Congress, NASA

Senate committee makes quick work of NASA appropriations bill

On Thursday the full Senate Appropriations Committee approved a Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill, just a day after the CJS subcommittee marked up the bill in a brief session. The text of the legislation is not yet available but the summary of the legislation released by the committee included this discussion of the NASA section of the bill:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) – The bill provides $19 billion for NASA, $278 million above the Fiscal Year 2010 level and equal to the President’s request. The total funding includes $1.6 billion for Space Shuttle operations; $2.78 billion for Space Station operations; $3 billion for development of the next generation Crew Launch Vehicle and Crew Exploration Vehicle; $5 billion for science; and $904 million for aeronautics and space technology research. The bill restructures NASA’s human spaceflight programs, providing for a new heavy lift launch vehicle and crew capsule for exploring beyond low-Earth orbit, extending the life of the International Space Station through 2020, supporting the burgeoning commercial space industry, investing in new technology development, and allowing one additional Space Shuttle flight, if determined to be safe.

During the hearing Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) thanked the CSJ subcommittee chairwoman, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), for adding $27 million for a flagship exploration technology program. “Candidly, I was very disappointed to see that the technology funding, which was the cornerstone of the president’s budget, is really substantially, some what say drastically, reduced. Exploration technology cut $502 million, robotic precursor missions cut by $80 million, space tech programs cut by $247 million. These cuts are going to cause 200 immediate job losses in my state alone,” she said.

“I acknowledge the validity of the senator from California’s concerns,” Mikulski responded, “but we face a very constrained budget environment, and also we started off the year with a very difficult presentation by the administration that initially canceled the human spaceflight program as we knew it.” Mikulski continued: “Working with Senator Shelby, we really did try to find a path forward that kept a balanced space program in human spaceflight, space technology, space science, and also reliable transportation systems.” She said she would be willing to work with Feinstein as the bill moves forward to address the Californian’s concerns.

Some senators hailed elements of the bill that support “development of the next generation Crew Launch Vehicle and Crew Exploration Vehicle”. “The funding secured today for NASA will ensure that America remains the world leader in manned spaceflight by jumpstarting the development and construction of a new Heavy Lift Vehicle, while also continuing the development of the Orion Crew Capsule,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) of Louisiana, home of the Michoud Assembly Facility. “This is not only great news for the direction of the space program but will ensure that NASA’s skilled workforces, in locations like Michoud, will be able to resume work on a NASA-built Heavy Lift Vehicle in the near-term.”

Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) also praised the bill in a statement because that new launch vehicle, he said, will use solid rocket motors manufactured in Utah. “This legislation is not only significant because it rejects President Obama’s failed vision for human spaceflight, but is also a major step toward preserving the solid rocket industrial base and thousands of jobs in Utah.”

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), ranking member of the CJS subcommittee, also supported the bill, while taking some swings at commercial space elements of the White House’s budget proposal. “The overarching point is simple: No so-called commercial space company has ever carried anything successfully to the space station, much less safely launch and return a human being. We cannot risk human lives or the entire future of the space program by deploying an unproven commercial crew concept,” he said. “The CJS bill solidifies American’s human space flight program by funding a robust heavy lift vehicle based on demonstrated technological reality.”

126 comments to Senate committee makes quick work of NASA appropriations bill

  • Matt Wiser

    Bravo. ObamaSpace is on life support, and glad to see a much better program taking shape. Alll the work on Ares and Orion will not be wasted as a result. And we’ll fly sooner rather than later. None of this “waiting until 2015 for a Heavy-Lift launcher” nonsense.

  • G Clark

    I almost gagged reading that. I think Shakespeare had it right.

  • Bennett

    G. Clark – ditto

    And we’ll fly sooner rather than later.

    Unless COTS and CCDEV is funded, we won’t fly a damn thing in an American LV until the end of the decade. Thanks for nothing.

    These clowns, Shelby in particular, could care less about HSF. It’s all about pork.

  • Solid Rocket Boosters are bad technology and are “line item pork” in this proposal. One might think, Utah being a Mormon state, wouldn’t want to waste so much money.

    Shelby actually speaks untruthfully, overlooking the big commercial space corporations in his home state to produce a “catch-phrase” damning any other corporations competing for NASA $$$. He’s a money grabber, his words are poetic fictions to justify it.

    Commercial will come from outside of the US and Americans will be riding foreign rockets for another decade with this bill and buying tickets to fly from the spaceport in the UAE when commercial blossoms.

  • Ben Joshua

    It will be interesting to see the conferees product, given the specificity and differences in the two chambers’ language and requirements.

    The long term question of course, is about money and time.

    When NASA sold shuttle and station to Congress, they low-balled the costs and schedule, and returned each session explaining why they needed to nudge up the budget and stretch the development time.

    Here we have Congress low-balling the cost and the schedule. When NASA has to turn illustrations and anchored ground tests into flying vehicles, how will Congress respond to reality? Can they dance the old dance at this scale, in these economic times?

    The change in HLV requirements from the mammoth Ares-V class vehicle to either the Jupiter Direct or sidemount SDV does demonstrate a fraction of reality. However, both Direct and sidemount appear to have a development budget exceeding that of a next version EELV with a 70 MT orbital capacity.

    This seems to be a difficult row to hoe for NASA. Boxed in to specific requirements and time, but underfunded by a significant amount, in a long, drawn out recession, and a coming wave of deficit cutting, how now?

  • Bennett

    Ben Joshua wrote @ July 22nd, 2010 at 10:25 pm

    renegade nasa.

  • GaryChurch

    Sidemount is on the way. I wonder if Oler will still be posting “SDV is dead” over and over when they are stacking the first Orion Sidemount in the VAB.

  • Major Tom

    “Alll [sic] the work on Ares and Orion will not be wasted as a result. And we’ll fly sooner rather than later.”

    These bills drastically underfund the Shuttle/Constellation-derived vehicles while shortening their schedules and burdening them with additional requirements. Even the non-industry press is picking up on this:

    “Senate Compromise May Be Setting Up NASA For Another Failure

    … NASA officials and space analysts warned that the government rocket created by the compromise eventually could end up in NASA’s scrap heap alongside other abandoned replacements for the space shuttle.

    The plan orders NASA to build a heavy-lift rocket and capsule capable of reaching the International Space Station by 2016. But it budgets less money for the new spacecraft — about $11 billion during three years, with $3 billion next year — than what the troubled Constellation program would have received. That — plus the short deadline — has set off alarms.

    Days before the compromise was announced, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden and Deputy Administrator Lori Garver told its two champions — U.S. Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas — that NASA could not finish the proposed new rocket before 2020, according to three sources present at the meetings…

    … Under the compromise, NASA must build a rocket that could lift payloads of at least 70 tons, including astronauts, to the station, which orbits about 200 miles above Earth. It also must be designed so it could evolve into a bigger rocket with a lifting capacity of 130 tons or more that could eventually attempt missions beyond low Earth orbit, such as trips to nearby asteroids.

    As an added requirement, NASA engineers must do all they can to incorporate pieces of both the shuttle, due to retire next year, and the now-defunct Constellation program. And in a nod to Utah legislators — who represent the solid rocket motor company ATK — the bill all but requires NASA to continue testing solid rocket motors, even if they are not guaranteed a place in the spacecraft’s final design.

    With so many conditions, experts have raised doubts about the project’s viability.

    ‘I am afraid that when they start to design it, the design will run into trouble and the next administration down the road will say, ‘This doesn’t make sense; let’s put a hold on it,’ and it will be [another] failure … and that would be terrible,’ said John Grunsfeld, a former NASA chief scientist and a five-time astronaut who served on three missions to service the Hubble Space Telescope. He also warned that using an expendable heavy-lift rocket to get to the space station would be ‘very costly to operate.’

    … ‘Even if you spend 90 percent [of what's necessary] to build a rocket, you end up with nothing,’ said space historian Howard McCurdy of American University. ‘You can do that [to make it work] politically, but the rocket is going to end up in the ocean.’”

    orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-compromise-policy-20100722,0,3975954.story

    “All the work on Ares and Orion” will again be “wasted as a result”. And we will be flying again later, rather than sooner.

    FWIW…

  • Derrick

    “These cuts are going to cause 200 immediate job losses in my state alone”

    OINK OINK OINK right back atcha senator…now rename it from a flagship technology program to a flagship JOBS program and be done with it…

  • Daron

    @ sftommy – You say “”Solid Rocket Boosters are bad technology and are “line item pork” in this proposal. One might think, Utah being a Mormon state, wouldn’t want to waste so much money”

    You are way off SFTOMMY – Solid Rocket Boosters are such a great technology that the DOD uses them for our Nucleaer Deterence Fleet. If it works for our Nuclear Aresenal, it works for me! There is no PORK! Solid Rocket Boosters are a safe, simple system!!!

  • Hugh Mann

    Solid Rocket Boosters are a safe, simple system!!!

    You forgot soon! We’ll await for your cogent explanation of ‘inexpensive’ too.

  • Ironically, there is a “so-called commercial space company” that has delivered cargo and people to the Space Station.

    Their name is RSC Energia.

    And the Senators have ensured many profitable years to come for that company.

  • Ya know, what, I’m gunna say something now that I think should make the people on this site shudder:

    almightywind was right.

    All hail the retard.. it takes one to know one and so who better to anticipate the wills of Congress.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Looks like a concerted effort to close down NASA HSF forever by setting them up for another failure. The Russians are laughing all the way to the bank.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    $3 billion for development of the next generation Crew Launch Vehicle and Crew Exploration Vehicle;

    Anyone know the details on the above and how it fits with the existing programs?

  • Storm

    O’ler was right after all. constellation is over.

  • Well jeepers. I just learned that the Nelson Rocket is to be man rated (dunno how I overlooked this before). That’s just absolutely fantastic. We traded STS / Cx for Cx+STS 2.0. Have we learned nothing?

    It boggles my mind.

  • Dennis Berube

    First I applaud the decisions. It still has to get by the Pres though. If it does, our space program will continue until a time when commercial interest show they can deliver, both a man to orbit and supplies to the ISS. Solid rocket booster systems are simpler and less expensive to launch, first and formost due to their being reusable. Secondly they dont need all that extra plumbing that goes along with liquid fuel rockets, which saves money too. It looks like I might see an asteroid mission at least in my lifetime now. This is good as it keeps the envelope pushed as we progress into deep space. Maybe we can have a Star Trek future afterall. Read the Physics of Star Trek, the possibilities and the not probables. Go ORION…. Apparently Ares 1 has been salvaged too. Second launch this coming year. It still must get by Obama though…

  • Frediiiie

    In a speech at the ISDC (Chicago 2010) Jeff Greason said that he had “reason to believe” that closing NASA altogether was “…an option that was seriously considered in public policy circles in the last 8 years”
    He didn’t say in which administration. You can find the video of this speech on Youtube. Look at the 9:45 minute mark.
    The point he was making was that if the problems with NASA were not seriously addressed now then the coming economic climate would force change on NASA, possibly even the final indignity.
    The actions of congress and the senate bring this possibility closer.
    Personally i’d be sorry to see NASA close, but if it’s only ever going to be a pork program and not actually do anything in space…..

  • Oink, oink, oink …. None of them gives a damn about NASA. It’s all about pork for their districts. Shame on the lot of them.

  • Frediiiie

    After all it doesn’t matter if congress and the senate have seriously under-funded both Orion and the Heavy Lift. If NASA fails again it is NASA that will be blamed, not the politicans.

  • The Pork Parade continues unabated. Obama won’t be able to veto the compromise bill that comes out of reconciliation because the NASA budget isn’t the main bill, it’s just a rider that’s attached to the DoD and Homeland Security budgets.

    And yup, Energiya and quite possibly the ESA will be quite happy until 2020 since they will be launching manned missions on Soyuz from French Guyana in a couple of years.

    Who says our Congress is anti-globalist? :p

  • amightywind

    Congress is doing the right thing in overruling the President. All fans of NASA HSF owe Senator Shelby and Barbara Mukulski their gratitude.

    Trent Waddington wrote:

    almightywind was right.

    I am right because I don’t confuse what I want with the prevailing forces in congress and the government as most of you do. Now, with the silliness of Obama resolved, onward to the next Ares I test flight!

  • Dennis Berube

    Gentlemen, lets not forget the militaries stake in the space program! If NASA were to be shut down altogether, another perhaps more military space program would probably follow! The military will not leave the high ground, so to speak, to the Russians and now Chinese military! Should a military program evolve, then we would not even know of the advances science is making because it would hushed from our public eyes. I think NASA will remain as the go between military interest and science.

  • Robert G. Oler

    allowing one additional Space Shuttle flight, if determined to be safe. …

    as I said the LON is not a done deal on the Senate version

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Dennis Berube wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 8:23 am

    The military will not leave the high ground, so to speak, to the Russians and now Chinese military! ..

    goofy …space is not “the high ground”…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Frediiiie wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 6:55 am

    there are changes coming. If (and again he has to make his cost numbers) Musk gets 50 million dollars a seat launches and Bigelow gets spaceborne…the cost on orbit is going to fall into the “earmark” area in Congress. I know for a fact (and thats all I can say) that several universities in the US are exploring what it would take to get some “air time” outside of NASA on a Bigelow station…

    and that coupled with NASA inertia is going to be its problem area.

    The last chance for NASA HSF is to try and make this heavy lift work. If it is a Delta Knockoff (and thats what I predict it is going to look like) they probably can do it.

    That is going to be a Bolden challenge

    Robert G. Oler

  • byeman

    “onward to the next Ares I test flight!”

    That would be the worse thing for NASA and a guarantee that it will not go back to the moon. It will be saddled with another unaffordable launch vehicle with limited capability and will keep NASA in LEO for many more years. Ares I will prevent any HLV from being developed. Congress won’t adequately fund NASA to support both vehicles. The House version is worse of all budget proposals.

  • MrEarl

    If NASA goes by standard operating procedure there is not enough money to do the things they are tasked to do. The payroll has to be drastically cut. I would think a partnering arrangement with Boeing for the HLV would be the fit. Boeing came up with some very good plans for a family of shuttle derived vehicles at the AIAA conference in May.

  • So NASA says a ne2w HLV by 2016 isn’t possible on that budget. The engineering community is also saying it can’t be done and the Russians are ACTUALLY laughing at it. I read an article on the Russian reaction to the program and I could almost see them spitting their coffee across the table as they read it.

    Commercial doesn’t need the full Obama program funding to get to where it’s going. The government rocket does. So congress is approving another big, ugly, potemking rocket jobs program. In the end commercial will be online starting in 2014 and will add more providers to the list in the years following. The big government rocket will once again bloat absurdly, fizzle out, and die under the strain of absurd deadlines and pathetic budgets.

  • Justin Kugler

    amightywind is wrong.

    This alliance in the Senate was formed by Sens. Hutchison and Nelson and quietly pre-coordinated with the White House. Shelby was brought in line by using the HLV promoted by NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden as a carrot and the threat of indefinitely extending Shuttle as a stick. The constraints on commercial crew in FY2011 were actually intended to provide commercial developers cover from the likes of Shelby to move out strong in FY2012.

    Hutchison and Nelson’s staffers think the language gives NASA the discretion to use the configuration that is “most practicable” and does not constrain the agency to a particular design. If that guidance remains intact, I think we have a shot at making this work.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 9:21 am

    If NASA goes by standard operating procedure there is not enough money to do the things they are tasked to do. ..

    you finally figured it out…and now you understand why the HLV is not going to be shuttle derived.

    Boeing came up with some good plans for a SDV but that plan doesnt have a chance of reducing operations cost or the number of bodies…in the development stage, much less as they try and fly it.

    Where the HLV will go, if BOlden continues (and I think he will) to pursue the Obama plan…is more toward a Delta IV really heavy rather then a Shuttle derived one. So far I have seen nothing in the Senate bill other the “where practical” and a lot of other weasal words that force a SDV on the development process.

    It is going to take a year or so to “design” the thing, and in the meantime Constellations workforce goes under as does the shuttle…then a SDV becomes more or less impossible.

    This is why I have not been worried about the policy. In the end Musk (and probably OSC and Boeing) can see internally what I see. NASA couldnt hit the ground with a book technically or from a management standpoint, exploration will die because of that…and yet commercial will work the same magic it has always worked in terms of making an affordable product (not a project).

    In the meantime universities and a lot of other people are looking what they can do with 50 million dollar a seat access to ISS and eventually Bigelow.

    it is a great day unfolding.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Justin Kugler wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 9:37 am

    you nailed it

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    Robert Older wrote:

    The last chance for NASA HSF is to try and make this heavy lift work. If it is a Delta Knockoff (and thats what I predict it is going to look like) they probably can do it.

    It will be shuttle derived. Bet on it. I wouldn’t be surprised if they used the RS-68 however. You will be shuttle derived tankage and the use of ATK SRBs. Why? They are man rated, reliable, powerful, and have a supporting workforce that congress wishes to preserve.

    That is going to be a Bolden challenge

    Bolden is a cipher. Do not expect technical leadership at all. To date all we have seen is the administration party line. It will be interesting to see if he obstructs the congressional directives. Bolden and his friends (Lori Garver) must be walking the halls red faced this morning. Their adversaries within NASA management will be emboldened.

    Space is the high ground. Although we don’t use it to ‘drop nuclear bombs like dropping rocks off of a high way overpass’, in the words of Lyndon Johnson, it is absolutely critical to the US military.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Frediiiie wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 6:55 am
    >
    > In a speech at the ISDC (Chicago 2010) Jeff Greason said that he
    > had “reason to believe” that closing NASA altogether was “…an option
    > that was seriously considered in public policy circles in the last 8 years”==

    That was one of the reasons for VSE. It was hoped if NASA was given a big goal, they would shape up and get their act together. Griffens responce with Constellation pretty much killed that hope in DC!

  • Kelly Starks

    > Dennis Berube wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 8:23 am
    >
    > Gentlemen, lets not forget the militaries stake in the space program! If
    > NASA were to be shut down altogether, another perhaps more military
    > space program would probably follow!

    The mil has a bigger more advanced space program then NASA already.

    ;)

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 9:44 am

    it wont be the Solids. They are far to expensive and labor intensive…

    What we are headed for is some knock off of the Delta IV heavy. It will use RS68′s most likely (although there is some talk of an F-1 knock off…I know Kerosene v LH) .

    I’ve seen a major aerospace company “rough sketches” that have some RS 68′s with Delta Common cores up to four on the side…with a new upper stage (probably the J-2X).

    There is nothing in the Senate bill (I have not read the house) which forces the solids…or forces NASA to preserve that workforce…which will die shortly as the shuttle goes away.

    The military wants a slightly heavier Delta IV that is affordable (for it) and that has some commonality with the Delta IV (which is likely to be the US military’s heavy launcher of choice as the DoD budget downsizes.

    Bolden is walking the halls a happy man. He has won ASSUMING that the whole thing doesnt ball up because of a deficit cutting tizzy that I think is enroute.

    As for space being the high ground. it isnt. Thats a rhetorical term which has little or no value in a gravity well where “energy” is the prime cost factor. It is critical to the US military and to our economy but not the same way as “high ground” is used on Earth.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Justin Kugler

    Bolden and Garver were part of this compromise, amightywind.

  • Martijn Meijering

    If that guidance remains intact, I think we have a shot at making this work.

    I’d rather see NASA get out of the launch business altogether.

  • MrEarl

    Oler, as I said many times before, the majority of positions for the SSP is for the care of the orbiters.
    SDHLV has been studied to 30 years, it’s time to pick a design and move forward.
    Delta V heavy is really the max for the Delta V program. After that we’re talking a larger CCB, new pads, new support structures, essentially a new launcher.
    I think Boeing sees that the SDHLV and the Delta V super heavy have some similarities. It gives Boeing access to 8.5 meter tanking in Michoud and launch pads at Complex 39.

    A Boeing / NASA joint venture would be a win all around.

  • Oops. Space on the brain. That should be spasibo…

  • amightywind

    Delta V [sic] heavy is really the max for the Delta V program. After that we’re talking a larger CCB, new pads, new support structures, essentially a new launcher.

    Correct. If there is additional Delta work the requirement will come from the Air Force. Congress has already telegraphed that the new launchers will be shuttle derived, end of story. It is not a only a question of technical merit, but of politics as well. Congress does not want to scatter the shuttle workforce to the four winds. Michaud, ATK, Huntsville, JSC and the regular cast of shuttle characters will be central.

  • Justin Kugler

    So would I, Martijn, but that may have been a step too far for Congress to swallow at this point.

  • GaryChurch

    From Spacibo;
    “If this bill becomes law, the Russians will be getting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in the coming years for a service that could have been provided by private American companies.”

    Well, that’s a blatant misinterpretation- you call yourself a journalist?
    As has been pointed out so many times by your cronies, the Russians were always going to be providing seats until we closed the gap. And that was OK with the New Space crowd- as long those tax dollars were on the way for SpaceX. Now the standard wailing and gnashing of teeth begins.

    Of course no complaints that our heavy lift infrastructure was being dismantled in favor of a cheap kerosene cluster monstrosity.
    Sidemount is on the way- the Shannon proposal has obviously been making the rounds and everyone understands it is the only way to go.

    While Oler keeps posting “SDV is dead.”

  • byeman

    “Michaud, ATK, Huntsville, JSC and the regular cast of shuttle characters will be central”

    Which will mean that any vehicle will be too expensive to operate and will financially limit NASA to LEO since there will be no money for payloads

  • Dennis Berube

    Gentlemen, the quickest HLV that can be derived is from the shuttle stack. Everything save the adaptive cargo module is in place. I think that a shuttle derived system is where we are headed. As to national deficeits, they have been and always shall be! Get used to it! As to Orion and what will launch it, still remains to be seen, although the mention of hardware related to the Ares program like Ares 1 might just survive. Also NASA will still continue to achieve many miracles in the future. Marvel along with me….

  • Dennis Berube

    So you dont think that space is necessary to the military? Watch and learn. Not the high ground, watch and learn. If the military has a more advanced space program than NASA, how come the shuttle has been used to place secret sats. into space? I will stand back and see what happens, but when you guys are watching a launch on the boob tube, that looks shuttle derived, dont be surprized to much. It will work…

  • Martijn Meijering

    So would I, Martijn, but that may have been a step too far for Congress to swallow at this point.

    Agreed, but that is why I actually hope the new SDLV will fail. The lower the amount of money spent on the SDLV the better, but of that money the more of it is spent on useless things like 5 seg boosters, J-2X, safety studies etc, the better.

  • Also NASA will still continue to achieve many miracles in the future. Marvel along with me….

    Yes, if NASA accomplishes anything useful with this plan and budget, it will indeed be a miracle at which to marvel.

  • GaryChurch

    “Agreed, but that is why I actually hope the new SDLV will fail.”

    And I hope the next falcon 9 blows up on the pad.

    Then we can just laugh about it over a beer, huh?

  • Kelly Starks

    > Martijn Meijering wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 10:05 am

    > I’d rather see NASA get out of the launch business altogether.

    Or at least develop cutting edge LVs, not just retro designs.

    But right now for congress it was fund a NASA HLV program – or effectivly shut down NASA — and they just didn’t want to do #2, or at least didn’t want to explain to voters this year why they put NASA down. (It would just play to well into the public perception that Obama adn Dems hate any sign of American “exceptionalism”.

  • “although the mention of hardware related to the Ares program like Ares 1 might just survive.”

    Read it again. They say pretty explicitly that Ares I/V are dead. What they are talking about is taking lessons learned from Ares 1/V, not the rockets themselves. The engineers on the Ares projects have said many times before that we’ve learned a lot in this process, even if the rocket itself is never built.

  • byeman

    “If the military has a more advanced space program than NASA, how come the shuttle has been used to place secret sats. into space?”

    There is nothing about using the shuttle as a launch vehicle that makes it an “advanced space program” and actually, the shuttle was not a good launch vehicle. Launch vehicles are not an indication of an “advanced space program” , the spacecraft that fly do.
    Congress forced the DOD to use the shuttle. Why do you think that there hasn’t been a DOD payload on the shuttle since 1992?

  • John Kavanagh

    No so-called commercial space company has ever carried anything successfully to the space station… – Shelby

    When will Decatur ever get through to this blowhard?

  • amightywind

    byeman wrote:

    Which will mean that any vehicle will be too expensive to operate and will financially limit NASA to LEO since there will be no money for payloads

    You are howling at the moon. The fanciful discussions of a utopia of unrealistically cheap, unproven, commercial vapor rockets is over. It met political reality. We will now reenter the post shuttle era that was underway before Obama brought us hope and change…except now the economy is a lot smaller.

  • MrEarl

    The real game changer for launch technology is Scram-jets. The military has an interest in seeing this developed, can do it on a quicker time frame and has deeper pockets that NASA. But I still think we’re at least 10 to 15 years away before practical vehicles will be available.
    Until then a SD launch vehicle family along with the Delta IV and Atlas V could serve NASA, the DoD and commercial interests. The real key to the whole thing is to reform NASA’s processes.
    The first step would be for NASA management and the Air Force to meet with Boeing, LM / ULA to determine the proper mix of vehicles and designs.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Or at least develop cutting edge LVs, not just retro designs.

    If they actually did this and pulled it off, it wouldn’t be so bad. But there’s a long list of failed Shuttle replacement projects. NASA is just institutionally incapable of producing an economical launch vehicle, let alone one that will reduce launch prices by an order of magnitude.

  • The real game changer for launch technology is Scram-jets.

    No, it’s not.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Well, it would change the game from one that reaches orbit to one that doesn’t… ;-)

  • MrEarl

    Ok Rand….
    What is?

  • Justin Kugler

    Martijn,
    At this point, the Senate is giving NASA a budget and a schedule. NASA has the responsibility to honestly assess what kind of vehicle can really be developed under those constraints and what kind of partnerships will be required to accomplish that task. If it cannot realistically be done, then NASA has to say so as well.

    The Senate bill at least gives us room to maneuver. The House bill does not.

  • byeman

    Once again, windy shows that he is completely clueless and doesn’t have one iota of knowledge about spaceflight
    “The fanciful discussions of a utopia of unrealistically cheap, unproven, commercial vapor rockets is over.”

    This is just another idotic statement from a charter member of the “Space Forum Troll Roster of Shame”
    http://gaetanomarano.blogspot.com/

    What the heck do you call Delta IV, Atlas V, Pegasus, Taurus? They are commercial rockets and are cheaper than any NASA derived vehicle. Also, as far as unproven, Falcon 9′s last launch was a declared by NASA as a success and now it is eligible to fly NASA spacecraft. Not to mention that the ISS is depending on it for 20 logistics flights.

  • What is?

    Full reusability and high flight rate. Which means (among other things) not heavy lift.

  • byeman

    “The first step would be for NASA management and the Air Force to meet with Boeing, LM / ULA to determine the proper mix of vehicles and designs”

    Already has been done and there is no need for an HLV, especially from the DOD and NASA science sides. The fleet of Delta IV, Atlas V, Taurus, Falcon are plenty to satisfy the nation’s needs.

  • Martijn Meijering

    @Justin:

    I just wanted to say that I read your latest blog post and I liked it. My contempt for Hutchinson and Nelson has only grown while my respect for Bolden has been diminished a bit, but I’ll think about what you wrote. You are one of very few people inside the Beast who are trying to change things from within and I have great respect for that. I’m depressed with what happened last week, but not despondent. It is still an improvement over what came before, however small.

  • MrEarl

    “Full reusability and high flight rate. Which means (among other things) not heavy lift.”
    So a aircraft fitted with scram jets to take a reusable orbital vehicle to 100k ft and mach 10 wouldn’t fit that notion?

  • Justin Kugler

    Martijn:
    I’m glad you liked it. I thought it would be helpful to share what I learned yesterday.

    My understanding is that Bolden honestly believes we need heavy lift to do BEO exploration. I don’t know why he thinks that, but he does, so he went to bat for something he thought was essential.

    NASA is going to have to change the way it does business to make either the President’s original plan or the Senate compromise work. The House seems to think lavishing the POR with praise and a little money will make everything better. We don’t get everything we wanted in the Senate bill, but I think there’s enough good there to build on.

  • Vladislaw

    “and the use of ATK SRBs. Why? They are man rated,”

    I thought that to have the nebulas term “man rated” the rocket had to be able to shut down after ignition? Wasn’t that one of the reasons the space shuttle was never man rated? Because it used the solid rockets and you can’t shut them down after you light em up?

  • Martijn Meijering

    My understanding is that Bolden honestly believes we need heavy lift to do BEO exploration. I don’t know why he thinks that, but he does, so he went to bat for something he thought was essential.

    I can believe he is honest, and I’d love to know exactly why he thinks it is necessary. To me it seems obviously unnecessary and even obviously harmful, which might mean it could be subtly true, but if so I’d like to see some evidence.

  • So a aircraft fitted with scram jets to take a reusable orbital vehicle to 100k ft and mach 10 wouldn’t fit that notion?

    Scram jets are a waste of weight in a launch system. Airbreathers are for cruise vehicles. Launch vehicles have to accelerate.

  • I thought that to have the nebulas term “man rated” the rocket had to be able to shut down after ignition?

    People who say that SRBs are man rated are simply demonstrating their profound ignorance of meaning of the phrase. Components are not man rated. Only vehicles are. And the Shuttle itself was never man rated.

  • amightywind

    Vladislaw wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    I thought that to have the nebulas term “man rated” the rocket had to be able to shut down after ignition? Wasn’t that one of the reasons the space shuttle was never man rated? Because it used the solid rockets and you can’t shut them down after you light em up?

    This is a canard invented by people who refuse to acknowledge the simplicity and utility of modern solid fueled motors. Help me understand, how is it ‘safe’ to shutdown a high pressure turbopump fed engine supplied by a high pressure tank during hypersonic flight? It isn’t. Sure, you have seen the Saturn V second stage engine out capability. In both cases when a J2 was lost (Apollo IV and Apollo 13) the vehicle narrowly escaped destruction. Truly moronic reasoning. The shuttle SRB has flown safely for 220 flights in a row. The only anomaly I have heard of was a single occurrence loss of redundancy of the separation ordinance. Ares I/Orion are designed to allow abort during powered flight. The engineers can’t do anything more than solve the problem.

  • Justin Kugler

    amightywind,
    I was in the Constellation Training Facility for eighteen months. I ran the simulations for some of the abort scenarios. If you call a separation from the booster an “abort,” I guess you can call that a “solution”. It’s certainly not a ride I would ever want to take.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 10:07 am

    Oler, as I said many times before, the majority of positions for the SSP is for the care of the orbiters….

    LOL

    even if that were accurate that doesnt change what I said, IE that the SRB’s are very expensive. As long as flights are under 14 a year it is actually cheaper to expend them and to redevelop them as expendables…NASA never would take that step, but when they were desperate to save Ares 1 they dug up the old numbers and found out quickly that this was the way to go.

    The SRB’s will go just like the SSME will…far to expensive and reusability is “nice” but for the flight rates anticipated not all that useful.

    What “might” survive is ET tankage…coupled with a common core attachment the “lift” is just about correct, and there is the “add on” feature of in flight fuel transfer to the “larger core” which would add to mass on orbit. Delta IV avionics are definatly where they are headed as the Delta IV control system (ie a lot less people).

    The military which is driving this wants a slightly larger Delta IV but with not much more cost…and if Charlie can put together the development structure to make it happen, he transforms NASA.

    As for studies…on the SDV they have always shown the same thing…cost are not much lower then the shuttle proper meaning high and the lift numbers not that much impressive. As Jim Chestek once said on the Compuserve space forum about a Shuttle derived vehicle”it is a turkey chasing a mission and not moving very fast”. (Jim’s book is a great read)…and Chesteks comment came when “I” was supporting in print and elsewhere a SDV.

    There are some things I dont like about the Senate bill, but all in all it is a pivot point for NASA and human spaceflight and I am very happy with it.

    The key thing is that it allows commercial ops to flourish and that is the change for the future. everything else, to quote the Good Baron is twaddle

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    If you call a separation from the booster an “abort,” I guess you can call that a “solution”. It’s certainly not a ride I would ever want to take.

    I hope your illogical reasoning is not typical of NASA employees. Your right, a 6G abort is unpleasant. Death seems the better option. I am sure the astronaut core agrees. So the requirement is not just to abort, but to keep accelerations under a comfortable 3G’s? Retard.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 11:52 am

    The real game changer for launch technology is Scram-jets. ;..

    no they are not.

    Robert G. Oler

  • I hope your illogical reasoning is not typical of NASA employees. Your right, a 6G abort is unpleasant.

    Ares abort is 14 g or more. It has to be, due to the hazard of the solid motor.

  • amightywind

    Robert Oler wrote:

    The SRB’s will go just like the SSME will…far to expensive and reusability is “nice” but for the flight rates anticipated not all that useful.

    This is space politics. The SRB and Lockmart Michaud constituencies are not going away. Your expense obsession falls on deaf ears.

    What “might” survive is ET tankage…coupled with a common core attachment the “lift” is just about correct, and there is the “add on” feature of in flight fuel transfer to the “larger core” which would add to mass on orbit.

    Delta IV cross feed has been a proposed for a long time. It adds weight and complexity, and for what? To reduce air losses in the lower atmosphere where LH2 ISP is wasted. Better to use a high thrust low ISP solution like a solid. Boeing already does this with Delta IV/GEM!

  • byeman

    Proof that windy doesn’t know what he is talking about.

    “Help me understand, how is it ‘safe’ to shutdown a high pressure turbopump fed engine supplied by a high pressure tank during hypersonic flight?

    Here is your help, you clueless idiot.
    It happens every time a launch vehicle shuts down its engines for staging

  • amightywind

    Rand Simberg wrote:

    Ares abort is 14 g or more. It has to be, due to the hazard of the solid motor.

    More pedantry from the master of the obvious. I would say, “It has to be due to the performance of the motor.”

  • amightywind

    Here is your help, you clueless idiot.
    It happens every time a launch vehicle shuts down its engines for staging

    So you equate the shutdown of a normally operating engine to one that may be malfunctioning badly. Amusing! But you aren’t thinking clearly.

  • Coastal Ron

    Kelly Starks wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 11:37 am

    But right now for congress it was fund a NASA HLV program – or effectivly shut down NASA

    You keep saying that the alternative to “X” was to “shut down” NASA. All Congress has been talking about is how to distribute the $19B/year NASA budget, not zero it out. Weird.

  • byeman

    “Delta IV cross feed has been a proposed for a long time. It adds weight and complexity, and for what? To reduce air losses in the lower atmosphere where LH2 ISP is wasted. Better to use a high thrust low ISP solution like a solid. Boeing already does this with Delta IV/GEM”

    Wrong again.
    1. Atlas HLV would benefit from the same thing
    2. No, RP-1 would be a better solution

    The use of the GEM has nothing to do with this.

  • Martijn Meijering

    So you equate the shutdown of a normally operating engine to one that may be malfunctioning badly. Amusing! But you aren’t thinking clearly.

    Rand, it was byeman who said that, not amightywind.

  • Martijn Meijering

    HA! Martijn it was amightywind who wrote that, not Rand.

    stack overflow

  • I would say, “It has to be due to the performance of the motor.”

    Of course you would say that, because it’s an idiotic and trivial thing to say. The performance of an abort motor is driven by the acceleration requirement. They don’t just find a motor lying around and use it, regardless of its thrust.

  • byeman

    “So you equate the shutdown of a normally operating engine to one that may be malfunctioning badly”

    Yes, it is the same process, clearly you aren’t thinking at all, which applies to all your posts.

    You clearly show that you do not know anything about launch vehicle engineering.

  • “So you equate the shutdown of a normally operating engine to one that may be malfunctioning badly.”

    The STS throttles up, throttles down, and performs engine out every single time it flies and if you pay attention during a launch they very distinctly note several points along the way where it would be safe to cut out one, two or all of the engines non-catastrophically during flight and return to a landing site.

    I’ll also point out that when the very first flight of Falcon 1 had a an egine that was ‘malfunctioning badly’ in that it was actively on fire, the rocket very easily and cleanly cut out on it’s own without even input from ground control. (as it was in an unpopulated area it didn’t need self-destruct systems like F9 did in Florida) So yes, I think the comparison is entirely valid.

    And once the engines are out on the rocket, propelling a craft attached to it to a safe distance is a much simpler matter than with an SRB where you are escaping an actively firing and accelerating rocket.

  • oh, and can we please stop with all of the name calling? One or two here and there is pretty much assumed on the net, but the level it has gotten to in the recent posts in this discussion is a bit ridiculous.

  • DCSCA

    “goofy …space is not “the high ground”… <- 'goofy' indeed. Yes, it is. But you go on believing it's not. It's amusing.

  • common sense

    @ MrEarl wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 11:52 am

    “The real game changer for launch technology is Scram-jets.”

    No they are not even competing. SCRAM-jet will never provide anything competitive with a simple rocket for access to orbit.

    ” The military has an interest in seeing this developed, can do it on a quicker time frame and has deeper pockets that NASA. ”

    Their interest is not in SCRAM for LV. Go look at the development from X-43 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-43) to X-51 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-51). Note the change in propellant. When they went from hydrogen to hydrocarbon they change (finally!) the plan for SCRAMs.

    SCRAM to orbit as a LV will not happen. Not now not ever.

  • Joe Silva

    Will a NASA designed rocket made out of Pork Barrels fly? Sure, given enough time and money. If nothing else the Shuttle stack and decades of heroic work by an army of NASA personnel and contractors show it can be made to work. This is great for jobs and morale but horrible for our competitiveness, especially in a time of extremely constrained budgets.

    How about this: Fixed price milestone based contracts with key industrial partners to design and develop an HLV and Crewed vehicle? No need to lay off anyone and no need to give them busy work. It would help the industry and keep our options open.

    But please, please don’t put off perusing the use of medium lift using existing launchers + new NASA designed and tested in-space reusable assets. Launching everything on a big rocket for use once is massively inefficient. We really really can’t afford to get much done that way.

  • Justin Kugler

    amightywind,
    It would help if you were a little more inquisitive, instead of just relying on your own assumptions. I said that I ran some of the abort simulations and wouldn’t want to take the ride myself. You didn’t ask why I said that. You, someone who has no knowledge of those simulations, just assumed I was wrong and insulted my intelligence because I was critical of your beloved Ares I.

    It’s not just the separation at high acceleration that’s the problem (and it is, some analysis indicated concern the crew could be rendered unconscious in an abort scenario and unable to help themselves if the situation deteriorated). In the sim, we observed a concurrent tumble of the capsule about the moment arm of the escape tower. That is what raised doubt in my mind. The crew would be lucky to come out with anything less than head trauma in those circumstances.

    I don’t much see the point in removing the crew from one life-threatening situation just to expose them to another threat, do you?

  • common sense

    @ Justin Kugler wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    The first time ever I read something real about the LAS. Thank you.

    Did you run any with recontact sim with the LV as well? As I remember we had to put so many Gs (~15/20) at some point that it was borderline against the “book” (cannot remember its name NASA 3000 or something). The tumble was a problem with Apollo as well if it is what I think you mean. It was at around max-Q that they had to impose a pitch rate on escape to alleviate some of those issues. But are you saying also that the stability issues have not been resolved yet. The LAV was unstable way back when and I thought NASA had come up with a solution, like the fairing to help?

  • Justin Kugler

    I left Cx in December 2008, so I don’t know what’s been worked since then. Maybe they’ve come up with something.

    I don’t recall having provisions for a contact model in that segment of flight. We certainly didn’t do any recontact sims while I was there. I guess we figured a recontact in an abort meant LOC.

    The tumble we observed was end-over-end, as opposed to a wobble or precession, if that helps.

  • GaryChurch

    “As for studies…on the SDV they have always shown the same thing…cost are not much lower then the shuttle proper meaning high and the lift numbers not that much impressive.”

    I would say the lift numbers are very impressive. Instead of lifting an orbiter with 20+ tons it will lift a cargo pod with another stage and deliver 60+ tons to the ISS. That is 3 shuttle missions for the price of one without the cost of orbiter maintenance and turnaround- and without risking any astronauts hauling TV dinners. A Progress with 2.6 tons of supplies, or an SDV with 60 tons. You are great with these math problems Oler, want to run the numbers? How can the cost be “not much lower?”

  • common sense

    @ Justin Kugler wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 7:41 pm

    “We certainly didn’t do any recontact sims while I was there. I guess we figured a recontact in an abort meant LOC.”

    Understood. I was just wondering if you were able to simulate a firing SRB while on abort and whether there was a risk of recontact despite the overwhelming escape acceleration. I don’t think I’ve ever seen or heard of such sim or whether it was accepted that the LAV would go so fast as to not recontact. One of the problem I see is that when the LAV is gone and the SRB is still burning, then where is the control of the SRB? Is it not in the Orion? If so what if the vehicle start chasing around so to speak?…

    “The tumble we observed was end-over-end, as opposed to a wobble or precession, if that helps.”

    Uncontrolled flip of some sort?

  • Justin Kugler

    I see what you’re getting at now. No, all of our models at the time assumed the capsule was pulled clear of the path of the booster.

    And, yes, it was a flip that was eventually righted by additional LAS thruster burns before it was jettisoned. We just questioned what state the crew would be in by that time.

  • Justin Kugler

    I don’t remember off-hand. I’d need to ask my buddies that still work in that area.

  • common sense

    As far as I know the Orion LAS does not have canards. The Apollo LES had canards yet the stability issue remained. Better with than without but still. But the LAS is very different from the LES much more like the Soyuz escape system. Except for one thing: The Soyuz has deployable flaps to ensure stability to move the center of pressure back. For some reason (ideological design?) NASA did not want any of that…

    Oh well…

  • GaryChurch

    “I don’t much see the point in removing the crew from one life-threatening situation just to expose them to another threat, do you?”

    If it is a life-ending situation I would prefer being the life-threatening one.

  • As far as I know the Orion LAS does not have canards.

    When did it lose them? It did when I was working on it, three years ago.

  • common sense

    @ Rand Simberg wrote @ July 24th, 2010 at 1:10 pm

    Well it did not when I was working on it 6 years ago (2005) and as far as I know still does not. I suppose it depends which concept you were working on…

    http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/LAS_Fact.pdf

  • common sense

    @ GaryChurch wrote @ July 24th, 2010 at 11:28 am

    “If it is a life-ending situation I would prefer being the life-threatening one.”

    Once again you don’t know what you’re talking about. Nor do you make the effort to understand: The proper function of the LAS was turning in a LOC (loss of crew). Yes proper functioning. This is what Justin is telling you.

    Then again you like sidemount…

  • GaryChurch

    If it is a life-ending situation, I would prefer being in the life-threatening one.

    The whiners looking for something to complain about keep going to the LAS on Orion and intimating that it is a bad thing.
    Absolute nonsense.
    I have been told I don’t know what I am talking about so many times by you neo-celestials it just makes me smile now.

    Now that it does not look like your dreams of NASA HSF being dismantled have been put on hold, you commercial crew fans do not seem to be good losers. The IFV’s (Inferior Lift Vehicles) are not going to get humans BEO- and everyone knows it.
    So….Sidemount is on the way.

  • Justin Kugler

    Gary,
    I’m simply recounting what I saw when I worked on the program. If you consider that “whining,” that’s your prerogative and I doubt anything I say will convince you otherwise.

    Considering that I was a JSC intern three consecutive summers, worked on Constellation, and now support the Space Station Program, I’ll presume you weren’t talking about me with your insult about “dreams of NASA HSF being dismantled”.

    I will say that everyone I know who works on Station is supportive of building robust public-private partnerships where it makes sense to do so. We’re already planning for SpaceX and Orbital cargo deliveries next year.

    No one has been talking about commercial crew taking over BEO exploration, though. None of my colleagues at the Commercial Space Transportation Conference in February were, at least. The folks I met universally said they expect NASA to lead and that they want to help however they can.

    I think you’re making some strawman arguments there.

  • Byeman

    “I have been told I don’t know what I am talking about so many times …….. ”

    So how many more times will it take before you realize that you don’t. The evidence is not in your favor. You rightly have a place on this roster

    http://gaetanomarano.blogspot.com/

  • GaryChurch

    I did not mean to straw man you. I apologize.
    Well, Justin, thank you for the civilized response. You must understand I am conditioned here by people like Rand Simberg and Byeman who cannot seem to post anything without calling someone a clueless idiot and put up websites with lists of “trolls” who disagree with them.

    “Hutchison and Nelson’s staffers think the language gives NASA the discretion to use the configuration that is “most practicable” and does not constrain the agency to a particular design. If that guidance remains intact, I think we have a shot at making this work.”

    So do you think Sidemount has a chance?
    Please say yes.

  • Justin Kugler

    I think any architecture with which NASA can close the business case – budget, schedule, and technical feasibility – has a chance. If sidemount can do that, I imagine it would be in the running.

  • Kelly Starks

    >>Kelly Starks wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 11:37 am
    >> “But right now for congress it was fund a NASA HLV program
    >> – or effectivly shut down NASA”

    > Coastal Ron wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 2:56 pm
    > You keep saying that the alternative to “X” was to “shut down”
    > NASA. All Congress has been talking about is how to distribute
    > the $19B/year NASA budget, not zero it out. Weird.

    Its hard even for congress to justify pork in a NASA no longer doing anything, or planning to do anything.

  • Its hard even for congress to justify pork in a NASA no longer doing anything, or planning to do anything.

    That is both true and completely irrelevant to the conversation.

  • byeman

    “and Simberg and Byeman, who cannot seem to post anything without calling someone a clueless idiot”

    If the shoe fits.

  • common sense

    @ Justin Kugler wrote @ July 25th, 2010 at 11:23 am

    “I think any architecture with which NASA can close the business case – budget, schedule, and technical feasibility – has a chance. If sidemount can do that, I imagine it would be in the running.”

    The cargo version of sidemount might be technically feasible, I will not dispute that. I will certainly dispute the cost though as changing the LV will impose to revisit traajectories, mass etc. Pretty much a new design.

    The crewed version is not good. It is dangerous as proposed by NASA with a LAS. There are so many issues associated with a LAS such as shock interactions on abort off-nominal attitude of course! If the LAV and the stack are say pitching at -2 deg and +2 deg on abort it would require quite abit of control to steer away from the LV. Not to mention aborts on pad. An SRB technical malfunction is now compounded with the fact that you have another SRB and huge tank filled with H2 and O2 in the middle. I’ll leave it to your imagination if it detonates what is going to happen. Or you may run an analysis and see how many Gs the crew will have to sustain to get away from it. Same issue on ascent, worse that Ares I clearly! And then all the venting will have to be closely inspected as if you fire the LAS near the H2 or O2 vents then what will happen? Then again it was NASA’s flawed concept to put a LAS on this thing! At least Buzz’s Aquila concept did not have a LAS (http://buzzaldrin.com/space-vision/rocket_science/aquila/).

    Oh well…

  • GaryChurch

    “The crewed version is not good. It is dangerous as proposed by NASA with a LAS.”

    It is a rocket. They are all dangerous. You are arguing against an escape system. NASA’s “flawed concept” has been studied in wind tunnels and computer simulations, tested and flown. SpaceX if going to throw seats and some parachutes in dragon and call it good?

    Your technobabble is of poor quality- “all the venting will have to be closely inspected if you fire the LAS near the H2 or O2 vents.”

    Length of post does not convince, it is the content. Most of yours is empty calories. “see how many Gs the crew will have to sustain to get away”; the human body can withstand high G’s for a short period without permanent damage.

  • Justin Kugler

    My response had caveats for a reason, CS. :)

  • Kelly Starks

    >> Kelly Starks wrote @ July 25th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
    >>
    >> Its hard even for congress to justify pork in a NASA no longer
    >> doing anything, or planning to do anything.

    > Rand Simberg wrote @ July 25th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
    >
    > That is both true and completely irrelevant to the conversation.

    That’s where NASA under Obamaspace is to all but the faithful.

  • That’s where NASA under Obamaspace is to all but the faithful.

    No, it’s where it is to those who can’t read a budget.

  • Kelly Starks

    >> That’s where NASA under Obamaspace is to all but the faithful.

    > Rand Simberg wrote @ July 26th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
    >
    > No, it’s where it is to those who can’t read a budget.

    You can pour all the money on something you like, but if you already gutted out, its still dead.

    A NASA that doesn’t send folks anywhere, has no project in work to send someone anywhere, is in a public sense out of business. Doing that and keeping the budget the same is just going to further enrage the public.

  • A NASA that doesn’t send folks anywhere, has no project in work to send someone anywhere, is in a public sense out of business.

    Again, this is true, but has no relevance to the present policy discussion.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Rand Simberg wrote @ July 26th, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    > == Again, this is true, but has no relevance to the present policy discussion.

    Its the Obamaspace plan, which seems relivent.

  • Its the Obamaspace plan, which seems relivent.

    No, it’s not, regardless of how often you repeat this nonsense, whether it’s “rilivent” or relevant.

  • Kelly Starks

    >> Its the Obamaspace plan, which seems relevant.

    > Rand Simberg wrote @ July 26th, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    > No, it’s not, regardless of how often you repeat this nonsense==

    Who am I to challenge your faith, which you hold regardless of evidence, or lack there of.

    To the point, the public and Congress are not going to buy it you’re way. Congress has seen to many “long term studies” deliver nothing, they have seen to many reports and studies telling them to expect no more in such cases in the future.

    The headlines are NASA abandons moon program and grounds shuttle, and buys tickets on Russian craft to get to the ISS. I.E. NASA stops flying people or being a space program.

    No future programs to or past LEO in work.

  • Who am I to challenge your faith, which you hold regardless of evidence, or lack there of.

    No, it’s not “regardless of the evidence.” It’s because I know how to read a budget, and take the time to do so, instead of indulging in ignorant hysteria.

    To the point, the public and Congress are not going to buy it you’re way.

    That’s a separate issue.

    No future programs to or past LEO in work.

    There would have been if Congress had simply passed the Obama budget, instead of engaging in a wasteful porkfest that just kicks the can down the road. There may still be yet, but no thanks to Congress.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Rand Simberg wrote @ July 26th, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    >> Who am I to challenge your faith, which you hold regardless
    >> of evidence, or lack there of.

    > No, it’s not “regardless of the evidence.” It’s because I know
    > how to read a budget, ==

    Ah ha.

    >> To the point, the public and Congress are not going to buy it you’re way.

    > That’s a separate issue.

    Not really.

    >> No future programs to or past LEO in work.

    > There would have been if Congress had simply passed the Obama
    > budget, ==

    That would be part of the Ah ha.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>