip production that Apollo and Minuteman needed together which brought the industry from laboratory to large-scale assembly line.

    However, the fact—the undeniable fact—remains that Apollo filled a substantial portion of that role at a critical juncture in history and helped to usher in the modern world of microelectronics in which we blather about thusly.

    As for shuttle, advancing along the same technological arc toward Fail-Operational Fail-Operational Fail-Safe avionics, its development played a role in the development of fly-by-wire flight control systems. Feel free to speculate all you want about alternative or ‘inevitable’ pathways, but history is history and fictional alternative history is something else. The fact here also remains that fly-by-wire development has roots in shuttle avionics development.

    So let’s not deny that there are worthwhile spin-offs out there when the reality is otherwise. And they ain’t all in the avionics field, either.

  • Brian Paine

    RED…
    US commercial crew?
    NO SUCH SERVICE EXISTS.
    I see reality has not bitten hard enough.
    I am not a blind faith supporter of anything and not anti-Obama, but please DO NOT tell me that a policy that ignores the Moon as a manned flight destination on the basis of been there done that is science driven, in fact it is just crap.
    Fifty years of effort and just look at where US manned space flight is at…buying seats off the Russians! This is not just bad political management, it is appauling political management, and Bolden is trying to sell it.
    NASA and the people deserve better.

  • DO NOT tell me that a policy that ignores the Moon as a manned flight destination on the basis of been there done that is science driven, in fact it is just crap.

    Why would anyone tell you that? What does science have to do with the discussion? Human spaceflight has never been about science, and it’s a dangerous game to imagine that it is.

    Fifty years of effort and just look at where US manned space flight is at…buying seats off the Russians! This is not just bad political management, it is appauling political management, and Bolden is trying to sell it.

    Why are you blaming it on Bolden? It was the Bush policy that made us dependent on the Russians. The new policy will end that dependence a lot faster (and for far less money) than Constellation would have.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Bob – I don’t claim there weren’t any worthwhile spin-offs. The larger question that has to be legitmately asked is
    for the amount of money invested in HSF, did we get a decent ROI? There is evidence that this valuatiton is significantly overblown – http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/jp_950525.htm

  • Doug Lassiter

    “However, the fact—the undeniable fact—remains that Apollo filled a substantial portion of that role at a critical juncture in history and helped to usher in the modern world of microelectronics in which we blather about thusly.”

    Speaking of blathering thusly, I won’t try to deny the fact that Apollo helped contribute, but I will deny the idea that the HUGE investment in Apollo was needed to contribute in this way. This is one of those old “Tang” spinoff arguments. Did the development of Tang require human space flight? Was our present world of microelectronics dependent on Apollo? Absolutely no way.

    This goes along with the “inspiration” argument about human space flight. Yep, human space flight seems to inspire kids, but there are many things that do, and few are of the magnitude of investment of human space flight.

    This isn’t about whether something contributed to something, but about the value of doing so.

    “So let’s not deny that there are worthwhile spin-offs out there when the reality is otherwise. And they ain’t all in the avionics field, either.”

    Worthwhile, as in dollars spent to achieve something that could have been achieved at far lower cost in other ways? That’s not how I define “worthwhile”. Spinoffs are a cheap argument for human space flight. It would seem to be a kind of apology from someone who can’t think of a better argument.

  • common sense

    @ Rand Simberg wrote @ July 11th, 2010 at 11:53 am
    “As for Constellation I see your point but as Mr. Armstrong pointed out in the last Senate hearing he is nearly 80 years old and no astronauts today have the skills for descent and ascent outside earth orbit thats why the moon seems to be a practical short term teaching ground.

    That was a problem in the 1960s. It is no longer. Assuming that astronauts really do this (it’s much more likely to be automated), we have much better simulators for it now than we did then.”

    Early designs for Orion did not even have a stick of any kind… Who in heck can fly a vehicle hurtling down the atmosphere at near “Mach 36″ so to speak? Apollo XIII? Very very lucky. No disrespect meant to the crew of course. Very very talented crew. And very very lucky.

  • common sense

    @ Doug Lassiter wrote @ July 11th, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    “Spinoffs are a cheap argument for human space flight. It would seem to be a kind of apology from someone who can’t think of a better argument.”

    They are the same old tired arguments that are usually sold to the public. Unfortunately the public today is much more aware of what the ROI is. So this line of argument is going down the drain with the national security argument along with the we-do-it-because-it’s-hard argument. No one gives a hoot. Is it that difficult to understand?

  • Brian Paine

    Human space flight has never been about science?
    That is absurd.
    Regardless of which administration is more to blame the end result is a mess that deserves a real solution NOT driven by political clap trap.
    Regarding Bolden…he is proceeding without consideration of “due process of government” and that is a political act that deserves condemnation…Where is the new politic?

  • Human space flight has never been about science?

    Never.

    That is absurd.

    It is reality. What major scientific breakthroughs have resulted from human spaceflight? How many Nobel prizes have been awarded based on results from human spaceflight?

    Human spaceflight is about national prestige and jobs. It has little or nothing to do with science. If you try to justify it on the basis of science, people will look at its budget, then look at the National Science Foundation’s, and move it from one to the other, because it’s clearly a much better value.

  • US commercial crew?
    NO SUCH SERVICE EXISTS.

    Neither does Ares or Orion. But commercial crew will exist much sooner, and for much less money, than them.

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 11th, 2010 at 7:47 am <- denial, denial, denial. There's a demonstrated market for it for over a century– a profitable one, too. A profitability advocate of commercial space should keep in mind. But you go on and keep believing there isn't.

  • DCSCA

    @Oler “As I told you…when this is over I will be more correct and you will be “more wrong”. I know its annoying” <- LOL Clearly it is… to you.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ July 11th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
    “Human space flight has never been about science?” “Never.” <- Inaccurate.

    For starters: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/science.html

  • David C

    Ferris Valyn
    Bean counters will always find a way to shape their figures to match what they want us to think; the fact remains, that without the electronic advances of the 60’s whether civilian or military driven, we would not have the sophisticated electronic society we have today; the Genome Project, Industrial Robotics and countless other advances that depended on the electronics in Super Computers, would not be available to me and this coming generation; I WOULD NOT BE ALIVE TODAY, except that someone researched non-invasive heart surgery using that same electronics driven machinery that allowed the doctor to insert several tools and a laser camera up into my heart;
    Those are the HARD COLD FACTS; no amount of asinine arguing over dollar ROI, from you, Mc IDiot the Blowheart or Oler can change that; So you can stuff your studies and IMO up where the light don’t shine; that’s all there worth;

  • The amount of dollars spent on human spaceflight going to “science” remains trivial, despite NASA fact sheets. The vast amount of expenditures have nothing to do with it. Where are the cited research papers? Where are the Nobels?

  • the fact remains, that without the electronic advances of the 60′s whether civilian or military driven, we would not have the sophisticated electronic society we have today

    No one denies that. The issue was whether Apollo was necessary to get them. The answer is no.

  • Rand, as Jeff Greason said, “You get science from people being in space. It’s a myth that you don’t. [..] But that’s not the reason you do it. That’s just a benefit you get.”

    http://quantumg.blogspot.com/2010/07/jeff-greason-answers-why-humans-in.html

  • Oh, I agree that you occasionally get science from sending people to space. You occasionally get science when you have people do almost anything, anywhere. But it’s not the reason. If it were, it wouldn’t get anywhere near the funding it does.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ July 11th, 2010 at 7:57 pm <- Inaccurate.

    The Apollo J missions (15, 16 and 17) began to emphasize science a part of their mission objectives. These J-type missions can be distinguished from previous G and H-series missions by extended hardware capability, larger scientific payload capacity and by the use of the battery powered Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV). In this writer's hand is a Volume, 31, Part 2, 'The Skylab Results' published in 1974 by the AAS, chock full of papers on the research science conducted in the Apollo Applications Program– (FYI, human spaceflight." There's plenty of other research papers as well. Example – "Mission science requirements J-1 type mission, Apollo 15, Author: R.R. Baldwin, 10/30/70; Subject: HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING; PILOT PERFORMANCE; STRESS (PHYSIOLOGY); AGRICULTURE; AIRCRAFT PILOTS STRESS (PSYCHOLOGY)- source, NASA. You can do your own research on Nobel's.

  • reader

    Echoes of Space Access BBS

  • Bob Mahoney

    An entirely new theory (now the preferred one by most lunar scientists) to explain the formation of the Earth-Moon system wasn’t a major scientific breakthrough? My, aren’t your standards high.

    As for the suggestion that Apollo “wasn’t necessary” for the breakthrough in microelectronics is what is beside MY point. One can always make up alternate histories if one wants to; actual history reflects the genuine contribution made.

    As I said at the top of my posting, I agree that spin-offs should never be a solitary justification for HSF, but pretending HSF’s role in producing them doesn’t count by suggesting the fanciful notion that a different history would have made them take place anyway is meaningless fantasy that contributes little to the discussion. It reminds me, I’m sorry to say, of something Griffin said when defending something I never particularly liked: “Your paper rocket will always be better than my real one.”

    Feel free to argue ROI numbers, but at least base them on reality, not on completely baseless suppositions of alternate history scenarios.

  • Bob, the point isn’t about whether or not you get science or spinoffs. Those are great benefits, but are they *goals*? If so, the argument can always be made that they can be achieved cheaper by using robotic systems. Many of us say that people who make these kinds of arguments are missing the point because the science and the spinoffs (and inspiring the kids) are *not the goal*, they’re just nice benefits. The goal of human spaceflight is to find, explore and prepare for the future homes of humanity in space.

  • vulture4

    >Griffin said when defending something I never particularly liked: “Your paper rocket will always be better than my real one.”

    Let me guess, Griffin was claiming Elon Musk’s “paper” Falcon 9 was better than Griffin’s “real” Ares/Orion. Did Griffin ever even have a real rocket?

    >>the science and the spinoffs (and inspiring the kids) are *not the goal*, they’re just nice benefits.

    Spinoff is a myth. NASA didn’t invent integrated circuits, cell phones, GPS, pacemakers, velcro, or even Tang. The few NASA technological developments that really were successfully commercialized were funded independently of human spaceflight. I work on a project that could save thousands of lives every year right here on earth. We lost our funding because we were not vital to putting a few people on the moon.

    Inspiring kids? The money would be better spent on reducing tuition and improving schools. Anybody who thinks it’s exciting to see people on the moon doesn’t remember Apollo 12. A common comment from people on the street was “You mean we’re going back? But we’ve already been there!” The same thing would happen on Mars. The goal of Shuttle was NOT to make spaceflight exciting. The goal was to make spaceflight routine.

    >The goal of human spaceflight is to find, explore and prepare for the future homes of humanity in space.

    If you’re paying for it, have at it. But not with tax dollars. The American taxpayer won’t pay unless there is a good reason, and for human flight even to LEO the price must come down by a factor of ten before there will be any return. The first step in settling space isn’t going farther, it’s going routinely and cheaply.

  • DCSCA

    @Trent…” the point isn’t about whether or not you get science or spinoffs. Those are great benefits, but are they *goals*?” No, of course not. The general goal is to expand the human experience out into space. THe motivations fueling that expansion vary. The methodology; the sciences products, goods and services necessary to make that expansion a reality are a byproduct.

  • DCSCA

    Anybody who thinks it’s exciting to see people on the moon doesn’t remember Apollo 12. A common comment from people on the street was “You mean we’re going back? But we’ve already been there already…” Perhaps on your street in America; not so much in streets of foreign capitals, where a ‘common comment’ heard by this writer was: “Only Americans could be smart enough to walk on the moon and dumb enough to walk away from it.”

  • Ferris Valyn

    David – you can complain about “Bean Counters” all you want, but at the end of the day, you actually have to have some mechanism for measuring costs and results. If you’ve figured out how to get infinate money, please let the rest of the world know.

    The other point is you just lump all this stuff together, without doing proper due diligance. And if you don’t do that, you end up with messes, like we have throughout history.

    BTW, the insulting – doesn’t really demonstrate you are interested in discussion.

  • DCSCA, there’s nothing “of course” about it. People really do think the US space program is about science, spinoffs and inspiration.

  • Brian Paine

    To DCSCA and Trent Waddington…
    Thank you for continuing to introduce sane argument! There is far to much of the contrary in this world. Meanwhile I repeat an old comment:

    “Flight to Houston, we have a problem…”
    The number you are calling has been dissconnected…

  • Doug Lassiter

    With regard to science and human space flight, it’s easy to point to some research that comes out of SOMD. No one is saying there isn’t any science that comes out of human space flight. But on a science/dollar scale, the results are miniscule. That’s not a criticism of SOMD. Science isn’t what that directorate is about.

    The fact of the matter is, if you poll the science community, across all branches of science that require work in space, very few will say that human space flight contributes strongly to their discipline, and actually rather few would say that the future of human space flight even offers a lot of potential to science. Sure, it’s nice to have a pair of eyes on Mars with hands picking up rocks, but that a small small piece of what space science is about.

    “An entirely new theory (now the preferred one by most lunar scientists) to explain the formation of the Earth-Moon system wasn’t a major scientific breakthrough? My, aren’t your standards high. ”

    My standards are higher than yours. Because this work could have been accomplished at vastly lower cost by robotic sample return, even then. Certainly now. The strawman that people set up is that science is good, and human space flight can achieve some science. Therefore human spaceflight is needed to do science. This is spectacularly illogical.

    “As for the suggestion that Apollo “wasn’t necessary” for the breakthrough in microelectronics is what is beside MY point. One can always make up alternate histories if one wants to; actual history reflects the genuine contribution made.”

    No alternative histories being made here. It’s more than about “the genuine contribution”. My point about history is that if a major accomplishment of Apollo was a breakthrough in microelectronics, it did that in a way that was awesomely expensive and, in that sense, provides few lessons for future planning. No fanciful notion there. The actual history that this is teaching us is that we accomplished something in an enormously inefficient way. You’re proud of that? You want to “inspire” kids to do stuff that way?

    Hey, let’s look at BP, who in recent weeks have made a lot of technical progress in oil spill engineering. Gosh, if it weren’t for the huge spill, we might never have been able to achieve that progress. Those Louisiana marshes weren’t sacrificed in vain, I guess. Ah, spinoffs.

    That the American public is motivated by spinoffs of human space flight is traceable back to the way they are “inspired”, rather than educated.

  • MrEarl

    Getting back to the original subject……….
    Keith Cowing at NASAWatch has more details on the proposed Senate bill.

    http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/07/senate-rejects.html

  • richardb

    Congress is doing pretty much what I said it would do back in Feb when Obama presented his plan to gut HSF. They are rejecting it in a bipartisan fashion and insisting on the POR in some form.

    Of course the on going bureaucratic wars between Congress, Nasa and the Administration might have created enough facts on the ground to kill the POR in any form by 2011, maybe this was Obama’s intent all along. I never could understand how anyone could conceive of Congress funding some 13 billion dollars for technology R&D over 5 years without a mission, essentially R&D to nowhere. Nor could I conceive of 6 billion for the privates at the expense of substantial district job losses. What Congress would ever go for that? The answer we now see is not the 2010 Congress controlled by Obama and the Democrats. Amazing isn’t it?

    On a related issue, who wants to be a southern Democrat up for re-election in 2010? With Obama shutting down much of the deep sea drilling jobs in the gulf? With Obama shutting down Constellation, Shuttle and the thousands of jobs in the south? With Obama’s careless and incompetent handling of the oil spill cleanup and restoration? A southern voter might get the idea that Obama doesn’t like the south. 2011 could see a solidly southern Congressional GOP itching to redress those cuts to their region.

  • They are rejecting it in a bipartisan fashion and insisting on the POR in some form.

    There is little resemblance between this bill and the POR. Constellation is dead.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Rand Simberg wrote @ July 12th, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    > There is little resemblance between this bill and the POR.
    > Constellation is dead.

    They are keeping Orion and a exceleraetd Ares-V (though likely not the name), thats pretty close to the POR.

  • exceleraetd Ares-V (though likely not the name), thats pretty close to the POR.

    It’s not just “not the name.” There is zero resemblance between whatever SDLV they have in mind and Ares V, other than that it’s a big rocket. Without Ares I there is no Ares V (which was the main reason NASA was wasting money developing it). There is nothing left of Constellation except Orion.

    And why can’t you use a browser with a spell checker (you need one with a fact checker too, but that’s beyond the current SOA)? Don’t you want your comments to be taken seriously? Or do you just like to type?

  • Kelly Starks

    The HLV is to use shutle derived parts, should use SRBs. etc

    >== Without Ares I there is no Ares V (which was the main reason
    > NASA was wasting money developing it). ==

    Oh please! get serious.

    >== And why can’t you use a browser with a spell checker ==

    not my browser, not my call.

  • Oh please! get serious.

    Physician, heal thyself.

  • Bob Mahoney

    Doug et al.,

    I tire quickly when posters reply in ways that indicate they don’t read the entirety of my posts. How many times do I need to state that one can’t defend HSF solely with spin-offs or even scientific knowledge gained?

    However, when you state that the discoveries garnered from the Apollo program (including the new ‘impact’ theory of formation) could have been then or even now obtained through another less-expensive route (robotic sample return missions), you are most definitely making up an alternate history. That didn’t happen; Apollo did. THAT is the reality. One might as well speculate on how much easier WWII would have gone if Operation Valkyrie had succeeded. Great barstool reflection, but hardly much of a contribution to a meaningful discussion.

    One could argue just as easily, with more substantial backing evidence, that

    a) the necessary discoveries that contributed to our new understanding of the Moon/Earth system very likely would not have happened without the specific system of back-room science created for the J missions, the science-driven mission designs, the crew geology training, and the real-time assessments made on-site resulting therefrom.

    b) without the primary purpose of planting flags and footprints, NO such lunar science would have ever taken place, certainly not to the degree that it did nor at the rate that it did. To support the choice of optimum landing sites, to maximize the efficiency of the crew’s time on the Moon, etc, etc., drove—in fact, enabled—the science toward making those discoveries. Without the need to get people there in the first place for the sake of geopolitical posturing, the science may not have happened at all.

    Repeat, I’m not trying to defend HSF based solely on the spin-offs and the science. But to trivialize these benefits by making up alternate possible histories that would have achieved them anyway is to deny reality. The spin-offs and science (What exactly is the value of the lives saved or improved via HSF-associated medical advances?) were genuine gravy that came along with (and because of) a ride that achieved much greater things.

    Can you really assign a monetary value to the Earthrise photo that Bill Anders took from lunar orbit? How many folks did that image touch, then and since then? Yet another ‘spin-off’, whose ‘hard reality’ (the image itself) obviously might have been achieved (in fact, it had been achieved) by an unmanned probe. But would it have had the same impact, in so many ways, if a human hadn’t snapped the picture? If it hadn’t been accompanied by the Apollo 8 crew’s reading from Genesis on the Christmas Eve of such an otherwise dark year?

    Of course we need to defend HSF on other grounds, and HSF isn’t always the optimum technical avenue for achieving specific goals. But don’t try to brush off the many cumulative side benefits that actually accrued from pursuing HSF by trivializing them or by suggesting alternate pathways that may or may not have achieved these substantial benefits otherwise. Doing so misrepresents reality and inserts in its place empty speculation of little value.

  • eh

    It’s not the POR. Nobody is talking moon, nobody is talking lander, nobody is talking Ares I or even V. This will be a less capable HLV.

    It looks like they are taking the WH version of Augustine’s 5b and changing it to front-load the HLV. BEO will still have to wait until the mid to late 2020s but it doesnt appear to contradict the new asteroid path.

    Technology development and robotic missions are getting kicked in the groin again. But that’s normal for NASA. Let’s see how that pays off.

  • Ferris Valyn

    It looks like they are taking the WH version of Augustine’s 5b and changing it to front-load the HLV. BEO will still have to wait until the mid to late 2020s but it doesnt appear to contradict the new asteroid path.

    Technology development and robotic missions are getting kicked in the groin again. But that’s normal for NASA. Let’s see how that pays off.

    Lets really not – we’ve seen how well that turns out

  • Kelly Starks

    > eh wrote @ July 13th, 2010 at 6:41 pm

    > It’s not the POR. Nobody is talking moon, nobody is talking lander,
    > nobody is talking Ares I or even V. This will be a less capable HLV.==

    They are keeping the full up lunar capable Orion, adn Nelsen HLV would be better suited to lunar missions then Griffens Ares-I & V, and unnessisary just for LEO. So I think your getting more then you think.

  • Francis Louis Charbonneau Jr

    To Bob Mahoney, I compliment and laud your carefully written discussion. I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions that you have so eloquently written.

    At least there is a level of sanity in the Congress and cooler heads are going to prevail and there is also a level of hope. I am heartened that the Constellation can and shall be saved.

    Those who are supportive of Constellation and the benefits that we all reap daily from the 50 years of our space program should and ought to thank Hon. Maj. Gen. Charles Bolden for his invigorating speech to bolster the self-esteem of Muslims for their contributions to science and technology. I must say that his trip to be on Al Jezzera TV galvanized the issue of NASA in front of Congress. Bravo! Well Done! It was as though the supporters of NASA scored a safety and drove the Obama Space Program toadies into the end zone for a 2 point safety and now have the ball with excellent field position after the free kick!

    Charles Krauthammer’s reaction was equally refreshing. But, Charles Bolden and Obama have done much to help the Republicans regain the White House in 2012 and save the space program. We supporters need to keep scoring safeties with our defense and touchdowns with the offense.

  • silence dogood

    Again, is anyone troubled by the fact that we just built an office for chief technologist and that budget is under threat?

Leave a Reply to Major Tom 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>