Much of the reaction outside Washington to yesterday’s passage of a NASA authorization bill by the Senate Commerce Committee was positive. “The legislation is an important, positive measure for our nation’s space exploration program that demonstrates fiscal responsibility, maximizes goals of the program and offers commitment to current workforce resources,” the Coalition for Space Exploration concluded in a brief statement. The bill’s provisions, in particular the immediate development of a heavy-lift launcher, “would allow NASA to begin human exploration beyond low earth orbit before the end of this decade,” said Explore Mars, a Mars exploration advocacy group, in a statement.
In places like Huntsville, Houston, and Utah that have been facing layoffs with the planned cancellation of Constellation, the development of an HLV that would leverage Shuttle and Constellation elements is something of a relief. “As it stands now, this bill means that there is a future for launch vehicle development in Huntsville,” said Tommy Battle, mayor of Huntsville, in a press conference after the bill’s approval. Charles Precourt of ATK told the Salt Lake Tribune that that the number of jobs in the region saved by the bill “is in the thousands”. And the head of the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership estimates that 80-85 percent of the planned job cuts in the Houston area will not occur, according to the Houston Chronicle.
People in Florida are less enthused about the bill, though, since it funds commercial crew and other programs at lower levels than local leaders desired. Frank DiBello, president of Space Florida, tells Florida Today that there are “good elements” in the Senate legislation, but hopes Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) in particular does more to defend local interests. “Now the stage is set and we’re going to have to look to Sen. Nelson and the Florida delegation to protect the state’s interests as we go through the hurdles of the appropriations process.”
Commercial spaceflight advocates clearly did not get all they wanted in the current version of the Senate bill, but tried to look on the bright side. “Thanks to Senators Warner, Boxer, Udall, and Brownback, American industry won a victory today,” Brett Alexander, president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, said in a statement. “But this legislation must be improved so that we create more sustainable American jobs, instead of exporting jobs to Russia. This compromise committee bill represents progress from the original draft, but there is still a long way to go to get to where the Augustine Committee said NASA needs to be.”
The whole “exporting jobs to Russia” comment is complete pandering Brett, and I thought you were above it.
Also: IT’S NONSENSE.
Since 1992 the plan has been to use the Soyuz to serve as lifeboats. Yes, that’s not a typo, 1992 (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/pdfs/history.pdf). Carrying crew to and from the ISS on the Soyuz has been the plan since the start of the ISS program, and it has been that way since 2000.
US commercial crew needs to be complementary to seats on the Soyuz.. if this framing of the issue continues we’re going to end up with people calling for the end of the US-Russian cooperative effort in space.
> Trent Waddington wrote @ July 16th, 2010 at 7:20 am
> == 1992 the plan has been to use the Soyuz to serve as
> lifeboats. Yes, that’s not a typo, 1992
>
>== Carrying crew to and from the ISS on the Soyuz has been
> the plan since the start of the ISS program, and it has been
> that way since 2000.
That doesn’t make it any less dangerous politically. Given its now close enough it could impact Senators adn Congressman (who all assume they will be in power in a year or two) its now a problem.
>== US commercial crew needs to be complementary to seats
> on the Soyuz.. ==
Thats a very strong argument against Commercial crew. I.E. if you still need Soyuz for a life boat, and costs more per seat then flynig up in the Soyuz – whats the advantage? Or, whats the advantage over just keeping Shuttle flying? (Flying crews on Shuttle – but using Soyuz as a lifeboat – is much more politically acceptable.)
Trent,
Brett is 100% correct. Of course Soyuz is the baseline plan. The question is whether we buy MORE seats for us and our non-Russian partners on Soyuz, or we buy them on U.S. systems. Kelly Starks prefers the much more expensive Shuttle to fly them. I prefer commercial ones.
It was Griffin who said that depending on Russia was unseemly. At least this Administration is trying to fund commercial crew so there is an early and affordable alternative, instead of the silly notion of using Orion and an HLLV for crew delivery.
– Jim
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 16th, 2010 at 12:20 pm <- Was doing a little re-reading on Soyuz over the past few days. It's really quite a versatile little spacecraft. Back in the day it was designed and planned for lunar flights- now it's everything from a 'shuttle bug' to a 'lifeboat'. The Russians have adapted it stamping them out like Volkswagens. And just like the ol'beetle– it's ugly, but it gets you there.
> DCSCA wrote @ July 16th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
>== Soyuz over the past few days. It’s really quite a versatile
> little spacecraft. Back in the day it was designed and planned
> for lunar flights- now it’s everything from a ‘shuttle bug’ to a
> ‘lifeboat’. The Russians have adapted it stamping them out
> like Volkswagens. And just like the ol’beetle– it’s ugly, but it
> gets you there.
The russians are losing the infastructure adn staffs – adn nkowledge base – to make Soyuz. Hence the nicreaseing near major issues no flights over the last couple years. Including old problems that killed a crew in the 60’s but long fixed,, reapearing.
And really – its a junky little ship.
> Jim Muncy wrote @ July 16th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
> Of course Soyuz is the baseline plan. The question is whether
> we buy MORE seats for us and our non-Russian partners on Soyuz,
> or we buy them on U.S. systems. ==
Note given the bill says the crew cary capsule much be avalible by 2016 — that pretty much closes the door for Comercial crew.
>==
> It was Griffin who said that depending on Russia was unseemly. =
As well as politically dangerous for NASA. (and I worry about future Soyuz safty, and ISS access asurity..)
@kelly “And really – its a junky little ship.” Yeah, for 40-plus years they’ve been flying junk – up and down. And you can have one in any color as long as it’s ‘green.’ It may be ugly, but it gets you there– and that’s really the point of it all. It’s done a good job for them– and for us.
Kelly Starks wrote:
Note given the bill says the crew cary capsule much be avalible by 2016 — that pretty much closes the door for Comercial crew.
Had commercial crew been properly funded — with MUCH less money than the MPCV and HLV — it would have been available by the end of 2014, according to public statements by both Boeing and SpaceX.
The question is, now, given the track record of MSFC on NASP, NLS, ALS, X-33, X-34, ASRM, SLI, NGLT, OSP, and Ares, what makes you think that HLV / MPCV will actually be ready by 2016? Because Congress says so?
Mike
Jim, that’s not what Brett said. He specifically pressed the “dey took err jobs!” button. That’s what I think he should be ashamed of. Russia has been a dedicated partner to the ISS program and pulling out of deals that have already been inked is what Brett is advocating, that’s disgusting.
Instead, Brett should be advocating that the ISS be fully utilized. With weekly or at least monthly access to the station by payload specialists the US could actually do the “world class research” that they promised.
> DCSCA wrote @ July 16th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
>> @kelly “And really – its a junky little ship.â€
> Yeah, for 40-plus years they’ve been flying junk – up and down. ==
> It’s done a good job for them– and for us.
Limited capacity, limited flexibility, real hard on the travelers, some concerns about how long you can make them – or how long before another loss of crew. We need more then that to do anything in space.
> Michael Kent wrote @ July 16th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
>> Kelly Starks wrote:
>> Note given the bill says the crew carry capsule must be available by
>> 2016 — that pretty much closes the door for Comercial crew.
> Had commercial crew been properly funded — == — it would have
> been available by the end of 2014, according to public statements by both Boeing ==
They already contracted flights with Soyuz through 2015. I’m not sure they would cancel the Soyuz contracts for commercial crew? Not that nASA ever worried much about walking away from contracts or agreements before though.
> The question is, now, given the track record of MSFC on NASP,
> NLS, ALS, X-33, X-34, ASRM, SLI, NGLT, OSP, and Ares, what
> makes you think that HLV / MPCV will actually be ready by 2016?
> Because Congress says so?
Really, it depends how adamantly they say so – though the fact NASA has no Shuttle turf to defend – would make them much more interested in finishing a launcher. In your above list –they were adament they did NOT want a shuttle competitor.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 16th, 2010 at 11:38 pm
Limited capacity, yes.
Limited flexibility, not really- it was originally designed for lunar spaceflight. It’s ended up being a pretty flexible spacecraft for a 40 year run. Don’t knock something that works. There’s nothing wrong with the ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ philosophy.
real hard on the travelers– So is travelling in a VW Beetle. It’s ugly, but it gets you there.
some concerns about how long you can make them Four decades after Gemini and Apollo ended is a pretty good run. VW beetles had a long run, too.
or how long before another loss of crew.- It’s been nearly four decades; shuttle has a worse record.
We need more then that to do anything in space. True. We need more cars than just a VW beetle, to travel about it, too. But Soyuz deserves high marks for getting the job done- the job being getting people up and down from orbit.
> DCSCA wrote @ July 17th, 2010 at 12:48 am
> Limited capacity, yes.
> Limited flexibility, not really- it was originally designed for
> lunar spaceflight. It’s ended up being a pretty flexible spacecraft
> for a 40 year run. Don’t knock something that works. ===
It don’t work that well, and they aren’t working as well as the used to.
>>== real hard on the travelers–
> So is travelling in a VW Beetle. It’s ugly, but it gets you there.
A VW crashing gives a gentler ride then a Soyuz
>> some concerns about how long you can make them==
> Four decades after Gemini and Apollo ended is a pretty good run. =
Yeah but the factories are running down and the staffs with their knowledge base are retiring or dieing. Quality is declining.
>> or how long before another loss of crew.-
> It’s been nearly four decades; shuttle has a worse record.
Actually Soyuz as a worse record with 2 crashes over 100 flights, vrs shuttles 2 over 130. And with quality declining….
>> We need more then that to do anything in space.
> True. We need more cars than just a VW beetle, to travel about it,
> too. But Soyuz deserves high marks for getting the job done- the
> job being getting people up and down from orbit.
Its not a elevator – a space ship needs to be able to do something in space, and get people and and gear there and do things there.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 17th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Its not a elevator – a space ship needs to be able to do something in space, and get people and and gear there and do things there.
Actually, essentially it is. Soyuz does do things. You’re too hard on it. It gets you there. Which is the whole point of the spacecraft, which is why it’s been flying for nearly half a century. A DC-3 is noisy, uncomfortable plane by todays standards as well but plenty are still flying because they’re useful and perform a basic service. So does Soyuz. The Russians deserve credit for keeping them flying through the turmoil of change they’ve endured. They’ve got a reliable ‘blood-and-guts’ system that works for them– works well enough to sell seats for trips up and down– and well enough to ‘sell’ the base design to China. A VW beetle is a spartan ride, and it’s ugly, but it gets you there. So does Soyuz. The United States should have developed a similar-styled ‘up-down’ vehicle– or just kept stamping out Gemini-styled vehicles.
More of a fan of Bolden’s proposal to have what’s essentially an Ares IV ready in 2018. It could eventually be turned into something like an Ares V.
Kelly Starks,
Yeah but the factories are running down and the staffs with their knowledge base are retiring or dieing. Quality is declining.
it would be really great if you could provide some references for the decline of this infrastructure.. cause otherwise you are just slandering them and we have to assume you have an ulterior motive.
Actually Soyuz as a worse record with 2 crashes over 100 flights, vrs shuttles 2 over 130. And with quality declining….
Oh, I see, you do have ulterior motive.. this is simply false.
Clarification of my earlier post:
What I’d really be a fan of is something like an Ares IV, but with no SRBs. Can we say Saturn INT-20? When we’re ready to launch cargo, strap a couple SRBs on and make it an Ares IV. When we’re ready for more cargo, swap out the upper stage and make it an Ares V.
Inline. Liquid-fueled. Evolutionary.
(Credit goes to Ryan Crierie for mentioning the INT-20.)
>DCSCA wrote @ July 17th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
>> Kelly Starks wrote @ July 17th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
>> Its not a elevator – a space ship needs to be able to do something in
>> space, and get people and and gear there and do things there.
> Actually, essentially it is. Soyuz does do things. You’re too hard on it.
> It gets you there. Which is the whole point of the spacecraft, ==
;/
Its stil a POS
>== which is why it’s been flying for nearly half a century. ==
Its been flying that long because the Soviets/Russian’s can’t afford to replace it – and never wanted to do much in space. We used to – so we built a much more capable – and a bit safer – craft. If we never wanted to do anything – we’ld have stuck to Geminis.
> Trent Waddington wrote @ July 17th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
>>Kelly Starks,
>> Yeah but the factories are running down and the staffs
>>with their knowledge base are retiring or dieing. Quality is declining.
> it would be really great if you could provide some references
> for the decline of this infrastructure..
You could read the James Oberg article from his site. Or notice the Soyuz has started to have problems, like the one a couple flights ago where the SM wasn’t releasing due to a latch problem. They lost a guy that way early in the soyuz history. I also remember a case where it released so late the Soyuz was starting reentry. With the SM still on, it was coming nose first, and the crew was smelling the gasets around the hatch burning, then the SM released and it flipped over and it landed pretty much ok.
Also had a flight reenterabit off and wound up landing in the wrong place.
>> Actually Soyuz as a worse record with 2 crashes over
>> 100 flights, vrs shuttles 2 over 130. And with quality declining….
> Oh, I see, you do have ulterior motive.. this is simply false.
No Trent, 2 out of 100, really is more then 2 out of 130.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 17th, 2010 at 11:06 pm Inaccurate. You best do some reading up on Soyuz. they lost Komarov on the first mission in ’67 and the three Salyut crewmen because they did not know how to manually close a valve as the air bled out of their vehicle during reentry. If you know of more fatalities w/Soyuz and lost vehicles, please feel free to share. But it has served them well given the political and economic pressures of the past 50 years.
Seriously – I’m finding this admiration for Soyuz, or even Gemini, very strange? Soyuz in particular is a sardine can capable of carrying very little, the landings are so violent folks say they thought they had crashed. Soyuz is cheap given the Russian workers are hardly paid (when they were flying paying tourists the tens of millions a year was reportedly a big chunk of their yearly budget), but over here capsules wind up costing more to develop then far larger RLV spaceplanes (compare Apollo or Orion to the shuttle orbiter) , and of course the high cost and reliability/safety issues of flying a new craft always on its first flight, then throwing it away.
> DCSCA wrote @ July 18th, 2010 at 3:32 am
> Kelly Starks wrote @ July 17th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
> Inaccurate. You best do some reading up on Soyuz. they
> lost Komarov on the first mission in ’67 and the three
> Salyut crewmen because they did not know how to
> manually close a valve as the air bled out of their vehicle during reentry.
And that would be 2 crews, out of the 100 + flights, they lost.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 18th, 2010 at 11:18 am <- There's nothing 'strange' about acknowledging a robust and successful space program. If you want to banter 'strange' then it's 'strange' you'd be so critical, if not defensive, over any recognition of Soviet/Russian space accomplishments. It smacks of the kind of thinking you'd expect circa 1970. It's a program that works for them and they've been consistently conducting space operations since 1957. American space activities have always been reactive and operate in fits and starts with unnecesary 'gaps' that damage NASA's efficiency. It's just a different approach. So Soyuz 'thumpsdown'– that's how they designed it and it works for them given their land mass. The fact Americans are uncomfortable landing in them is sort of meaningless. They might not like cabbage soup either. Gemini was a 'simple' spacecraft by today's standards and economical in that stamping them out- or a variant of them- to ferry astronauts up and down a la Soyuz would have been a wise move by the U.S. while pressing on with other space projects.
And that would be 2 crews, out of the 100 + flights, they lost. <– Uh, that would be four people over 40 years — not 14 in 17 years as NASA has. Los of life aside, NASA lost two reuseable orbiters which is not particularly cost-effective, is it. You best revisit the history of NASA. It's long overdue for a serious house cleaning of weak, dead-wood managers and the trimming of layers of bureaucratic management. It was a leaner and more efficient/effective government agency in times past. This is not your father's NASA today.
> DCSCA wrote @ July 18th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
>> Kelly Starks wrote @ July 18th, 2010 at 11:18 am
successful space program. =
Actually I was talking about Soyuz or Gemini. But as to “robust and successful space program†It didn’t really do much or try to. (Limited number of space probes, limited LEO operations It has failed to update or improve its craft from the very limited ‘60’s equipment, and currently is under extreme pressure due to lack of funding.
As to Soyuz, its a very small, not very capable craft, that’s extremely brutal to passengers (how likely is a badly injured crewman being evac’ed on it – to be killed by the 10 G landing?), and was scary crude by the standards of the ‘60’s (Soviets were very embarrassed to let westerners see how crude it was compared to US capsules), and of course the US capsules are laughably crude by current standards.
Beyond that. Capsules are a high cost, low capability design configuration. If you need quick and dirty and need to fit on existing ICBM’s – its a compromise you might go for if you pushed. Its not a preferred design.
> == If you want to banter ‘strange’ then it’s ‘strange’
> you’d be so critical, if not defensive, over any recognition
> of Soviet/Russian space accomplishments. It smacks of
> the kind of thinking you’d expect circa 1970. ===
What’s with all this political embrace the Soviets/Russians crap coming from?! I started with – they have a crappy little capsule – and your jumping to defend the honor of their fatherland?!
Its a crappy little capsule. It doesn’t mater if the folks did historic or heroic stuff with it, its still a crappy little capsule. Its still a crappy capsule even if the Russian space workers are unpaid, and getting damn near no gov support. Had the gov been supporting their space program, the Russian space workers would have replaced Soyuz long ago. THEY think its a crappy little capsule, and a limitation on their whole space program. Had we stuck to our somewhat less crappy capsules, we never would have managed to do what we’ve done over the last 30 years, and certainly can’t do as much in the future with Orion, or commercial crew capsule, etc.
>> And that would be 2 crews, out of the 100 + flights, they lost.
== NASA lost two reuseable orbiters which is not
>particularly cost-effective,==
Humm – I wonder what the relative construction cost was between a 100 Soyuz , or 5-6 Orbiters divided by 130?
Dumb thought – how do you even compare costs over Soviet era and US? Certainly Apollo and Orion Capsules over as many flights would cost vastly more then the purchase and servicing costs of the Orbiters. Orions were hoped to cost abuot $200+M a peace not including overhead. Adjusting for inflation the 6 Orbiters (incase yuo want to count Enterprise as a full cost orbiter) came to about $110M per flight, well under $200M with preflight servicing.
Agree though NASA management is dangerously incompetent – especially given both accidents were traced to management errors.
>==. It was a leaner and more efficient/effective government
> agency in times past. ==
Ah, but then it didn’t have to play by civil service rules. No civil service agency can be competent because the system is not set up to reward or promote competence.
What’s with all this political embrace the Soviets/Russians crap coming from?! It’s disturbing how dismissive you can be of the success of others. Your criticism is more akin to a fearful competitor than a confident individual who respects the endeavors of colleagues in the same field. Bear in mind, if there wasn’t a Russian/Soviet space program, there most likely would not be a NASA — or a 41st anniversary of an American moon landing to recognize today.
@DCSCA wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 4:11 am
I find your attitude inconprehensiple. Their space program was a early inovator (though largely just for cheap PR). After a couple years they peaked with the Soyuz, which wasn’t top rate even for the day. And for well over 40 years they’ve put minimal effort or funds into their program. They do a few small scale efforts – etc. Not exactly pushing themself or their abilities.
Now Russia has some excelent folks, doing top rate aerospace efforts – but not in space. The new Sukoiu fighter looks to be more capable then the F-22, making everything but the F-22 (which we discontinued!!) as little more then targets. They build one of the best kerosene LOx rocket engines around, and are excelent at mathmatical analysis. They know how to build some excelet space craft designs — they just don’t.
Similarly I’ve been very straight forward about thinking NASA, though much more expansive then the Russian program, is also laughably backward. Claiming as cutting edge, or imposible, technologies they operated in production generations ago or continuously for decades. And Griffens “design to Pork” Constellation should have gotten him thrown in Jail.
But raving about Soyuz and the Russian space program as the model we should aspire to, is as crazy as GM deciding to base their new car lines on versions of the Edsel! Or IBM coming out with their next generation BetzMax based back up drives for PC’s!
If yuo think Soyuz (or Dragon or Orion for that mater), offer a great model for the future — your building a road back to the past with less and less usage of, and access to, space.