At 10 am this morning the Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled to take up its version of NASA authorization legislation, one of four bills that will be marked up during the meeting. “We expect to be able to pass the NASA bill tomorrow,” Sen. Bill Nelson, chairman of the committee’s space subcommittee and a primary author of the legislation, said in a brief podcast Wednesday. “The White House will announce their support for our bill tomorrow, and that is extremely important to us, because that’s going to enable us to keep moving the ball forward and being able to have NASA continue a vigorous path of human exploration of the cosmos.”
In fact, the White House is already hinting that it would support at least the general outlines of the Senate authorization bill. The Orlando Sentinel and Houston Chronicle quote an unnamed administration official who favors the legislation. “While we are still in the process of reviewing the details of the draft, the bill appears to contain the critical elements necessary for achieving the President’s vision for NASA and represents an important first step towards helping us achieve the key goals the President has laid out,” the official tells the Chronicle (with an identical quote in the Sentinel).
In Florida, though, the reaction is less positive. In a letter to Sen. Nelson, the leaders of the Space Coast’s Economic Development Commission (EDC) complained that the bill appeared to favor other states over Florida by trimming funds for KSC spaceport development and commercial crew transportation. “The risk that this future may be bargained away for one more attuned to the needs of Alabama, Texas and Utah, in the name of political expediency, demands a response,” they wrote, Florida Today reports. However, in an editorial, the Sentinel endorses the bill as a reasonable compromise. The concerns identified by the EDC are real, they admit, but “compare these shortcomings with the status quo – which includes no money for upgrading the space center and no increase in commercial launch funding – and Mr. Nelson’s plan is clearly preferable.”
Not a surprise. This administration has already played its space hand and moved on. When it comes to the space program, how the cards get shuffled by Congress is far down their list of priorities. This president likes meeting in the middle. For this election cycle, they’ll crow over the art of the compromise, the jobs saved/created and press on to the more immediate problems. They’re not going to waste time dickering over how to deal with crab grass in the front yard when the house is on fire.
“While we are still in the process of reviewing the details of the draft, the bill appears to contain the critical elements necessary for achieving the President’s vision for NASA and represents an important first step towards helping us achieve the key goals the President has laid out”
They must be looking at a different version of the draft than the one I see from July 13. I hope so. The one that’s been released essentially wipes out the vast majority of the space technology, robotic precursor, exploration technology, and commercial crew funding.
What we’re left with is something not too far from the Griffin era. Yes, there are a few dollars for robotic precursors, but even Griffin managed to keep funding precursors long enough to launch LRO/LCROSS. Yes, there’s some space technology money, but even under Griffin there were scattered remains of space technology funding after he wiped out areas like New Millenium and NIAC.
How much of these little areas will remain after the HLV and spacecraft start their budget overruns and funding raids?
Basically the draft bill that’s been release spends far too much, and far more than is needed, on the HLV and Orion-derived spacecraft. There are heavy lift and spacecraft options that are far less expensive to develop and operate, and far less subject to devestating budget overruns.
> They must be looking at a different version of the draft than the one I see from July 13…
Or they have a very low standard for “critical elements”.
Expect the Ares I/Orion and Ares V to be fully funded. Having frittered away his political capital, and being battered by a weak economy of his own construction, Obama is teetering on the brink. He cannot afford to foist any more ‘hope and change’ on battleground states like Florida and Ohio, and so he will not.
Expect the Ares I/Orion and Ares V to be fully funded.
Nope.
I predict a DIRECT-like launcher for BEO with robust funding for commercial for ISS. Not as robust as FY2011 but robust nonetheless.
And fuel depots on the critical path for BEO.
Of interest is Alan Boyle’s selection of DIRECT artwork to lead off his most recent MSNBC post.
I wouldn’t read too much about the DIRECT picture … I just thought it was a great rendering of a concept for a heavy-lifter that wasn’t the Ares 5. Although there’s no need for photo-Kremlinology over this, I’m honored that Bill is keeping track of my little snippets and am looking forward to getting some sort of resolution on NASA’s future course. If for no other reason than that NASA can start churning out fresh artist’s conceptions.
Authorization bill passed committee by unanimous voice vote. Everyone is saying how happy they are, including Vitter and Shelby.
Amightywind, NASA has moved on from the 1.5 approach;
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/07/lunarbeo-sd-hlv-commercial-international-architecture/
So should you. The engineering and cost nightmare that is the Ares-1 is now fortunately in the dust bin of history at this point. You might notice just how closely all this resembles my presentation before the Commission a little over a year ago (SDHLV, Orion, 2 launch, Flexible path, Propellant depots, etc.) Significantly more detail was provided to the Aerospace Corp a month later.
Speaking of Augustine, the compromise bill is very close to option 5C while still wisely preserving the option to go to 4B should the pending ISS support studies in combination with ‘demonstrated’ COTS progress require it a year from now. Very clear headed thinking IMHO.
What’s ironic is if the President/Advisors hadn’t upset the apple cart we would still be on dead end path that was the Ares-1 specifically and the PoR in general. In the end two very powerful forces (Steroid NASA vs Gut NASA) destroyed each other leaving the field to the renegade Engineers. It makes one believe in divine providence at times given the long odds we knew confronted us back in spring of 2005 under Griffin’s my way or the highway plan. Some of us chose the highway and its been a very long road to this day.
This new plan repurposes what works (hardware + industrial base + workforce) while still providing enough funding to explore new technologies and business models focused on lowering the cost as we move forward.
Bear in mind that this is just a three year bill. Once we are on the other side of the development cost for Orion/Jupiter(SLS) resources will naturally free up to allow for an efficient s-curve expansion of the President’s research/development plan. This wise initiative in the President’s plan is absolutely critical for spinning out some truly breakthrough and more affordable manned and unmanned missions. Missions (Manned/Unmanned, Civilian, Military, Commercial) impossible today if constrained to existing approaches and launch systems.
After all a space program that intends to spend more than all other nations combined should have second to none capabilities in lift, volume and space access. Seems like a good match to me.
It’s not over yet but what looked to be like the beginning of the end is starting to look more like the end of the beginning. Only time will tell.
Even if we are successful this is just the first step among many that must occur successfully as well. Its still possible for the NASA culture to drive us off the rails once again by turning a simple direct SDHLV based on existing systems (via one got to have performance enhancement right now after the other) into a break the bank non-SDHLV that was the Ares-V. They did it once they can do it again.
As I said before the Commission, the original ESAS Ares-V was a lot closer to our proposal than the PoR Ares-V was at that time. The other key difference that Commission unfortunately glossed over (boarding on ignoring) is that our SDHLV development plan was ‘specifically’ a phased plan. Phase 1 was the development of basic SDHLV Core (75mT and upto 12m). This system could in fact be all we need for decades to come. We only added enhancements to this basic system ‘if’ the level of technology advancement progress, budget and mission needs dictated it. The HLV performance (lift ‘and’ volume) in the end is tool to achieve other objectives not an objective in and of itself.
Instead the Commission just took the PoR requirements without question, requirements not required by policy, and then proceeded to force all alternate approaches to this requirement thereby requiring the $3 Billion plus up. Completely backwards.
By definition the plan/mission scope that meets the policy requirements (and yes this is product of politics what part of government funding don’t you understand) while staying within the budget is the best plan by definition. If you don’t like the political strings that are naturally attached to the publics money than go talk to venture capitalist. The have strings attached to their money as well, they are just different strings with very high rates of return.
Bill White wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Bill, were the amendments passed as well?
The Boxer amendment was passed, the Udall amendment was passed (with modification). The Warner amendment was withdrawn (although there were some changes to the bill related to Commercial Crew)
It appears Boxer and Warner were content to let the bill leave committee and it appears Hutchison began the meeting by offering a comprehensive amendment that could very include the Boxer and Warner language, perhaps in modified form.
Boxer apparently voted “yes” and Warner arrived late but ti appears his amendments (in some form) were included.
Until the precise text is officially released into the Congressional record we might not have access to all of the details.
Clark Lindsey is posting links on this topic.
I defer to Ferris Valyn on these points.
As I understand the numbers,
Commercial goes from $1.2 billion/year to $1.2 billion over 3 years.
The “game changing” technology development gets cut substantially as well but I haven’t found the numbers yet.
These two are the bill payers for son of POR which under the new directive uses all the POR shuttle derived parts, suppliers, etc for the new launcher.
No surprise at all here. There was no chance commercial would ever see $6 billion over 5 years nor R&D getting some $13 billion over 5 years. No chance. If Nasa didn’t get that money, some other government agency was going to take it.
Looks like Shuttle is a big winner here too. According to AWST, language is there to support Shuttle beyond next years flight.
Something tells me the Administrations instructions to Nasa to withhold money from contractors to cover termination fees will be lifted shortly.
These two are the bill payers for son of POR which under the new directive uses all the POR shuttle derived parts, suppliers, etc for the new launcher.
Or rather “Son of DIRECT.”
Well, if the House bill is even close to this, reconciliation will be quick and full votes could happen by the end of the year.
I almost said “fiscal year”, but that’s asking too much.
What an exciting day!
Everyone who fought to preserve our nation’s independent means to LEO and BEO deserves a big congratulations. The debate that ensued knocked-down the oft commented notion that support for human space exploration was a mile wide but an inch deep. The victory by Nelson and Hutchison re-affirms the importance of space in Congress and shows that leaders in that body with divergent views can come together, make the necessary compromises, and in the end produce good legislation that keeps this nation number one in space.
Now that this fight is essentially over, I hope the space advocacy community can come together, just as members of Congress were able to do, in support of the new policy of human space flight for NASA.
richardb wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Commercial goes from $1.2 billion/year to $1.2 billion over 3 years
neilh has commented elsewhere that this number might now be $1.6 billion over 3 years (after last second negotiations) however as far as I can tell the official numbers are not out yet.
As for R&D, yes, I believe we should robustly fund fuel depots, lunar ISRU & robotic precursors,
however,
Neither VASIMR nor that proposed new domestic HLV kero-lox engine deserve the priority they were given in FY2011. Little is lost by scaling back those projects, at least IMHO.
Bill – except, what is funding fuel depots, ISRU, and robotic precursors all got killed.
Jim – they’ve screwed space, for a good 10 years. And I thank each and every “space advocate” like you, for so ****ing over us. But this isn’t done.
The fight to keep NASA’s HFS capability has been won. But NASA should NOT take this as cart-blanch to continue in the manner they always have.
HSF capabilities have been better balanced between the commercial and public sectors in this legislation. The bill still states the this new crew vehicle shall be ALTERNATIVE transportation to the ISS which tells me the commercial HSF is the preferred option here. NASA need to keep it’s priorities on BEO.
Management of this new Space Launch System needs to be completely different than projects in the past. There should be no excuses for it not to be on-time and on-budget. Partnering with a commercial firm like Boeing could go a long way twords making that happen.
The next major hurtle is to re-discover the Vision for Space Exploration of 2004, before it was taken over by Griffin and Co.. The VSE is a step by step approach to extend our presence into the solar system. Each mission, each capability, builds on the one before. By doing this we learn what it takes to become a space faring people or whether we can even become a space faring people. It’s not as sexy as a trip to spin around an asteroid or Phobos but it’s the only sure way to create an infrastructure in space that can benefit humanity.
And lets be honest – most of the people who want this son of Constellation – they aren’t interested in good space policy – they just wanna embarrass Obama because they can’t get over the fact that the US elected a good president.
Ferris- for what it’s worth, Sen. Boxer has hinted she may force the bill to the Senate floor during the actual full Senate vote (whenever it gets there), in order to allow the addition of amendments restoring some of the Flagship mission funding. Don’t know if it’ll end up happening or not, but it’s certainly a possibility.
This is the Iraq War all over again.
Just wanted to get that in before Oler did…
Drop your partisan mindset Ferris. The rest of us want to move forward.
We’ve spent a year debating this and it’s the state of limbo that has hurt worse than anything else.
spacermase – yea, I heard that about Boxer. And Warner also made comments about advanceing CC. Warner and Boxer are the real heros in this.
My partisan mndset? Really? I am sorry, but that is utter crap. Particularly when we frequently are getting crazy claims, like Obama didn’t consult anyone.
What has hurt this thing is partisanism for partisan sake. Those who are real space supporters and activists could see that this was a very good proposal.
Keep telling yourself that Ferris. Most supporters of space exploration could see that this was an attempt to abandon any space exploration beyond Earth orbit.
MrEarl – you wanna claim Sally Ride isn’t a supporter of Space Exploration? You wanna claim that Jeff Greason isn’t a supporter of Space Exploration?
You wanna claim Rick Tumlinson isn’t a supporter of Space Exploration?
You wanna claim Lori Garver (former head of the NSS) isn’t a supporter of Space Exploration?
I can go down the list. Thats absolute crap.
Ferris is taking constructive criticism of Obama’s plan as partisan arguments against Obama. In my case that is a distortion.
I’ll start from the premise I didn’t vote for Obama but was thinking about it until the Rev Wright affair. That was a bridge too far for me.
So with that background here are my principal objections to OSpace.
It was using billions of government money to fund contractors which it then called commercial space. Then it claimed this was superior to the bad old model of the past. In fact it’s the same, just favoring other special interests over the old crowd of Boeing, LMT, ATK.
The next objection is that it eliminated BEO once and for. When the plan was first rolled out, Bolden claimed he’d like to have HLV by the 2020’s. That is no committment at all. Then when the blow back got to strong, Obama said he’s agree to decide on a HLV by 2015, just one year before his possible replacement. That was equally noncommittal.
Another objection is the inability of Bolden or Obama to keep their stories straight. Orion was killed then revived. HLV was maybe the 2020’s then maybe not. These aren’t trival projects, yet neither could actually say what was on their minds.
Finally he allocated almost $13 billion for “game changing” technology without any coherent argument for what good it would do. Obama is way to smart to think that money would be used that way. He had to know that money would be stripped off by Congress for other projects such as filling pot holes in Wyoming or the Nancy Pelosi community center in Pacific Heights, San Francisco.
As to the future, I am extremely pessimistic about America’s future in space. Our banking system is broken. Rapidly growing USG debt is destroying the nation from within, Erskine Bowles, Clinton’s old chief of staff’s words, not mine. Obama seems absolutely clueless on the damage he’s done or on the corrections needed. The spending cuts for the USG will be dramatic starting as soon as 2013 and Nasa is likely to suffer fairly badly. Chances of HLV actually flying is low and the chances of an American LEO launcher and capsule are almost as low.
Ferris:
You got your list of “supporters” and I have mine.
As for Garver, No…she is NOT a space supporter, she is a political operative just like you.
Ferris,
Your out to lunch.
This was never about Obama.
This was about peoples deep passion for NASA HSF.
ObamaSpace was too radical and nebulous a departure from what was needed.
And obviously not workable through congress, that is undeniable now.
The sign of a good president is building consensus with their policys so they have a good chance of lasting the test of time, he should have thought it out better.
MrEarl – if she wasn’t a space supporter, then why was she the head of NSS?
I am sorry, something there doesn’t make sense.
CessnaDriver – its always been about Obama, certainly for you. Thats been clear form day 1
MrEarl wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Without CLLSS, radiation mitigation studies, advanced drives, and the other technologies you won’t be going far…
Your Congress have put you on the path to requiring 12 International space stations in LEO for one Mars Mission! Page 4 refers:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/457884main_OCT_town_hall_rev4.pdf
How many NHLV (Nelson Heavy Lift Vehicles) will you have to launch? And at what cost? And for how long?
I fear a Shuttle redux.
Ferris, none of the people you name are members of Congress.
Even Senator Brownback declined to vote against the Authorization Bill this morning. Recall that Brownback is a member of the Senate Commerce Science & Transportation Committee.
Bolden and Garver were given just under six months to drum up Congressional support for FY2011 and as of today who is the FY2011 champion in Congress? Other than Dana Rohrbacher?
Essentially NO ONE in Congress was supporting FY2011 as presented.
Looks like Congress has protected America from the worst parts Obamaspace and saved NASA. Thanks to Congress America still has a space program worthy of its name.
Now its just a matter of getting rid of the earmarks that Boxer and Udall added at the last minute. Hopefully the next Republican Congress will zero them out. Then Obamaspace may be officially tossed onto the dust bin of history while the next Republican administration restores the VSE and returns America to the Moon.
All in all its a good date for REAL space advocates.
richardb
In short president Obama’s space policy is the same as a candidate Obama. Come out with a radical anti-space position, then change it into something less radical when the opposition bashes it too hard.
I expect this is the last we will hear about space from this administration with only 30 months left to the next Republican administration. Thank goodness.
Ferris:
Garver’s agenda has always been to turn HFS over to commercial concerns. She was a political operative for Hilary Clinton and John Kerry before joining you on the Obama team. It’s not a surprise the the original NASA FY’11 budget would kill NASA human space flight.
brobof:
This dose not kill development of those things but you have to walk before you can run. Without an overarching reasons for those programs they would have been canceled by future congresses and their funds applied to the Nancy Palloci library and rec center in San Francisco or some other real port project.
Even it that didn’t happen, all that was being proposed was Apollo redux. Flags and pictures, (no foot prints because no landers) without any lasting benefit.
As I said in an earlier post, this is just the first step, retain our present capability. The next step is to go back to the original VSE set down in 2004 to extend our presence into space in a meaningful and permanent way.
She was a political operative, in the sense that she does political work. But before that, she was head of the political office for NASA, and before that, she was the head of the National Space Society. Just because someone works in politics, doesn’t mean they aren’t a space supporter. You’d do well to actually learn your history.
anon – the words of a rapid Obama hater. more proof
Ferris – No need to embarrass Obama. He did that all by himself.
Ferris:
Wake up. She has her own agenda and helping for the human species explore the solar system is not one of them.
Oler:
Come out, come out were ever you are….. hehehehehe
While not perfect, it is a good solid step in the correct direction
It kills Ares and preserves commercial launch.
The heavy lift is annoying but it will either do one of two things. Emerge as an improvement on a Delta class rocket or flounder. If it becomes a shuttle derived, it will be over budget by the end of the year and go under in a deficit cutting mood.
As for the LON…see if it actually flies…
Obama’s shift in policy continues and the Constellation groupies die.
Robert G. Oler
anon wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
I expect this is the last we will hear about space from this administration with only 30 months left to the next Republican administration..
goofy
Robert G. Oler
MrEarl wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Ferris:
Garver’s agenda has always been to turn HFS over to commercial concerns…
that is a statement that is incorrect.
I’ve had discussions with Garver, some in earshot of Rich Kolker and even some in earshot of Whittington where she blew cold water on the entire notion of commercial human spaceflight replacing NASA lift even to LEO.
Indeed I’ve debated her on the subject with she taking the “preserve NASA” side.
like autoland…you dont know what you are talking about.
Robert G. Oler
Oler:
Still looking for that pony in a room full poo.
The direction, or lack there of, of the FY’11 NASA budget has been rejected.
What time should I meet you at Truelucks for dinner?
That’s the spirit, Robert!
I believe an in-line SDLV similar to the proposed Jupiter 130 design will work out splendidly – cheaper and sooner than the naysayers predict – but if I am wrong, so be it. With commercial to ISS being developed in parallel we are avoiding all eggs in one basket, so to speak.
$1.6 billion over three years for commercial space ain’t bad.
And yes, much of ObamaSpace lives – ISS to 2020, commercial to ISS etc . . .
and this DIRECT fan-boy is totally okay with that.
I still want my EML depot, however.
Autoland,
I guess that will be my WMD.
MrEArl – why is it so hard to believe that Kerry & Hilary would’ve needed someone who was associated with Space?
Why is it so hard to believe that liberals can be supporters of human spaceflight?
“You wanna claim Lori Garver (former head of the NSS) isn’t a supporter of Space Exploration?”
She’s not. She’s a creature of Beltway Washington and an advocate of procuring aerospace contracts which is a different mindset than that of being a ‘supporter of space exploration.’
MrEarl wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
dinner can be anytime, you are buying.
I find people like you funny…you need “direction” and really dont care or observe to much else.
The heavy is suppose to be 2016…ok that is as far in the future as Ares is in the past…(or just about). Ares has been direction, but just no movement.
You need to keep ones eye on the big picture.
When the shuttle ends (with LON or before) then it ends and the parts go away…the people go away…and that means the notion of a shuttle derived vehicle becomes unaffordable….so that means the cost either “go up” or the vehicle morphs (if it doesnt start out that way) as a Delta IV heavier effort. If the effort is put into the same clowns hands that have done ALS/NLS/Ares then it dies rather quickly as it bloats.
Other then building the heavier (which DoD wants if it is a Delta knock off) then there really is no direction or any real movement.
In the meantime the all important commercial effort continues…with SpaceX and/or OSC racking up one success after the other, eventually sending cargo then very quickly people to the station…and the “heavy” either is a Delta Knockoff and moves quickly or it flounders.
Worse, as the deficit gets worse when they look for a place to cut, they will find it in the heavy…because nothing will be flying.
The most vunerable part of the NASA budget becomes the heavy. When the shuttle stops…then all there is is a project…and Ares died.
There is a good Mustang here.
Robert G. Oler
With any luck- we may soon be able to remove the term ObamaSpace from our cyber dictionary. You can hear the flushing sound all through the space community.
Obama, himself, had VERY little to do with this whole mess. It was delegated to a hand full of Obama change-heads in a White House backroom somewhere. Remember- in Feb., Obama had a lot bigger things on his plate than NASA… it was, after all, the peak of college basketball season.
Bill White wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
That’s the spirit, Robert! ..
I just know how the federal government works. (and as an aside am figuring out how the Obama administration plays politics).
If the heavy becomes something other then a Delta IV on steroids, NASA will get one budget cycle to get it on track…and if its off by the end of a year (and it likely will be Ares was)…then in the hard deficit numbers to come…its gone.
And in the meantime we might get some good engine development.
Events are moving faster then NASA can move…
Robert G. Oler
Remember where commercial crew really comes into play, and that is when the Soyuz contract supporting the ISS ends in 2015. With continued use of the ISS through 2020 likely approved, there will need to be new support contracts bid out, and that is when commercial cargo and crew will outshine any government alternative.
Commercial crew has plenty of time to get congress onboard, especially since Boeing only needs to build a capsule and LAS, and SpaceX only needs an LAS. By the time the crew needs come around, everyone (including Orbital) will have lots of heritage on their launchers, and the focus will turn to price and availability. 2016 and beyond is the start of the commercial crew market – anything earlier is just gravy.
Coastal Ron wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Look…if I could write a “happy scenario” for commercial ops it is (to be fair) that something keeps Boeing and Lockmart out of the competition (like some government program somewhere) and OSC and SpaceX go head to head.
It is possible that Boeing and Lockmart could come to the table and “do” a Falcon 9/Dragon type system (ie low budget, fast cycle etc)…but their history and that of the “change” of the guard in technology from the old to the new argue against it.
Boeing caught the “old guard” manufactors off guard with the B-17 because they thought out of the box…It is harder for them to do that now.
SpaceX and OSC probably can do just fine engaging in a “competition of the hungry”…and whichever one wins (or both) will in the end in my view be the winner.
The end result depends on which one most believes in. Does one believe that the future in space is some sort of exploration “sortie” by NASA or commercial space with Bigelow etc.
Go see who won the heavy bomber competition that the YB 299 was a part of…now go see who actually built the most bombers!
Robert G. Oler
Max Peck wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
With any luck- we may soon be able to remove the term ObamaSpace from our cyber dictionary..,.
but Max we hope you stick around…many of us need comic relief.
Robert G. Oler
“CessnaDriver – its always been about Obama, certainly for you. Thats been clear form day 1″
I am no fan of the man from the get go.I think he has poor judgment most of the time. He just also happened to develop a poor space policy as well.
His early stance of delay Constellation five years to spend on education was not helping my view on him on NASA. I hoped he would just leave it be.
I felt better when he put forth a space policy during the campaign that suppported NASA HSF pretty well.
I know he wouldn’t be another JFK on the matter, but at least leave NASA alone.
Then came the radical changes for NASA HSF>
When it comes to NASA and HSF, that is a goal bigger then politics to me. Your going to have to take my word on that. It is ingrained into my being to support those kind of endeavors, it’s a deep passion that I see my nation succeed in space. If he had the ability to handle NASA and congress properly we wouldn’t be here having these conversations would we?
In fact it is bipartisan support that created this new policy!
Democrats and Republicans and it is a rare case of cooperation.
Brought about only because ObamaSpace was so poor!
Note that people like Armstrong did not come out until very late in the process. That was not politics was it? It was always about NASA HSF policy and their deep concerns that we were about to make major mistakes.
CessnaDriver wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
that is funny You realize of course that there is no exploration in this “authorization”? Robert G. Oler
Click here for the final bill summary on the Senate Commere Committee’s web site.
No closing of the gap, possibly even an increase to the gap. No mention of an exploration plan, etc.
What happened to all of the anti-fy2011 rhetoric? Developing an expensive SDLV, with no scheduled missions, is all it took to make you happy.
Constellation is really most sincerely dead.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
“CessnaDriver wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
that is funny You realize of course that there is no exploration in this “authorizationâ€? Robert G. Oler”
Or, like with Harry Potter and Voldemort, that “neither can live while the other survives”, ISS could only survive without the massive budget needs of Constellation. And without the ISS, the U.S. would have ceded our permanent presence in space to others.
I for one think the ISS can provide more value in getting us beyond LEO than the short trips Constellation was struggling to do.
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
thanks for teh link…I skimmed it (sorry full read later working on the dryer after I got home)…
but a few things are clear
Constellation is dead.
It doesnt appear as though Orion is really all that alive either. The plans (in a skim) for it to fly as part of some vehicle in 2016…and the note about commercial crew vehicles
“Requires commercial crew capabilities to also provide crew rescue services.” I assume that is for the commercial crew but no where (at least in a skim) was Orion as a CRV mentioned (did I miss that?)
Second a shuttle derived vehicle is “hard”. The Stephen who comes on and bangs the drum for DIRECT is correct about one thing…DIRECT or a SDV is hard to do if the shuttle infrastructure is not there…and it wont be. The shuttle flies maybe the one additional mission then it all starts going away.
It is hard to see how a vehicle 6 years from now (at the end of Obama’s second term or someone elses first term) is going to use people and infrastructure that will be “gone” by the end of FY 2011.
The more I read about this the more I am wondering what people like Cessna Driver and Earl and the others are all excited about. They got hosed. The “only” deadline here is Dec 31 2016 and that might as well be never.
Robert G. Oler
Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
It is more a sustainable development authorization Robert, with infrastructure and milestones geared toward national security, competitiveness, economic activities and scientific knowledge — incrementally building a capability from which we can learn if we can live off Earth (including all the unimaginable things humans discover through those endeavors).
“Remember- in Feb., Obama had a lot bigger things on his plate than NASA… it was, after all, the peak of college basketball season.”
Right along with the rest of the nation, which could care less about human space flight when the madness is about other things. As to “deep passion”, let’s just say the rest of the nation has never felt that way about space exploration. Don’t be delusional by thinking it does. But you’re right in one respect. The FY11 proposal sure wasn’t about Obama. “ObamaSpace” is a cutesy word conjured up by various rabid opponents of the administration. I’ll be happy to see it go, The cute phrase “look but don’t touch” seems to have burst it’s bubble as well.
“It was using billions of government money to fund contractors which it then called commercial space. Then it claimed this was superior to the bad old model of the past. In fact it’s the same, just favoring other special interests over the old crowd of Boeing, LMT, ATK. ”
Again, there is this sad misunderstanding of what “commercial space” is. No one is favoring the young upstarts here. The point of “commercial space” is to let industry define the vehicle and the capabilities, such that NASA, and probably others, will buy the product. It’s vehicle push, rather than vehicle pull. That’s NOT what happened with Boeing and Lockheed with ELV, nor with ATK on the Shuttle SRBs. Those firms did commercial *construction* only. DoD and NASA basically defined what those vehicles would do, and pretty much what they would look like. There is nothing to prevent Boeing, Lockheed, and ATK from going the route that SpaceX and OSC have gone. No one is holding them back from behaving “commercially” in all respects like these other pioneers.
The emphasis on a HLV in the auth bill is interesting. While that emphasis is a mistake, I feel, I am gratified that at least in the summary of the bill, this whole new SLS is an “as soon as practicable” deal. That’ll make it happen, no? The 2016 “goal” was, carefully I thought, referenced to Orion, rather than this HLV.
I won’t comment on Lori Garver, as she doesn’t have anything to do with this thread, though she sure seems to be popular here.
Anne Spudis wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
it is none of those things. NOTHING happens (even in theory) in terms of capability until 2016…that is six years from now.
And nothing else is “funded” or even authorized…the language is so broad it means everything or nothing.
you got hosed
Robert G. Oler
Anne Spudis wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
“It is more a sustainable development authorization…”
I don’t see anything in the Authorization Act that is much different that what was proposed by Obama/Bolden. Picking and choosing, I see:
Sec. 801 – Technology Development – The Science Mission Directorate shall maintain a long-term technology development program for space and Earth.
Sec. 803 – Overall Science Portfolio–Sense of the Congress – Adequately funded research, technology development and space missions contribute to a robust science program and innovation.
Sec. 807 – Collaboration with EMSD and SOMD on Robotic Missions – ESMD and SOMD shall coordinate with SMD on interagency and international collaboration on certain robotic missions. Requires a report detailing the chosen approach, which must be submitted prior to acting on any robotic EMSD or Robotic SMD project.
What am I missing, and what makes it better that what NASA had originally proposed?
Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
If moving toward a sustainable path, that incrementally builds an infrastructure is being hosed, then I guess I’ll live with that Robert.
Coastal Ron wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
TITLE II – POLICY, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT AND EXPLORATION
Sec. 201 – United States Human Space Flight Policy – The U.S. shall rely upon non-U.S. human space flight (HSF) capabilities only on a temporary basis under circumstances where no U.S. capability is available. Reaffirms policy of 2005 NASA reauthorization stating that the U.S. will maintain an uninterrupted HSF capability and operation in low-earth orbit (LEO) to maintain national security and leadership in exploration and utilization of space.
Sec. 202 – Goals and Objectives – The long-term goal of U.S. HSF efforts shall be to expand permanent human presence beyond LEO through establishment of a long-term LEO presence via the space station and commercial capabilities; to determine if humans can, in fact, live in an extended manner in space; lay foundation for sustainable economic activities in space, maximize role of HSF in advancing knowledge of the universe, national security and global competitive posture.
Sec. 203 – Assurance of Core Capabilities – Sense of Congress that the ISS, technology developments, Shuttle and follow-on transportation capabilities authorized under this act form the foundation for initial missions beyond LEO. Development of the follow-on transportation system will allow for the capability to restart and fly the Shuttle, if directed by Congress or the President, prior to completion of the final Shuttle mission. Authorizes refurbishment of manufactured external tank of the Shuttle designated as ET-94
Sec. 204 – Independent Study on Human Exploration of Space – Provides for an assessment by the National Academies of the President’s plan for HSF and exploration.
Source
Ahh.. The White House was trying to make a nice apple pie but Congress had to throw a big piece of pork into the middle.
Anne Spudis wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
you can see whatever you want to…but there is no data real data to support the conclusions…
there are no “steps” here
Robert G. Oler
Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
“there are no “steps†here”
You plan your steps once you state your objective.
Sec. 202 – Goals and Objectives – The long-term goal of U.S. HSF efforts shall be to expand permanent human presence beyond LEO through establishment of a long-term LEO presence via the space station and commercial capabilities; to determine if humans can, in fact, live in an extended manner in space; lay foundation for sustainable economic activities in space, maximize role of HSF in advancing knowledge of the universe, national security and global competitive posture.
Why are you people reading an 8 page summary of a 99 page bill and saying “there’s nothing in it!” Why dont you try reading the full bill like I did (and obviously Ms. Spudis did) last night that was posted yesterday. I just wish I could find the amendments made to the budget that were approved today. For the record Orion survives as the Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle for bringing crew to LEO as well as points anywhere between LEO and the Moon, the Moon, Deep Space and ultimately Mars, not as a rescue vehicle. Also, if you had read the bill, you would know that the LON is guaranteed as is ET-94 protected for a possible additional flight. As must the entire infrastructure be protected to allow for additional shuttle flights, which basically implies SDLV.
For the people bemoaning the “gutting of commercial space” – the President’s FY11 commercial space budget had $500M, this budget had $312M. I do not know what the final number was, but I assume based on the compromises with Warner and Boxer that the number increased some.
99 pages, not 8.
Anne Spudis wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
You plan your steps once you state your objective….
funny. Bush did this what 6 years ago…and look where that got you. This language has been stated and restated for decades…and to somehow thing that merely saying it again is a victory…well I guess when you got lemons you try and add sugar.
Robert G. Oler
Spaceboy wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
I havent said that there was nothing in the bill (just having read the link posted)…
its great. Shuttle and Constellation go away. The heavy wont be shuttle derived and Orion wont compete with commercial…and the heavy/Orion system not flying will be the target for cost cutting.
Robert G. Oler
Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
“funny. Bush did this what 6 years ago…and look where that got you.”
True enough, we got Constellation Mike.
That does not make the objective of the VSE wrong Robert.
Anne Spudis wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
That does not make the objective of the VSE wrong Robert…
no nor does it make “this authorization” be supportive of VSE.
VSE wasnt wrong, its just premature…about two decades early.
Robert G. Oler
Spaceboy, the bill hasn’t been released yet, you read a draft, as I did.
Ferris,
Nothing rapid about it. My dislike of Obamaspace has been building since his 2007 policy release. Fortunately Congress decided to stand up to him and his dot.com millionaire friends who call themselves New Space. New Space what? What is so new about corporate handouts?
Anyway, continue your bashing of NASA, no one of importance cares what Obama’s New Spacers think as Congress showed today.
> Ferris Valyn wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
> And lets be honest – most of the people who want this son of
> Constellation – they aren’t interested in good space policy –
> they just wanna embarrass Obama because they can’t get
> over the fact that the US elected a good president.
What are you doing, channeling Jean Garafalo? If you disagree with me you must e a racist?
> MrEarl wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
> Keep telling yourself that Ferris. Most supporters of space
> exploration could see that this was an attempt to abandon any
> space exploration beyond Earth orbit.
Bingo! Lose NASA and virtually all the space industry in the us related to HSF, exploration, or commercial space.
Obama space was just pork to other groups – and less “wasteful” substance on top.
> Ferris Valyn wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
> MrEarl – if she (Garver) wasn’t a space supporter, then why was she the head of NSS?
She said it was a stepping stone into political circles. Her interest was in politics and gov, not space.
> anon wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
> Looks like Congress has protected America from the worst
> parts Obamaspace and saved NASA. Thanks to Congress America
> still has a space program worthy of its name.
I’m not sure I’ld go “worthy of its name” — but at least its still a space program,
> Coastal Ron wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
> Remember where commercial crew really comes into play, and
> that is when the Soyuz contract supporting the ISS ends in 2015. With
> continued use of the ISS through 2020 likely approved, there will need
> to be new support contracts bid out, and that is when commercial cargo
> and crew will outshine any government alternative.
Even now its higher cost then the Soyuz, and politically more attractive. Also a lot is assuming Bigelow develops a big market — otherwise they may be no commercial HSF operating in 2020. On the other hand – if Bigelow or Virgin and something really take off SpaceX could well be shoved out of business, and CST-100 long replaced with something modern and capable.
Or, Europe – especially Britain – is rethinking getting involved in human space flight. They can’t really afford building a KSC, or fielding booster and capsule based solutions, and are toying with skipping over it to RLV spaceplanes.
Who knows.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
“VSE wasnt wrong, its just premature…about two decades early.”
The thing that will blow this log jam apart is our return to the Moon to learn how to use space resources and build the capability to service our assets in cislunar space and expand outward using that knowledge. Until we get that understanding and ability, we will never achieve a truly affordable commercial human space program.
Putting that off for decades makes no sense at all. Science will always find a home in manned space flight. It seems that sentiment is not returned by a majority in the science community. That’s tragic, wrong-headed and a hindrance to a vigorous U.S. space program.
For those “Space Politics” history buffs and mystics, I would refer you to a post of mine from several months ago, where my crystal ball predicted this very outcome. I was roundly rebuffed by the usuals on this site, but as always my crystal ball was correct. Congress was simply not going to support Lori Garver’s faith based initiative. Nelson’s bill returns us to the kind of support that will truly enable “commercial space” to develop without overburdening this fledgling industry with the total responsibility for all human spaceflight. Walk before you run. I know that is a painful lesson for a student of Dan Goldin’s like Lori, but wiser heads prevailed.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
She said it was a stepping stone into political circles. Her interest was in politics and gov, not space…
umm
having crossed swords and disagreed with Garver on a LOT of occassions (indeed the only time we have been in agreement is the current policy)…I would not say that is totally fair.
Garver is certainly a political animal. She has worked hard to gain the horsepower to get her to her current position (it is not easy)…and I dont think that her space politics or policy are terribly multi dimensional..
but it is not fair to say she is not interested in human spaceflight.
The trick along with everything else is to try and sort out the people on all sides of the issue(s) who have legitimate views that are simply in disagreement and those who are turds and just pushing rhetoric that they have no idea about.
Garver has legitimate views. They are (for my taste) salted to much with what is politically viable but then again perhaps that is one reason she is where she is at and the rest of us are blogging about space policy…but they are legitimate.
Robert G. Oler
The authorization bill doesn’t provide the funding necessary, not by a long shot, to support the development of an Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) by its stated 2016 goal. We know what an ISS-capable Orion was going to cost from the runout NASA’s FY 2010 budget (Griffin’s last Constellation budget) and we can compare that to funding limits for the MPCV in the authorization bill:
Fiscal Orion in MPCV in
Year FY10 Budg FY11 Auth Shortfall
2011 $1.9B $1.3B $0.6B
2012 $2.1B $1.4B $0.7B
2013 $1.9B $1.4B $0.5B
Total $5.9B $4.1B $1.8B
So there’s at least a $1.8 billion or over 30% shortfall through FY 2013 in the MPCV budget alone.
And the MPCV shortfall is actually bigger than that, since those FY 2010 Orion figures only supported a 2017 delivery date (at best) for an ISS-capable Orion, not the 2016 deadline set in the authorization bill for an exploration-capable Orion MPCV. We’re probably looking at close to a 50% shortfall through FY 2013 to support a 2016 launch date.
Even the overall flat funding profile is goofy for a development program that has to ramp up then down — it’s a profile for a technology program, not a development program. At the funding levels in the authorization bill, NASA would be very lucky to get the MPCV flying by 2020. Hopefully, commercial crew can still deliver at least one capsule on its reduced budget by circa 2015. But by making no hard decisions between the old Shuttle infrastructure and lower-cost commercial/military solutions, the Senate authorization bill runs a much higher risk of NASA relying on Soyuzes for the next decade-plus than NASA’s FY 2011 budget request.
A lot of folks have already remarked about the stupidity of designing an HLV in the absence of defined exploration targets and architectures. But honestly, if/when the MPCV does deliver, its high recurring costs, combined with the recurring costs for the authorization bill’s Space Launch System (SLS), aren’t going to support exploration anyway. To represent the SLS, the cheapest recurring costs I can find for a Shuttle-derived HLV are Jupiter 130, quoted at $1.9 billion per year. For MPCV recurring, the final report of the Augustine Committee stated that Orion will cost $1 billion per mission. So just two MPCV missions per year on SLS will run $4 billion at a minimum. That’s as costly as the old Space Shuttle budget — there’s no savings from which exploration hardware can be built or operated. More likely, the DIRECT team cost estimate for Jupiter 130/SLS recurring that I’m using is highly optimistic and even a couple missions a year may be unaffordable within the Shuttle operations budget.
So the proposal in the authorization bill is budgetarily broken on both the development and operations sides. One of three things is going to happen from here:
1) Someone on appropriations or in the White House is going to realize how broken the budget in the authorization bill is and won’t take it as input for appropriations and/or will stop the bill’s passage.
2) If this direction is allowed to make it into law via authorization or appropriations, NASA will get creative in its interpretation, minimize spending on Shuttle- and Constellation-derived infrastructure, open MPCV and SLS up to competition and solutions that leverage commercial/military spending and infrastructure, and define SLS broadly to include in-space transportation capabilities.
3) NASA staggers along for a few more years trying to make a Shuttle- and Constellation-derived MPCV and SLS work on a reduced development budget that doesn’t support operations until the 2020s, someone in power (probably in this or another White House) realizes this, another Augustine-like blue-ribbon review is conducted, MPCV and SLS are proposed for termination, and the political cycle starts anew. If the remaining funding for commercial crew and technology are protected during that time, they will have gotten far enough that maybe the old Apollo/Shuttle infrastructure and its huge costs will finally be put out of our misery.
It’s too bad that after Apollo, Shuttle, ALS/NLS, SEI, and now Constellation, the nation’s space policy makers havn’t learned that they can’t afford much more than a LEO operation using that infrastructure. But as others have pointed out, jobs still trump the goal of breaking out of LEO.
FWIW…
Anne Spudis wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
The thing that will blow this log jam apart is our return to the Moon to learn how to use space resources and build the capability to service our assets in cislunar space and expand outward using that knowledge. Until we get that understanding and ability, we will never achieve a truly affordable commercial human space program….
that is wishful thinking.
Say NASA went back to the Moon and found some lunar water and demonstrated separating O and H…that would be where it ends. Quickly it would dawn on everyone that the O and H that are separated are about 10 or 20 or something times more expensive then simply bringing it from Earth; there would be no real ability to lower those cost and the entire effort would be like the space station…something neat but of no real commercial value.
Those like Paul and Dennis W who advocate lunar resources miss that point.
Robert G. Oler
Major Tom wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
nice analysis agree with what you wrote:
my prediction is option 2…followed by Option 1.
Ares is gone, shuttle will be allowed to die and the heavy will be a Delta IV knockoff (on steroids)
Robert G. Oler
With all this talk, one thing is clear! Development of Orion continues. It has survived, though without Ares as a launch vehicle. The idea of an asteroid visit has a lot of supporters, even Armstrong. A shuttle derived launch vehicle may not vanish into histories dust bin. The design was looked at a long time ago, and it is workable. Im waiting for Space X to make its second launch, which is supposed to be sometime before the end of this year. Will Bigelow still build Orion Light for passenger service?? At least now deep space will be reachable again. While NASA created a lot of miracles with the shuttle concept, it still held us in LEO for way to long!!!! Again I will say, commercial ventures may indeed place people into space, one day, but who but the rich and famous will make the grade????????
Anne Spudis wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
“ou plan your steps once you state your objective.
Sec. 202 – Goals and Objectives – The long-term goal of U.S. HSF efforts shall be to expand permanent human presence beyond LEO through establishment of a long-term LEO presence…”
I guess anyone can read what they want into this, but I don’t see anything BEO, only using LEO to get ready for BEO.
Don’t get me wrong, I want to leave LEO and do other interesting stuff, and that’s where I see NASA being the most valuable, but the wording in this sounds a lot like the original NASA plan – get the infrastructure in place to be ready for BEO. And I’m OK with that for this budget year.
Major Tom wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
I agree, it’s not over yet. The Senator has claim to having fought a good fight for the folks in Florida, but it’s just a temporary fix. After the last shuttle flies all the USA folks will be looking for new jobs. No work for them during the development phase of a SDHLV, even if NASA really pushes development.
Jonathan Goff over at Selenian Boondocks nails the “excitement of the day with this:
1. There are no details, plans, or near-term destinations. Just an unfocused non-plan to build an HLV without really having a plan on how it will be used or when. So unfocused spending and lack of a plan or near-term destination wasn’t the issue?
2. Even the Moon isn’t outright dismissed, it’s pretty clear the plan is a modified version of flexible path. This isn’t going to give people that moonbase they craved so soon. So actually going back to the Moon anytime in the forseeable future wasn’t the issue?
3. Without the shuttle extended, and with commercial crew being delayed (let’s get real folks, moving most of the funding to the out years is a cheap way of defunding a project without actually having to have the huevos to do it honestly), it is now guaranteed that the ISS is going to be accessible only via Russia for most of the rest of this decade. There will be no way of launching those critical spares that were the reason Jeff Bingham was always giving for a shuttle extension. So apparently the gap isn’t an issue?
4. The KSC portion of the Shuttle team is going to get decimated next year still, this time with no commercial crew projects ramping up to help soften the blow. So apparently workforce retention wasn’t really an issue?
——————————–
Anne Spudis’ claims to the contrary.
Could someone explain what comes next re: Appropriations and what it takes to get both houses to agree on exactly what gets funded? How much change could take place between now and when this bill gets signed?
Major Tom: “And the MPCV shortfall is actually bigger than that, since those FY 2010 Orion figures only supported a 2017 delivery date (at best) for an ISS-capable Orion, not the 2016 deadline set in the authorization bill for an exploration-capable Orion MPCV.”
Not only that, but the MPCV needs to be able to support BEO *and* ISS. That’s even worse than just BEO (because of docking, etc). The draft bill also has it supporting, at a minimum, EVAs, servicing, and plug-and-play for new technologies. It’s also supposed to be able to support commercial operations (whatever that means for a NASA-designed and operated vehicle – sounds sinister). On top of that, it would need to recover from the change away from the Constellation POR plan and the current NASA changes.
It seems like they’re trying to do one of the Augustine options, only faster, without the money Augustine specified. I’m sure everyone remembers that some of the FY2011 budget boost went to non-HSF priorities, and even disregarding that, the budget was less than the less-constrained Augustine amount.
I wonder if we should start getting ready for Augustine III?
“One of three things is going to happen from here:
…
3) NASA staggers along for a few more years trying to make a Shuttle- and Constellation-derived MPCV and SLS work on a reduced development budget that doesn’t support operations until the 2020s…”
I can imagine the MPCV and SLS squashing a lot more space technology, science, commercial, aeronautics, robotic precursor, and other efforts during this staggering-along phase.
It’s almost like it’s September 2005 again.
First of all why does everybody keep saying commercial gets deferred. Commercial gets almost exactly what they were getting from the President’s budget in 2011. (still need to see the final version)
Second of all, the full text of the (yes draft) bill gives more details than the 8 page summary. No it does not lay out all the detail, but it lays out infinite more detail than February 1, 2010 – “we’ve cancelled Constellation and all of its projects, we’re not going to the Moon screw all of you, we are beginning a bold, game changing, innovative new program that will go somewhere someday we think.”
The funny thing is, it barely touches the President’s budget and yet you are all still whining. It gives us back Orion (or MPCV) as a true exploration vehicle as intended, not as an idiotic rescue pod and puts a launch system back in the mix. It does this at very little cost to commercial crew and very high cost to technology development in 2011 (only) – in 2012 and 2013 the technology development budget skyrockets. Most of the 2011 budget comes from the 1.9 billion Constellation termination costs.
So it still gives you your precious commercial and stil you all whine?
It’s all kind of funny. The same people who thought that R&D projects with nebulous deadlines and platitudes about one day maybe going here or there was a real “plan” to go beyond Earth orbit, are now trying to tell us that the SLS and Orion derived crew vehicle is an un-focused non-plan.
As Major Tom would say:
Goofy
Bennett quoting Jonathan Goff:
There are no details, plans, or near-term destinations.
Sure there’s a near-term destination. It’s called the International Space Station. It’s just not the destination some people wanted to hear.
Looks to me like Obama gets about 95% of what he wanted — and what doesn’t match up exactly is actually improved, e.g. accelerating development of a heavy-lift vehicle, which I’m sure Obama won’t mind. He set a 2015 deadline for budgetary reasons, but if Congress wants to fund it now without robbing other programs then I’m sure it’s fine with Obama.
As for Orion, Obama proposed a stripped-down version, but again if Congress wants to pony up the money without robbing another program then fine. Everyone knows they’ll build only one and it will go straight to a museum because the commercial vehicles will be ready by the time the government bureaucracy actually finishes the capsule.
One thing is for sure — Constellation is dead, no matter how the Constellation huggers are trying to spin it to the contrary. I’ve said all along there was no widespread support in Congress for it, their only interest was in sending pork to their districts. Other pork was substituted for Constellation. R.I.P.
Dennis Berube wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
“Development of Orion continues.”
Sec. 303 – Multi-Purpose Crew Transportation Vehicle – NASA shall pursue development of a multi-purpose crew transportation vehicle based on Orion for use with the Space Launch System. It shall be the goal to reach full operational capability by December 31, 2016. Minimum capabilities include missions beyond LEO, conducting in-space operations, providing means of alternative crew delivery to ISS and the capacity for vehicle modifications.
We’ll see what money it gets, or it ends up like Major Tom has suggested.
“ The idea of an asteroid visit has a lot of supporters, even Armstrong.”
That kind of talk would get you labeled as an ObamaSpace supporter – you know, “we’ve been there”. The Moon people want a focus only on the Moon, not beyond yet.
I personally wanted to go to an NEO as the first mission out of LEO, and let the robotic precursor missions do some exploring before we decide how to return to the Moon. None of this looks like it is funded in this revised plan.
“Will Bigelow still build Orion Light for passenger service??”
Dennis, you may be 62 years old and have a problem remembering that the Soviet Union dissolved, but if you want to discuss space issues seriously, you have to get the names right. I’ve pointed this out to you before – Bigelow only builds inflatable habitats, and they have been in talks with Boeing for a “Orion-Lite” type capsule (CST-100). They want a competitive marketplace for transportation to their habitats, so that is why they are talking to potential transportation providers (Boeing, SpaceX, etc.). A simple internet search BEFORE you post would help you fact check.
“Again I will say, commercial ventures may indeed place people into space, one day, but who but the rich and famous will make the grade?”
Who goes now? After the Soyuz contract runs out, Congress seems to be OK with letting commercial companies take care of transporting people to LEO. Besides governments, companies may be interested in sending researchers up to work on experiments, or just for promotion (Japanese guy was going to do that on Soyuz).
What commercial crew opens up is the possibility for any country, company or person to buy a ticket to LEO. What they’ll do is TBD, but once there is reliable transportation, things to do will surely follow.
I should also mention that the budget problem Major Tom points out is really hard to avoid with the funding levels NASA is likely to get for any Shuttle-derived HLV and government-style Orion-like crew vehicle that I’ve seen.
Think about the Administration’s Orion-derived Crew Return Vehicle for ISS. The contractor was talking about $4.5B to $7.0B, or something close to that, to implement the CRV … if NASA was satisfied with some exotic hands-off approaches! Now look at the Senate committee’s MPCV budget for FY11-FY13 – only $4.1B! That’s with a much harder set of requirements than the CRV.
That’s why I keep saying that any compromise needs to be limited. I’m not against a compromise. I want to see us move ahead. Even though I support the FY2011 Administration budget, I don’t think it’s perfect, and at any rate there are things here and there in it that could be sacrificed. However, a compromise has to be a real compromise. It can’t be an unsustainable, unaffordable program that will ultimately be cancelled after wasting billions or tens of billions of dollars. It can’t be a program that at kick-off kills most prospects for the core VSE cornerstones like commercial space participation, technology innovation, and robotic precursor missions for HSF.
There is no room in the budget for a Shuttle-derived HLV, an Orion derivation using Orion contract methods, and more Shuttle missions.
We CAN have a compromise that includes a Shuttle-derived HLV, sacrificing some but not most of the FY2011 content. An example might be a Block I sidemount for cargo only in FY2016 or so. We might even be able to do a little Shuttle extension in there, or fit some SDHLV budget slack that, if not needed, could go towards Block II. With that, though, we can’t afford Orion.
We CAN have a MPCV, but if we want that, we can’t afford the SDHLV. We have to go for something cheaper, like an EELV-based mini-HLV, or launch on a Delta IV.
We can’t afford the Senate committee’s plans on NASA’s current budget.
I know lots of people are patting each other on the backs right now, but this Senate budget proposal didn’t solve our problems. It might have made them a lot worse if we want a space program, not a jobs program.
@KellyStark “She [Garver] said it was a stepping stone into political circles. Her interest was in politics and gov, not space.” Yep. Nothing but a lobbiest. She never met an aerospace contract- or contractor– she didn’t like. She has no interest in space exploration.
Red:
The authorization covers FY’11 through ’13 but the sets a target date of December 31st 2016 to be operational. Assuming, and I know that can be dangerous in this fiscal environment, that funding stays constant that provides over $8.2billion for the MPCV.
As for the SLS estimates are from $8billion for a bloc I sidemount to $15 billion for a bloc III in-line launch vehicle.
This is well within the authorization of this bill.
Ferris, I am glad to see you still have not purchased a clue. I am also sure glad *YOU* personally compromised on the Orion rescue pod – for the record, most people working Orion considered it an abortion and a bigger insult than cancelling Orion outright, but I digress. And before you go off on another one of your Obama-Republican rants – I am not nor have I ever been a Republican.
Most of the others here basically recommend we all reach into the kitchen drawer for the knives to commit suicide because this compromise is OH SO AWFUL! (eventhough it barely deviates from the President’s budget) Instead of actually reading the draft bill and seeing that it took a giant mess and made something workable out of it. It is not perfect, but it is better than what we had. It is a compromise that leans much more heavily towards the Presidents budget than anything else. The anti-constellation crowd should be happy because it kills Constellation and Ares 1 and Ares V. The pro-Commercial crowd should be happy because it sticks around. Florida should be happy because they get another shuttle flight, with the possibility of an additional flight and they still get commercial crew. Science and Aeronautics crowd should be happy because they were not touched from the Presidents budget, so nobody can complain there. Technology took a big hit this year, but gets it back next year.
And Robert Oler, you are an enigma to me. You are one of the most prolific posters on this site and NASA watch and yet you *seem* to despise everything to do with human spaceflight and NASA. I dont think I have ever seen you post a single positive thing about NASA, shuttle, ISS, Constellation, Orion, the Moon, Mars, the Universe. I could be misinterpreting your posts, but I dont see how.
Does that about sum it all up?
One last word on compromise – if I was one unwilling to compromise I would say give nothing to commercial, but I dont. I am fine with commercial getting money. I want commercial to succeed. However, a true commercial venture would develop a product and service on its own and than offer that product or service to the government for whatever fee they felt was fair. So if Space-X developed a crew launch vehicle on their own and decided to charge the government $30 million a seat, that is commercial space. Why do they need $200 million a year from NASA to do this? (Let’s face it, that commercial bucket will be split between 3 companies at the most, but probably only two.
Also for the record above, those of us who want to go to the moon want to go to asteroids and obviously Mars and other destinations too, we do not “only want to go to the Moon”. But for a first destination, the moon makes much more sense than an asteroid. I personally think the first asteroid mission is going to be risky as all heck – even Bruce Willis didnt survive an encounter with an asteroid and he survives everything!
Spaceboy wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
I like you. You express yourself well and don’t seem to be tied down to excess dogma or rhetoric. However, in your second paragraph you wrote about the draft Nelsonspace bill “it barely deviates from the President’s budget”, and then in the next sentence you describe the President’s FY’11 budget as “a giant mess”? I find that contradictory.
You ask, “Why do they need $200 million a year from NASA to do this?”
The money is to accelerate their HSF development in order to shorten the gap. SpaceX has stated that with or without government participation, they will develop human launch capability. If we want to stop spending cash for Soyuz seats to LEO, getting a US company human rated as soon as possible is money well spent .
My interpretation of course.
Spaceboy wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
And Robert Oler, you are an enigma to me. You are one of the most prolific posters on this site and NASA watch and yet you *seem* to despise everything to do with human spaceflight and NASA. I dont think I have ever seen you post a single positive thing about NASA, shuttle, ISS, Constellation, Orion, the Moon, Mars, the Universe….
there is nothing positive to post about NASA HSF, the shuttle, ISS, Constellation, Orion,….nothing.
All are spending for no end…they dont make The Republic stronger, more efficient make us wealthier, they are just pork dollars.
Human spaceflight has a future but it is more like aviation; ie making the country fight its wars better, helping its economy, helping the people. NASA doesnt have a clue about how to do that.
Human exploration of space is a mission chasing a reason. So far there is nothing that cannot be done at far less expense on uncrewed vehicles…because the instant NASA gets involved the cost go up so high nothing is worthwhile.
The Republic has to many agencies like NASA human spaceflight…ones that are horses that eat, but dont work.
Robert G. Oler
Bennet – the giant mess being no crew vehicle and no launch vehicle and no near term deadlines, is what I was referring to, sorry.
Like, I said I am actually OK with commercial space getting the money, I was just trying to point out the contradiction I see with all the Aerospace Giant bashers. If SpaceX (or any company) receives $200M a year from NASA they will be receiving funds that are comparable to what Lockheed Martin is receiving for Orion (approx $400M a year). So basically the people who argue that the Boeings and LM corporate machines need to make way for new space, dont realize they are just really switching vendors, not creating a “true” commercial market. Which may be fine if it gets the job done. The problem is, since you are just subsidizing new companies, it will eventually lead to the same cost-plus contracts that everybody hates right now.
I dont think most of the start ups will survive either with or without government money. The roads are littered with the remains of bankrupt aerospace companies and Rocketplane is the latest to file (again). I think Space-X has the best chance to succeed with or without the government’s help and therefore should go for it, just like they did with Cargo. I think the Commercial Crew program should be run the same way as COTS. With an eventual award given to one or several companies to provide crew transport services to ISS.
MrEarl wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
you are so naive.
this is how the HLV is going to work.
For the next year or so NASA will “study it”. In the meantime the shuttle workforce will lose their technowelfare jobs and so will the Constellation (ares) folks.
By the time the study is done two things will be obvious. First even under the best of circumstances NASA cannot do a shuttle derived vehicle for under oh 10-14 billion dollars (that includes everything and I doubt that they can do it for that).
On the other hand, a knock off of the Delta IV heavy with some cute things like propellent transfer (going up the hill) etc will come in at far less.
There wont be 2-3 billion a year for HLV development.
As the deficit grows and the folks on Capital Hill finally get religion about cutting it…they will look for things that are going nowhere. HLV at NASA will be one of them…unless its a Delta IV on steroids which will be oh about 3/4 to 1 billion a year. The military wants that.
In the meantime the Falcon 9 and OSC thing will start to fly and the cost will be quite low (compared to NASA) and there wont be any shuttles to save etc…and
well its over.
Robert G. Oler
MrEarl: “that provides over $8.2billion for the MPCV.”
Yes, that’s exactly what I was trying to illustrate. Based on FY11-13 funds in the draft budget, we can guestimate what the MPCV would have by the time it’s supposed to be done. $8.2B is a good guess, and that’s hardly more than the contractor was asking, on the high end of the range, for the Orion-based CRV. That’s with limited NASA oversight. I doubt that will happen for the MPCV. Just consider how much more difficult the MPCV will be to implement than the CRV, consider time and budget to adjust to the new plan, factor in potential unforseen problems …
“As for the SLS estimates are from $8billion for a bloc I sidemount to $15 billion for a bloc III in-line launch vehicle.”
I could see the Block I sidemount fitting in the budget, which by itself could be a viable compromise. You might even be able to squeeze in a bit of Block II work. However, it looks to me like the draft Senate bill implies that the SDHLV would need to serve as a backup for crew launch. I don’t think the Block I sidemount is being considered for crew launch, so you’re up to Block II with the bill. That’s a lot more expensive, and hard to afford. You’d also need to show a growth path to 150mT with the bill, which would be pretty hard to do.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
“there is nothing positive to post about NASA HSF, the shuttle, ISS, Constellation, Orion,….nothing.”
OK, so you did not contradict me at all – so why do you spend so much time reading and posting on web pages dedicated to NASA and human spaceflight? Note, I am not attacking, I am curious, because you generally seem to put thought into your posts. (also wondering if you may have masochistic tendencies, I for example would never go to a Boston Red Sox web page and read it every day and then post on that webpage, because I know two things: I despise the Red Sox and I know the Red Sox have nothing positive to offer society)
I didn’t complete my response to MrEarl on SDHLV costs. I believe the concept with the draft bill was for the HLV development to be $11.3B. That will exceed that $15B upper figure, and I suspect Block II will exceed it too (I think the more recent Block I –> Block 2 development numbers were somewhere over $4B).
MrEarl: “The same people who thought that R&D projects with nebulous deadlines and platitudes about one day maybe going here or there was a real “plan†to go beyond Earth orbit, are now trying to tell us that the SLS and Orion derived crew vehicle is an un-focused non-plan.”
I think one of the good things about things like the exploration technology demonstration missions is that they “pay for themselves” in terms of benefits while at the same time making exploration easier. For example, FTD1, the advanced Solar electric propulsion and lightweight solar panel demonstration mission does a number of things all in 1 mission:
– helps us start developing a space tug (the vehicle that delivers the SEP demonstrator)
– demonstrates technology that’s of interest to the military (i.e. it delivers near-term national security benefits) — the solar array technology was developed by DARPA
– demonstrates some autonomous rendezvous capabilities
– demonstrates technology that can feed into more ambitious technology rounds later to enable fast astronaut trips (gathering engineering data during demonstrations that will be useful for operational missions)
– demonstrates technology that can, in the sort term, enable efficient delivery of cargo for astronauts
– demonstrates technology that can be used by various commercial and government satellite missions
– sends science instruments to Mars/Phobos/Deimos as a side benefit
In other words, it provides multiple benefits – not just to HSF exploration, but also for many other interests. These benefits are solid and easy to maintain once gained. The other technology demonstration missions are similar in that they all not only advance HSF, but also give other benefits right away.
This is how to make real progress, not self-referencing mega-projects that are expensive to develop and maintain, and that eventually get shut down.
Spaceboy,
So basically the people who argue that the Boeings and LM corporate machines need to make way for new space, don’t realize they are just really switching vendors, not creating a “true†commercial market.
I disagree with this. SpaceX developed its own rocket on its own dime and started signing contracts for launch services. This is new, this hasn’t happened before. They have rockets that have reached orbit, and a manufacturing facility and contracts that will keep them in business for years to come.
One aspect of the VSE was to stimulate commercial launch service competition, and SpaceX decided to step up to the plate (it makes sense from a capitalist point of view) and based on its business plan and technical accomplishments, they won funding to accelerate the pace of developing LVs suitable for NASA missions.
Now NASA wants to buy launches from SpaceX instead of the Russians. SpaceX says “fine, we’ll do resupply to the ISS” for X dollars per launch.
I’m not sure how this is going to lead to cost plus contracts, but I am thrilled that I’m alive to see this major breakthrough in LEO access.
Interesting side note that nobody has mentioned:
There is no program. I mean Constellation is dead as is all of its projects. The bills even says the former Orion Project, that MPCV would be developed from that. So, what office will over see the MPCV and SLS? The shuttle was not just the shuttle, it is the Space Shuttle Program Office and it oversees and is comprised of the Orbiter Project, the ET Project, the SRB Project etc. Constellation was the Constellation Program and it was comprised of and oversees the program and the Orion Project, the Ares I Project, the Ares V Project, the Ground Ops Project etc.
Who/what will oversee the MPCV and SLS? If they are run independently, who will integrate them? More importantly, who will make sure they can be integrated?
Side note number 2 – Lori Garver has come out in support of the bill.
Bennett wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
“I disagree with this. SpaceX developed its own rocket on its own dime and started signing contracts for launch services. This is new, this hasn’t happened before. They have rockets that have reached orbit, and a manufacturing facility and contracts that will keep them in business for years to come.”
Actually, I think you are agreeing with me there. I said, Space-X has done it on their own and that is why I thought they would succeed in commercial crew with or without NASA financing. But you are right, the NASA backing will help accelerate their development which is definitely good for us. I think Space-X is the exception though, not the rule. Orbital will get there with cargo, but right now, Orbital has no manned capsule plans. Rutan did sub-orbital without any government assitance at all.
Spaceboy wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
“Side note number 2 – Lori Garver has come out in support of the bill.”
I’m sure the White House is trying to figure out what they can accomplish before the elections, and if Garver is coming out in favor of this, then that would seem to indicate the WH is willing to compromise in order to line up potential Republican votes on whatever bill this ends up in.
As we’ve seen, except for Constellation (which had no supporters), everyone gets a compromise. I’m not saying that the end result does anything cohesive, but that the stakeholders can go home and declare victory.
Political sausage making…
“It’s all kind of funny. The same people who thought that R&D projects with nebulous deadlines and platitudes”
They weren’t nebulous or platitudes. The flaship demonstrations, for example, consisted of six discrete flight validation missions — a Automated/Autonomous Rendezvous & Docking Vehicle, a Solar Electric Propulsion Stage, a Cryogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer Mission, an Inflatable Module Mission, an Environment Control and Life Support demo, and a Aerocapture, Entry, Descent & Landing demo — with deadlines leading to a 2015 decision on an architecture that would get BEO by 2020, a NEO by 2025, and Mars by the 2030s. Any idiot who bothered to just thumb through the presentations at ESMD’s May workshop could have figured this out.
nasa.gov/exploration/new_space_enterprise/home/workshop_home.html
Just because you refuse you read or are incapable of understanding what you read doesn’t mean that the things you refuse to read or can’t understand are nebulous or full of platitudes.
Don’t make stupid statements out of ignorance.
“are now trying to tell us that the SLS and Orion derived crew vehicle is an un-focused non-plan.”
It is. What are the targets? What are the deadlines? What are the key technologies that we need to understand to make intelligent architecture decisions?
These are very basic, first order questions needed to develop a coherent exploration plan. And they’re totally missing. Instead of setting policy direction for NASA, the authorization bill jumps into engineering decisions like vehicle capabilities and heritage.
And then there’s all the questions raised by the specific deficiencies in this authorization bill.
Why does the budget not match the technical content and schedule of the MPCV?
If the MPCV isn’t adequately funded to make a 2016 IOC, why have we taken funding out of commercial crew and also reduced its chances of making a 2016 IOC?
If the MPCV can’t make a 2016 IOC, then why do we need an SLS by 2016? Why are we rushing to create an HLV with nothing to launch?
Even if the MPCV can make 2016, it’s not going to weigh anything close to 75mT and there’s nothing in the budget for other exploration hardware. So why do we need a 75mT SLS? What is driving that requirement? Is it valid (based on our non-existent architecture, targets, and deadlines)?
Why (despite Nelson’s hypocritical statement that Congress shouldn’t dictate launch vehicle designs) does the bill assume Shuttle-based systems and the continuation of Constellation contracts? Especially when, per independent reviews, EELV- and commercially-derived systems can achieve the same capabilities for significantly less non-recurring and recurring expenses to the taxpayer?
“As Major Tom would say:
Goofy”
Physician, heal thyself.
FWIW…
I am curious, because you [Oler} generally seem to put thought into your posts.
It doesn’t seem that way to me.
Spaceboy wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
OK, so you did not contradict me at all – so why do you spend so much time reading and posting on web pages dedicated to NASA and human spaceflight?..
because I think that NASA and NASA HSF can be made a viable and useful tool for The Republic.
The trick is to get the policy right.
Look…ever wonder why the Colonials won the Revolutionary War (the First American Civil war) or why the US is losing in Afland? It is not because of the power imbalance, it is because effort without correct and viable purpose is useless and mostly conterproductive.
The Crown lost in the colonies (and we are losing in Afland) because we have no real political policy to make the effort have value.
That is true of HSF right now
Robert G. Oler
“…there is nothing positive to post about NASA HSF, the shuttle, ISS, Constellation, Orion,….nothing.” <- more nonsense.
“Human spaceflight has a future but it is more like aviation; ie making the country fight its wars better, helping its economy, helping the people. NASA doesnt have a clue about how to do that.” <- Utter astroturfing nonsense. But then, we know the source waxes for the days of the Great Waldo Pepper.
“The Republic has to many agencies like NASA human spaceflight…ones that are horses that eat, but dont work.”<- Nonsense. But it is amusing to watch all the splashing in 'denial.' This all pretty much went down as expected today. Shuttle presses on through the election cycle; Orion will press on and the HLV is on paper for the out years. No Congress will ever let the manned space program simply 'fade away.' This president will embrace the compromise and move on to more pressing problems at hand.
“Side note number 2 – Lori Garver has come out in support of the bill.” She’s never met any legislation with aerospace contracting she wouldn’t embrace. Freedom 7’s 15 minutes of fame did more for space exploration than Garver ever will. She’s a lobbiest at heart, nothing more.
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Thanks.
“Sec. 304 – Utilization of Existing Workforce and Assets in Development of Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle – In developing the Space Launch system, NASA shall utilize existing contracts, workforce, capabilities, etc. from the Shuttle and former Orion and Aries [sic!] I projects, and should minimize the modification and development of ground infrastructure. Requires timely and cost-effective development of the SLS and crew vehicle.” [My emphasis.]
Yeah like that’ll ever happen.
From “The Space Enterprise” by G Harry Stine :
NASA should not be permitted to become the operating agency for a space transportation system. Unfortunately as this is being written, this is exactly what is happening. But don’t blame the people at NASA; they are trying to save their jobs and their organisation because nobody has told them to proceed beyond the Space Shuttle. […] The very best thing that could happen in the next five years is for a private organisation to take over the operation of the Space Shuttle, allowing NASA to go back to the work they have proven they do best: exploration and technical R&D.”
Ace Books 1980
Synthesis:
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana “Reason in Common Sense” [1906]
Shuttle redux.
DCSCA wrote @ July 16th, 2010 at 1:44 am (et alia)
I think you’re in love! It’s the only explanation I can find for this fixation on one woman! Or perhaps just jealousy that this “lobbiest at heart” has had and will have: more influence on space policy in one day than you will ever have in a life time.
On to more serious matters:
Major Tom wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Concur My prognostication: #3 (See above.)
red wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
“We can’t afford the Senate committee’s plans on NASA’s current budget.”
Congress: “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Poor NASA. Meanwhile Sweden :0 is setting the benchmark on orbit.
http://www.weblab.dlr.de/rbrt/GpsNav/Prisma/Prisma.html
> Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
> First even under the best of circumstances NASA cannot do a shuttle
> derived vehicle for under oh 10-14 billion dollars (that includes everything
> and I doubt that they can do it for that).
>
> On the other hand, a knock off of the Delta IV heavy with some cute
> things like propellent transfer (going up the hill) etc will come in at far less.
>
> There wont be 2-3 billion a year for HLV development.
> As the deficit grows and the folks on Capital Hill finally get religion
> about cutting it…they will look for things that are going nowhere.
> HLV at NASA will be one of them…==
Senate and congress seem to disagree. First, the amounts of money you are talking about are trivial to congress – and NASA’s popular enough that folks don’t want to kill it. A NASA that not only isn’t doing anything in space of public note, and isn’t even building something here on Earth to later do something of note, is pretty hard to fund – and they want to be able to fund it.
> red wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
> I think one of the good things about things like the exploration
> technology demonstration missions is that they “pay for themselvesâ€
> in terms of benefits while at the same time making exploration easier.
> For example, FTD1, the advanced Solar electric propulsion and
> lightweight solar panel demonstration mission does a number of things all in 1 mission:
> – helps us start developing a space tug (the vehicle that delivers the
> SEP demonstrator)
To do what with? A tug isn’t a new idea that needs demoing.
>- demonstrates technology that’s of interest to the military (i.e. it delivers
> near-term national security benefits) — the solar array technology was
>developed by DARPA
So your demoing tech already developed adn tested by others.
>- demonstrates some autonomous rendezvous capabilities
So do the Russian cargo/tanker craft that supply the ISS and supplied MIr etc – back for 30 years?
>- demonstrates technology that can feed into more ambitious technology
>rounds later to enable fast astronaut trips (gathering engineering data
> during demonstrations that will be useful for operational missions)
Its old technology in commercial adn NASA use for decades. By the time we do sent astronauts to Mars, these versions will be as obsolete as the older versions used commerciall.
>- demonstrates technology that can, in the sort term, enable efficient
>delivery of cargo for astronauts
??
How ? Ion drives would be useful to ferry stuff to the station?
>- demonstrates technology that can be used by various commercial
>and government satellite missions
Actually they have been using this tech for decades – maybe this will be a better version (lighter or more durable) – but hardly a cutting edge advance.
>- sends science instruments to Mars/Phobos/Deimos as a side benefit
Thats new
> Bennett wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
>
> === SpaceX developed its own rocket on its own dime and
> started signing contracts for launch services. This is new, this
> hasn’t happened before. ==
Its also kind of trivia.
>== They have rockets that have reached orbit, and a manufacturing
> facility and contracts that will keep them in business for years to come.
The years to come part is far from certain.
> Major Tom wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
> The flaship demonstrations, for example, consisted of six discrete
> flight validation missions
really, if you going to call something flagship – it should be new and innovative or something
> == — a Automated/Autonomous Rendezvous & Docking Vehicle,
IE a test craft to demostrate we can do experimentally what the Russians have been doing operationally since the ‘70’s. That’s not innovation – that’s embarrassing!!
> a Solar Electric Propulsion Stage,
Solar electric craft have been tested adn used since the ‘60’s ( The first experiments with ion thrusters were carried out by Goddard at Clark University from 1916–1917)
A working ion thruster was built by Harold R. Kaufman in 1959 at the NASA Glenn Research Center facilities. It was similar to the general design of a gridded electrostatic ion thruster with mercury as its fuel. Suborbital tests of the engine followed during the 1960s and in 1964 the engine was sent into a suborbital flight aboard the Space Electric Rocket Test 1 (SERT 1).
Some commercial sats use them, Deep space 1 used them. Artemis, Hayabusa etc etc..
> a Cryogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer Mission,
Been doing that for decades to. Never built up a cryo refueling platform, but that’s not worth bragging about as a flagship tech demonstrator
> an Inflatable Module Mission,
Like the Genesis modules Bigelow has had up for a couple years?
> an Environment Control and Life Support demo,
NASA’s studied and built demos of these for decades to.
> and a Aerocapture, Entry, Descent & Landing demo — ==
Hows this to differ from normal reentry, or previous aero capture tests?
brobof wrote @ July 16th, 2010 at 6:00 am <- Uh, no, she's just not good for the future of space exploration.
but it is not fair to say she [Garver] is not interested in human spaceflight. <- She's not.