Congress, Lobbying, NASA

Nobel laureates and others push for restoration of White House NASA budget provisions

A letter released late yesterday signed by 30 people, including 14 Nobel laureates and seven former astronauts, asks Congress to restore funding for key elements of the FY2011 NASA budget proposal. The letter, directed specifically to House Science and Technology Committee chairman Rep. Bart Gordon, specifically discusses technology development, commercial crew, robotic precursor missions, and university and student research as key areas that require funding. “These are the key elements of the President’s new plan for NASA that must be retained in any consensus solution reached by Congress and the White House,” the letter states (in bold) in the introduction.

The letter makes several specific requests. For technology development the signatories ask that funding “be increased to levels significantly closer to the President’s request”. They also ask for full funding of the commercial crew development program and the CRuSR suborbital program, as well as “adequate funding” for the robotic precursor mission program.

The letter is particularly targeted at the House, whose authorization bill severely cuts (“substantially underfunded”, in the language of the letter) many of these programs compared to both the original budget request and the Senate authorization and appropriation legislation. “These investments,” the letter concludes, “will help ensure continued American space leadership.”

165 comments to Nobel laureates and others push for restoration of White House NASA budget provisions

  • To fully fund NASA for the missions its being asked to undertake:

    FY 2011 21,378,800,000.00

    EXPLORATION 5,970,000,000.00
    A. Multipurpose Crew Vehicle 1,120,000,000.00
    B. Space Launch System 1,631,000,000.00
    C. Exploration Technology Development 652,000,000.00
    D. Human Related Research 215,000,000.00
    E. Commercial Cargo 312,000,000.00
    F. Commercial Cew 500,000,000.00
    G. HSF-asap – (Atlas or Delta) 415,000,000.00
    H. Robotic Precursor 125,000,000.00
    I . Constellation close-out & realignment 1,000,000,000.00

    SPACE OPERATIONS 5,533,500,000.00
    A. ISS Program 2,729,800,000.00
    B. ISS Program-set aside for space life science 75,000,000.00
    C. Space Shuttle and related activities 1,609,700,000.00
    D. Space & Flight Services 690,400,000.00
    E. S & F Serices-SET ASIDE for Modernization 428,600,000.00

    SCIENCES 5,020,800,000.00
    A. Earth Sciences 1,801,800,000.00
    B. Planetary Sciences 1,485,700,000.00
    C. Astrophysics 1,076,300,000.00
    D. Heliophysics 652,000,000.00
    E. Suborbital supplement for C&D 5,000,000.00

    AERONAUTICS 1,151,600,000.00
    A. Aeronautics Reserach 579,600,000.00
    B. Related Space Technologies Dev 572,000,000.00

    EDUCATION 145,800,000.00
    A. EPSCR 25,000,000.00
    B. Space Grant Program 45,600,000.00
    C. Ongoing Ed Support 75,200,000.00

    CROSS AGENCY SUPPORT 3,111,400,000.00
    A. Center Mgmnt & Ops 2,273,800,000.00
    B. Agency Mgmnt & Ops 837,600,000.00

    CONSTRUCTION 407,300,000.00
    A. Construction and Environmental 397,300,000.00
    B. NASA Lab Revitalization 10,000,000.00

    INSPECTOR GENERAL 38,400,000.00
    A. Ongoing Support 38,400,000.00

  • To fully fund NASA for the missions its being asked to undertake:

    FY 2012 21,038,985,000.00

    EXPLORATION 6,947,000,000.00
    A. Multipurpose Crew Vehicle 1,400,000,000.00
    B. Space Launch System 2,650,000,000.00
    C. Exploration Technology Development 776,000,000.00
    D. Human Related Research 215,000,000.00
    E. Commercial Cargo 300,000,000.00
    F. Commercial Crew 1,000,000,000.00
    G. HSF-asap – (Atlas or Delta) 100,000,000.00
    H. Robotic Precursor 506,000,000.00

    SPACE OPERATIONS 3,980,700,000.00
    A. ISS Program 2,984,000,000.00
    B. ISS Program-set aside for space life science 100,000,000.00
    C. Space Shuttle and related activities 86,100,000.00
    D. Space & Flight Services 720,600,000.00
    E. S & F Services-SET ASIDE for Modernization 50,000,000.00
    F. Post Shuttle Work Force initiative 40,000,000.00

    SCIENCES 5,278,600,000.00
    A. Earth Sciences 1,944,500,000.00
    B. Planetary Sciences 1,547,200,000.00
    C. Astrophysics 1,109,300,000.00
    D. Heliophysics 647,600,000.00
    E. Suborbital supplement for C&D 5,000,000.00
    F. Augment Explores Program 25,000,000.00

    AERONAUTICS 1,084,700,000.00
    A. Aeronautics Reserach 598,700,000.00
    B. Related Space Technologies Dev 486,000,000.00

    EDUCATION 145,800,000.00
    A. EPSCR 25,000,000.00
    B. Space Grant Program 45,600,000.00
    C. Ongoing Ed Support 75,200,000.00

    CROSS AGENCY SUPPORT 3,189,185,000.00
    A. Center Mgmnt & Ops 2,330,645,000.00
    B. Agency Mgmnt & Ops 858,540,000.00

    CONSTRUCTION 373,800,000.00
    A. Construction and Environmental 363,800,000.00
    B. NASA Lab Revitalization 10,000,000.00

    INSPECTOR GENERAL 39,200,000.00
    A. Ongoing Support 39,200,000.00

  • and for FY 2013 22,229,700,000.00

    EXPLORATION 7,425,000,000.00
    A. Multipurpose Crew Vehicle 1,400,000,000.00
    B. Space Launch System 2,650,000,000.00
    C. Exploration Technology Developement 1,060,000,000.00
    D. Human Related Research 215,000,000.00
    E. Commercial Cargo 300,000,000.00
    F. Commercial Crew 1,000,000,000.00
    G. HSF-asap – (Atlas or Delta) 100,000,000.00
    H. Robotic Precursor 700,000,000.00

    SPACE OPERATIONS 4,043,300,000.00
    A. ISS Program 3,129,400,000.00
    B. ISS Program-set aside for space life science 100,000,000.00
    C. Space & Flight Services 723,900,000.00
    D. S & F Serices-SET ASIDE for Modernization 50,000,000.00
    E. Post Shuttle Work Force initiative 40,000,000.00

    SCIENCES 5,564,500,000.00
    A. Earth Sciences 2,089,500,000.00
    B. Planetary Sciences 1,591,200,000.00
    C. Astrophysics 1,149,100,000.00
    D. Heliophysics 674,700,000.00
    E. Suborbital supplement for C&D 5,000,000.00
    F. Augment Explores Program 55,000,000.00

    AERONAUTICS 1,357,400,000.00
    A. Aeronautics Research 609,400,000.00
    B. Related Space Technologies Dev 748,000,000.00

    EDUCATION 145,700,000.00
    A. EPSCR 25,000,000.00
    B. Space Grant Program 45,600,000.00
    C. Ongoing Ed Support 75,100,000.00

    CROSS AGENCY SUPPORT 3,276,800,000.00
    A. Center Mgmnt & Ops 2,394,600,000.00
    B. Agency Mgmnt & Ops 882,200,000.00

    CONSTRUCTION 376,900,000.00
    A. Construction and Environmental 366,900,000.00
    B. NASA Lab Revitalization 10,000,000.00

    INSPECTOR GENERAL 40,100,000.00
    A. Ongoing Support 40,100,000.00

    ************************************
    This is the three year budget Congress should be discussing for NASA as methinks this group would agree!

  • brobof

    Curses :) I was about to append this link to one of the threads where the usual suspects list the noteworthies supporting their side. But Jeff beat me to the punch…

    NY Times article.

    It appears some of us are in good company!

  • Mark R. Whittington

    The gentles who signed this article failed to mention the two fatal flaws of Obamaspace. Massive government subsidies of the commercial space sector. The abandonment of the Moon.

  • John Malkin

    I don’t have a problem with Congress funding a lunar program at the same levels as the last three years with a little extra. :)

    How much was going directly to lunar development and not transportation?
    Why don’t we keep the same HLV funding that Constellation provided? Ares I isn’t HLV development BTW.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ September 1st, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    “The gentles who signed this article failed to mention the two fatal flaws of Obamaspace. Massive government subsidies of the commercial space sector. The abandonment of the Moon.”

    two fatal flaws with your post.

    First it assumes that the Moon was abandoned, which is particularly stupid since there was no progress being made in getting there.

    Two it labels things as subsidies which are really products and (a third I guess) while the term “massive” is relative, the dollars spent on commercial products in terms of lift to orbit, would not even subsidize the Ares program for a year.

    This is typical extremist BS. You qualify something with a label that is as astonishing as it is inaccurate. You seem to have no problem with the Billions that have been spent on Ares development to accomplish almost nothing (and certainly no flight hardware) and yet are critical of the far less money that has gone to actually producing flight hardware.

    That dog use to hunt in the old Bush administration but it wont here.

    You use to be better then this. I guess the failures of the last eight years have scared you badly

    Robert G. Oler

  • byeman

    “Massive government subsidies of the commercial space sector. ”

    That is totally illogical to point that out and at the same time ignore that Cxp is also massive government subsidies of the the same sector.

    Someone making such comments discredits themselves

  • Matt Wiser

    In case these folks haven’t noticed, ObamaSpace is dead and soon will be buried. They haven’t learned the old Washington Adage that “The Administration proposes, but Congress disposes.” The original FY 11 budget is properly being disposed of-into the trash. The Senate bill is much more sensible, as it restores Orion and heavy-lift, specifically includes the moon as a destination, and reduces the funding for Commercial crew to a more reasonable level-instead of throwing money at them and hoping the Commercial sector would deliver. Those still advocating for the FY 11 budget’s original (and amended proposal) do not have the votes, whether or not they realize it. And that’s what counts in D.C.

  • Major Tom

    “Massive government subsidies of the commercial space sector.”

    Constellation spending to date: At least $9 billion.
    COTS spending to date: Less than $500 million.

    Don’t make idiotic statements out of ignorance.

    “The abandonment of the Moon.”

    The Moon has been “abandoned” since December 1972.

    Don’t make idiotic statements out of ignorance.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Matt Wiser wrote @ September 1st, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    ah the notion that if one keeps repeating something it must be accurate.

    As the layoffs keep coming and the shuttle infrastructure keeps winding down keep telling yourself that. As he left The White House Scotter LIbby was heard mumbling “there was WMD there was WMD….”

    Robert G. Oler

  • The Senate bill is much more sensible, as it restores Orion and heavy-lift, specifically includes the moon as a destination, and reduces the funding for Commercial crew to a more reasonable level-instead of throwing money at them and hoping the Commercial sector would deliver.

    Consensus with the House hasn’t happened, so this Senate compromise isn’t set in concrete yet.

    Besides, rumor has it the SD-HLV is cargo only, so don’t count Orion being launched on a DIRECTish vehicle just yet.

    Like it or not commercial crew is coming and don’t count your SD-HLV chickens yet.

    Think Delta IV Super Heavy.

  • amightywind

    Nobel Laureates? Like Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, Al Gore, and Paul Krugman? The influence of this bunch has declined since Climategate, I think.NASA must descope and focus on HSF. Let NOAA and NSF fund climate science and fund it less.

  • Vladislaw

    Matt Wiser wrote:

    “and reduces the funding for Commercial crew to a more reasonable level-instead of throwing money at them and hoping the Commercial sector would deliver.”

    So your logic is … give commercial companies adequate funding to provide a service is ignorant it is better to UNDER fund it at a more reasonable level.. so failure is guaranteed?

    Has that not been the clairon call for the constellation fans.. under funding leads to failure?

  • john G

    Little Tom – you know that there were a plan to return to the moon just a few years ago. That plan has been abandoned.

    I know that you make stupid comments now and then and I feel sorry for your stupidness

  • Ferris Valyn

    john G – the moon hasn’t been abandoned under Obama’s proposal – in fact, its more likely we’ll get there soon.

    If you want to talk about abandonment, lets discuss how Constellation was an abandonment of VSE

  • MrEarl

    Tom dose that all the time, throws out something that may be technically right but baseless in the conversation at hand then try’s to belittle you with a non-sequitur.

    Ferris, on the other hand, is an Obama water carrier too blinded by ideology to take an objective view of anything coming out of this administration.

  • Ferris Valyn

    MrEarl – I think I would classify you as a combination boomer & hater

    Actually, on other issues, I am quite critical of Obama.

    The problem is that you and other people tend to start from the assumption that there must be something nefarious underlying Obama’s proposal. It can’t be because he thinks this might produce a good space program.

  • vulture4

    I hope you guys aren’t serious with those jabs. Anyone who thinks NASA’s mission is exploration and that it shouldn’t be helping commercial aerospace should read “Engineer in Charge”,
    http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4305/contents.htm
    NASA’s (then called NACA) original mission was precisely that; to provide the R&D and funding for critical technological advances that would help the US civil aerospace industry lead the world.

    The taxpayers are simply not going to cough up hundreds of billions to go to the Moon, Mars, or an asteroid simply because we think its cool. All potential uses of space have a value and a cost, and there is no use for human spaceflight that will be practical without a reduction in cost of at least a factor of ten. This is only possible with fully reusable launch systems. Apollo was canceled because sending people to the Moon with expendable rockets was much too expensive to be of practical value. It still is.

  • The Moon needs to become an equal citizen of the robotic exploration program, which means landing a rover on it and doing some useful science, before there will ever be the right kind of motivation to send humans back to it. That’s simply the way NASA works.. the biggest problem with Constellation was that everyone was so concerned about building Orion and Ares that they had no clue what they were going to do when they got to the Moon.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Trent Waddington wrote @ September 1st, 2010 at 6:08 pm

    that is a well thought out statement Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 1st, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    Trent Waddington wrote @ September 1st, 2010 at 6:08 pm

    that is a well thought out statement Robert G. Oler

    I agree with both of you, at least on this point. Lets land some robots on the Moon and start looking for water ice and PGM bearing asteroid fragments.

  • MrEarl

    Ferris, I’ll admit to boomer in this context, although in general I have a very low opinion of most boomers, but I’m not a hater. Frankly, and I’ve said this a few times, I think Obama rates NASA very low on his list of priorities and for the most part left it up to others. That’s why I try to use the term administration instead of Obama. I don’t think there is anything nefarious about the administration’s proposal. I just think they’re wrong.

    Vulture4:
    That was 82 years ago! Things have changed dramatically in that time and it’s not very relevant to the situation today.
    Now for oler, 1928 is current events.

  • Bennett

    FWIW

    “dose” is not a word. “does” IS a word.

    Accusing someone of being “a water carrier for Obama” just because they want to build a HSF program using available technology, HLVs, and funds is really stupid. There are thousands of folks that didn’t vote for Obama who want something, anything other than the mess that was Constellation or the mess that a HLV designed by congress would be.

    That ranks up there with accusing Obama of paying off SpaceX with a COTS contract (when it was Bush/Griffin who inked that deal).

    You say that you aren’t a hater, but the “water carrier” comment contradicts your claim.

  • DCSCA

    @Tommy “The Moon has been “abandoned” since December 1972.”

    Hmmmm.

    1973 Luna 21 – Jan 8, 1973 – Rover
    1974 Luna 22 – Jun 2, 1974 – Orbiter; Luna 23 – Oct 28, 1974 – Lander
    1976 Luna 24 – Aug 14, 1976 – Sample Return
    1990 Hiten – Jan 24, 1990 – Flyby and Orbiter
    1994 Clementine – Jan 25, 1994 – Orbiter
    1997 AsiaSat 3/HGS-1 – Dec 24, 1997 – Lunar Flyby
    1998 Lunar Prospector – Jan 7, 1998 – Orbiter
    2003 SMART 1 – Sep 27, 2003 – Lunar Orbiter
    2007 Kaguya (SELENE) – Sep 14, 2007 – Lunar Orbiter Chang’e 1 – Oct. 24, 2007 – Lunar Orbiter
    2008 Chandrayaan-1 – Oct 22, 2008 – Lunar Orbiter
    2009 Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and LCROSS – June 17, 2009 – Lunar Orbiter and Impactor
    Planned: 2011 Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) – Sep, 2011 – Lunar Orbiter Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) -Oct, 2011 – Lunar Orbiter -source, GoddardSFC/NASA

    And, of course, Constellation was in work. Tommy, Tommy, Tommy….
    “Don’t make idiotic statements out of ignorance.” <- Indeed, Tommy.

  • DCSCA

    Quaint letter by the Nobels and ex-shuttlers. Of course the entire premise of their argument for funding commercial space is hinged on not extending shuttle. Quarterly or semi-annual flights make perfect sense as Orion ramps up and the world awaits commercial space to prove it can actually orbit people and return them safely. Commerical space knows where to go to get capital investment– the private sector, not the U.S. Treasury.

  • Bennett

    dose – other than a “dose” of anything, i.e. a measurement of course…

  • Doug Lassiter

    “@Tommy “The Moon has been “abandoned” since December 1972.”
    Hmmmm.
    1973 Luna 21 – Jan 8, 1973 – Rover”

    I see what you’re saying. At which point mankind realized that they didn’t need humans there to learn important things about the Moon. What was abandoned wasn’t the Moon, but the need to send people there.

    Even Constellation taught us a lot, though not about the Moon, unfortunately. More about project management.

    “the biggest problem with Constellation was that everyone was so concerned about building Orion and Ares that they had no clue what they were going to do when they got to the Moon.”

    Precisely. Nor do they have much of a clue even now as to what they really need humans there to do. Oh, fix the robots. Right. That’ll save money for sure. Sending humans out to fix robots.

  • Rhyolite

    vulture4 wrote @ September 1st, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    “All potential uses of space have a value and a cost, and there is no use for human spaceflight that will be practical without a reduction in cost of at least a factor of ten.”

    I would wager that it is closer to a factor of 100 than to a factor of 10

    “This is only possible with fully reusable launch systems.”

    Reusable systems are probably going to have to start out small and hence unmanned. To make investment sense they are going to need a market that requires lots of small deliveries to orbit – something like large communications satellite constellations or propellant deliveries – which doesn’t exist today.

    “Apollo was canceled because sending people to the Moon with expendable rockets was much too expensive to be of practical value. It still is.”

    Your going to make the fanboys cry.

  • Rhyolite

    Doug Lassiter wrote @ September 1st, 2010 at 9:00 pm

    “Even Constellation taught us a lot, though not about the Moon, unfortunately. More about project management.”

    A casual perusal of history would have taught us the same lessons for a lot less money.

  • Rhyolite

    MrEarl wrote @ September 1st, 2010 at 6:47 pm

    “That was 82 years ago! Things have changed dramatically in that time and it’s not very relevant to the situation today.”

    How much did NACA advance aeronautics between 1928 and 1958? A hell of a lot. How much did NASA advance space access between 1980 and 2010? Not very much at all – all while consuming several hundred billion dollars in funding. I’m not sure if the NACA model is right for improving space access but the NASA model isn’t working at all.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ September 1st, 2010 at 6:47 pm

    “Vulture4:
    That was 82 years ago! Things have changed dramatically in that time and it’s not very relevant to the situation today.”

    that shows an ignorance of history and technological development and I would add of the proper role of government in a free enterprise system.

    NACA changed the face of aviation…and aviation has changed the face of both America and the world. Without the relatively modest sums spent at NACA we would not have won WW2, won the cold war, had commercial air transport (of any type piston or turbojet), and had the economic boom that aviation has contributed to.

    We are 50 years after the first human flew into space still in the rather horrible state that HSF is in that it does not affect the American economy other then simple federal spending, because in no small measure we have concentrated on things which keep NASA HSF busy…and not technological development.

    There is not a single person at the JSC who works in human spaceflight who can really say that his/her salary is a force multiplier in terms of tax dollars. That is not true of the NASA that is the first A…even today, with not a lot of dollars the first A in NASA is helping the FAA change the face of next gen aircraft, investigating new technologies and proving design concepts and that is just of subsonic flight (from 100 mph weedhoppers to Mach .89 transports).

    The dollars spent on the first 50 years of aviation more then repaid themselves…and thats not true of the many more dollars that have been spent on human spaceflight.

    Next time you ride on a commercial airliner take a look at the wing. As long as it is a US airliner (and good chance even if it is an Airbus) you will be looking at an airfoil that is composed of “NACA airfoil segments”.

    You have made some really ignorant statements on this forum, you are way over your head here, but this is perhaps the most goofy.

    if NASA spending on HSF had done for humanity what the far less spending on NACA did in a the first 50 years of either place, we would not be on the Moon, we would have conquered the solar system and made The Republic stronger for it.

    Learn some history

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA, so you’d be against a robotic rover on the Moon? You’d say it’s worthless because sending humans is possible?

  • sc220

    Nobel Laureates? Like Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, Al Gore, and Paul Krugman?

    There is a big difference between a Nobel Peace Price and a Nobel in Physics, Chemistry or other science. Of course, I wouldn’t expect you to appreciate the difference.

  • DCSCA

    “NACA changed the face of aviation…and aviation has changed the face of both America and the world. Without the relatively modest sums spent at NACA we would not have won WW2, won the cold war, had commercial air transport (of any type piston or turbojet), and had the economic boom that aviation has contributed to.”

    With NACA, the sky’s the limit, eh Waldo… but then, history is not your strong point. NACA was dissolved in 1958- it assets of any value absorbed for better use in the second half of the 20th century into a new government agency– NASA, where manned spaceflight propelled humans to the moon just 11 years after it was created– and 66 years after Kitty Hawk.

    Comparing rates of progress between the fifty year history of aviation to the astonishing half-century of progress in human spaceflight is just bogus. A more honest comparison is the 50,000 years it took for humans to figure out how to fly in the first place in a benign environment native to the species, with birds demonstrating the art all around them. While a mere 66 years after the Wrights got off the ground, men were ‘flying’ to the moon in a hostile, extraterrestrial environment, not native to the species, without birds showing them how. By that measure, the progress in human spaceflight– and unmanned space probes as well, has been extraordinary. And it will continue.

    “Next time you ride on a commercial airliner take a look at the wing.”– Yeah, do that, Waldo… and ask yourself why it took tens of thousands of years to figure it out to begin with and put it to any practical use and derive any economic value from it… and why human spaceflight was accomplished at a much, much, much, faster rate of progress with respect to human history.

  • DCSCA

    Trent Waddington wrote @ September 1st, 2010 at 10:18 pm On the contrary. A hundred harmless little solar powered rovers peppering the moon scurrying about, sent and sponsored by Richard Branson, festooned with elcheapo cameras controlled by Earthbound dweebs from laptops in coffee bars would be great. And do for the moon today what Von Braun did for space travel in the 1950s.

  • Matt Wiser

    Check what Keith Cowling said about this bunch over on Nasawatch.com; he’s got some very uncomplimentary words about this group.

    I actually agree with DCSCA on the last post: if commercial providers want funding for their space projects, until they prove their ability to safely deliver cargo and crew to ISS, and return crew to earth, they can get their funds from the private sector. Only when they actually deliver on their promises should they qualify for government funding. (loan guarantees, subsidies, etc.) And you can bet that the relevant congressional committees will be watching like a hawk. And don’t be surprised if legislation is introduced mandating NASA safety oversight, mission control, and recovery if the mission has NASA or NASA-sponsored astronauts aboard.

  • DCSCA

    Rhyolite wrote @ September 1st, 2010 at 9:17 pm <- See DCSCA wrote @ September 1st, 2010 at 10:36 pm

  • Ferris Valyn

    Matt – Color me surprised.

    Do you realize how @$$-backwards that comment is? And actually, we have a lot of evidence that the companies can deliver on their promise. Its NASA that has failed.

  • DCSCA

    Ferris Valyn wrote @ September 1st, 2010 at 10:55 pm <– Wrong. NASA has been flying crews into orbit and back for half a century– commerical space has flown NOBODY. Really, the simplest, smartest thing commercial human spaceflight advocates can do is get a few crews up around and down safely. Government funded and managed space programs have already done the hard work inventing and perfecting the art and science of it. Nothing is stopping commerical HSF from 'following along'– as commerical usually has done over the 80 year history of rocketry, cashing in where it could. Just get some skin in the game and earn some credibility. Bowersox is rarin' to ride the Dragon. Otherwise, it's like an ol' Abbott and Costello routine–

    Costello: "What makes a balloon go up?"
    Abbott: "Hot air."
    Costello: "What's holding you down?"

    Earn credibility. Get flying.

  • Bennett

    Matt Wiser wrote @ September 1st, 2010 at 10:46 pm

    Check what Keith Cowling said about this bunch over on Nasawatch.com; he’s got some very uncomplimentary words about this group.

    Is this an outright lie, or are you really so dim as to equate nit picking the demographics of the signatories with “uncomplimentary words”?

    Check out the comments, they have much more to say about the matter than slightly pointless (on this matter) Keith Cowing.

  • DCSCA, heh, I’m talking about the NASA robotic exploration program. Would you oppose them sending a robotic rover to the Moon? Or are you against the robotic exploration program all together?

  • Major Tom

    “Nobel Laureates? Like Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, Al Gore,”

    It’s not “like” Carter, Obama, and Gore at all. They won the Nobel Peace Prize, which is administered by a separate body in a different country from the Nobel science prizes won by the signers of the letter.

    Cripes, how ignorant can you be?

    “and Paul Krugman?”

    Krugman is not a Nobel prize winner. He won the Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences. It’s not one of the prizes established by Nobel’s will and was created decades after Nobel’s death.

    “Let NOAA and NSF fund climate science…”

    They already do, genius.

    Cripes, how ignorant can you be?

  • Major Tom

    “Little Tom – you know that there were a plan”

    “There were a plan”?

    Who taught you English?

    Scooby-doo and Astro?

    Lawdy…

    “to return to the moon just a few years ago. That plan has been abandoned.”

    Yes, to feed Ares I/Orion, Griffin had to terminate funding for the Altair lander and never grew the budget for Ares V beyond $25 million per year. Constellation abandoned the VSE plan to return to the Moon.

    “I know that you make stupid comments now and then and I feel sorry for your stupidness”

    This from the poster who can’t employ the correct verb tense in a three-sentence post?

    And who can’t come up with one lousy synonym for “stupid” in a single sentence?

    Really?

  • Major Tom

    “Tom dose that all the time”

    I “dose” what all the time? Aspirin? Dramamine?

    “…throws out something that may be technically right but baseless in the conversation at hand then try’s to belittle you with a non-sequitur.”

    Where? Where did I make a point that is “baseless in the conversation at hand”?

    I’m not the one talking about drug prescriptions in a space policy blog.

    “Ferris, on the other hand, is an Obama water carrier too blinded by ideology to take an objective view of anything coming out of this administration.”

    Again, in you very first post in this thread, you launch into personal insults and ad hominem attacks.

    Grow up or go away.

  • Major Tom

    “@Tommy ‘The Moon has been abandoned since December 1972.’

    Hmmmm…”

    You do realize that those are all robotic missions and that the discussion is about human space exploration, right?

    “And, of course, Constellation was in work.”

    That program wasn’t going to the Moon. Griffin terminated funding for the Altair lander years ago to feed Ares I/Orion. Ares V funding never rose above $25 million per year. Assuming even an unrealistically low $10 billion development, it would have taken 400 years to launch a mission at that funding level.

    “‘Don’t make idiotic statements out of ignorance.’ <- Indeed, Tommy."

    This from the poster who thinks Constellation was going to the Moon and who doesn't know the difference between robotic and crewed space missions?

    Please…

  • Major Tom

    “Quarterly or semi-annual flights make perfect sense as Orion ramps up…”

    This is an idiotic statement. Orion doesn’t even have a launch vehicle, nevertheless a launch schedule. Shuttle can’t fly indefinitely.

    Think before you post.

    “Earn credibility. Get flying.”

    Yeah, and your Orion is scheduled to fly when? On what vehicle?

    Get some treatment for your “get flying” OCD and stop wasting this forum’s time.

  • Major Tom, do you only talk to people who piss you off or what? Same question to you: don’t you think it’s a crying shame that the NASA robotic exploration program as sent 3 robotic rovers to Mars and zero to the Moon?

  • Bennett

    I’m with you on this one Trent. I appreciate the science that went into smacking a probe into the moon to measure all sorts of things from the dust that was thrown up, but you’re right, we need a serious rover the same caliber as the upcoming Mars Science Laboratory, or better.

  • The last time I heard about a robotic lunar rover, it was as a “robotic precursor” for the VSE lunar return, and it was lost in the purges. So when people talk about the House bill restoring the VSE by cutting robotic precursors, I’ve gotta shake my head.

  • Matt Wiser

    Those advocating Commercial Space keep forgetting one thing: They don’t have the votes in Congress to go along with what they want. The commercial sector has yet to fly anyone in space on an orbital flight. And until they do, those of us who are skeptical won’t be convinced until they start flying. A Space News piece a couple weeks ago actually mentioned this from representatives of at least two commercial space companies-and this was from commercial space’s own words-the skeptics won’t be quieted until commercial actually flies and flies often. One thing that Bolden probably regrets saying was that he would do whatever it took to ensure the succcess of commercial crew, and he hinted at bailouts-an ugly word in D.C. nowadays. That cost him a lot of support in the final Senate Committee hearing before their bill came out. The Senators were more welcoming of what Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan had to say than what Bolden and the PSA (Presidential Science Advisor) had to talk about.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Matt Wiser wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 12:29 am

    “Those advocating Commercial Space keep forgetting one thing: They don’t have the votes in Congress to go along with what they want.”

    of course they do, in fact if the SEnate bill becomes law then its over.

    The commercial sector has done what NASA has not a clue how to do…develop a rocket and a capsule that is on the verge of commercial resupply for a budget.

    If NASA had developed a resupply capsule (Big G anything) for the 10 billion spent on Ares/Constellation then we wouldnt be having this conversation.

    But the reality is that Congress has lost patience with NASA and NASA has lost support in Congress. If NASA HSF had any support in Congress the Senate bill would be full of cash to “close the gap” with a program run in the typical NASA fashion. They dont. instead we are going to study heavy lift for a year building nothing…and in the meantime Dragon is going to fly and if it works then the entire NASA facade is over.

    Its the end times for NASA HSF as it has been practiced for decades.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris Valyn

    Matt Wiser

    Those advocating Commercial Space keep forgetting one thing: They don’t have the votes in Congress to go along with what they want.

    Actually, no one really has the votes for what they want, at this point –
    The House wants Constellation back, the Senate is trying to find a middle ground (but ensure sufficient pork for the appropriate places) and Obama wants to try something very new.

    Its time we start viewing the House and Senate bills as very different animals.

    One thing that Bolden probably regrets saying was that he would do whatever it took to ensure the succcess of commercial crew, and he hinted at bailouts-an ugly word in D.C. nowadays.

    Unless someone can produce a tape with Bolden saying that in the context that Cernan was claiming, I submit Cernan is lying (or at least is grossly over-exaggerating).

    As for skeptics not being quieted – well, given there is a segment of the population who believe we never went to the moon, why should we be surprised? Thats not what is at issue here. The real issue is whether people think that US contractors can learn to live in a commercial world, or whether they always must be dependent on the government handout which comes from a cost-plus contract.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Matt Wiser wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 12:29 am
    ” One thing that Bolden probably regrets saying was that he would do whatever it took to ensure the succcess of commercial crew, and he hinted at bailouts-an ugly word in D.C. nowadays.”

    there is no proof that Bolden said “bailouts”…and besides NASA HSF is a government program that makes any bailouts look like well small fries.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bolden & his co-horts totally implied that some massive government bail-out would be needed, down the road, if commercial space ran into trouble. That was the NASA administrator’s retort to Congressional commitee inquiry, a couple months ago. We all saw it on C-SPAN! Obamaspace will be a humongous waste of tax-payer dollars. And get this: after the massive bail-out happens, NASA will be no more closer to ending the LEO merry-go-round, it’s been on since the 1970’s. The Obama Plan—also known as “Flexible Path”—leads to NOTHING! Just more endless Low Earth Orbit bus rides for our astronauts, and NOT one iota of progress towards departing LEO for deep space. Listening to those anti-Moon old fogeys of the Planetary Society will keep us solidly Earth-bound, till clear up to 2030!

  • How will putting an ISS on the Moon get us into deep space?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Chris Castro wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 1:39 am

    Bolden & his co-horts totally implied that some massive government bail-out would be needed,………….

    no not really but even if true the “Massive government bailout” would be less then we are spending per year on Cx.

    get a life

    Robert G. Oler

  • When it comes to massive bailouts, one need look no further than the Shuttle program. http://selenianboondocks.com/2010/05/biggest-bailout-in-history/

  • Matt Wiser

    I guess Oler and co. weren’t watching Bolden’s testimony on C-Span. It’s on the record for that committee hearing. And the Senators were grilling him on the possiblity of bailouts, and while he didn’t use that word specifically, though Gene Cernan said he did, Bolden strongly implied that might be necessary. Not exactly what D.C. wants to hear after the bank bailouts. The Senate Bill is the best possible compromise, though there are folks here who are of the mind “My way or the highway.” The Senate bill has to be reconciled with the House version, but it’s what is likely to become law. Get used to it. The Constellation folks will get Orion and heavy-lift, the Commercial crowd willl get some money (not as much as they wanted, but more than some in Congress think they deserve), and so on. This is what’s politically feasable, certainly not ObamaSpace was when it was rolled out on 1 Feb and amended on 15 Apr. ISTR Senators and Congrescritters saying in regards to the original FY 11 plan: “Dead on arrival in committee.” Guess what? They were right.

  • Matt, we all watched it. Bolden specifically denied it and Cernan specifically said he said it. So you either have to accept that Cernan misheard or believe that Cernan was calling Bolden a liar, which I’m pretty sure Cernan would never do. So stop putting words into the man’s mouth. Show some respect.

  • DCSCA

    “Bill Lenoir, who returned safely from a five-day NASA space shuttle flight in 1982, died Aug. 26 following a bicycle accident. He was 71.
    Lenoir sustained a fatal head injury when he fell off his bike near his home, according to the Sandoval County, N.M., Sheriff’s Office.” He wore a helmet for his space ride… wonder if he was wearing one for his bike. Rest In Peace, Bill Lenoir.

  • BeancounterFromDownunder

    Chris Castro wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 1:39 am
    ‘…And get this: after the massive bail-out happens’

    Um just a question but who precisely is going to need bailing out. Are we talking about Boeing, Lockheed, ULA, ATK, Orbital, SpaceX or just who?

  • DCSCA

    Major Tom wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 12:06 am

    “Shuttle can’t fly indefinitely.” Who says, ‘indefinitely’…. only you. Yes it can – certainly for another half decade, as Dr. Kraft and others have stated. “Think before you post …” Indeed, Tommy. Bone up on your lunar history, too.

    Like much of the lower atmosphere.
    Our Tommy is quite dense, it’s clear.
    Wronged the moon; history spurned;
    A stubborn streak; he will not learn.

    Tom-Tom, he just doesn’t get it;
    NASA’s earned respect and credit;
    For lofting crews five decades on;
    Earth orbit and to our moon beyond.

    Musketeers have flown no one;
    And wont be for some time to come;
    Fix the roll; halt the spinnin';
    Stop the talk and start the flyin’.

    Get somebody up and around;
    Then get’em back, safe ‘n sound.
    Bowersox says he wants the gig;
    Suit him up; he’ll ride the rig.

    Instead another quarter ends;
    With only talk from commercial friends.
    The clocks tick-tock; the calendar flies,
    But no manned Dragons cross our skies.

  • The only reason we’re here having a conversation is that the shuttle is being retired. If you want it to keep flying then you’re advocating a return to the pre-Columbia status-quo.

    BTW, why do you keep posting that poem? it’s horrible.

  • DCSCA

    “Its the end times for NASA HSF as it has been practiced for decades.” <- Ever lost in a fog. Speaking of which, the Great Waldo Oler will be playing the role of Nimbus Cloude in a revival of 'Ceiling Zero' at dinner theatres around the Houston area.

  • DCSCA, it’d be great if you could participate in the conversation without being so counterproductive.. or is your goal simply to drive people away from this website? cause you’re succeeding.

  • red

    Matt Wiser: “if commercial providers want funding for their space projects, until they prove their ability to safely deliver cargo and crew to ISS, and return crew to earth, they can get their funds from the private sector. Only when they actually deliver on their promises should they qualify for government funding. (loan guarantees, subsidies, etc.)”

    This doesn’t make any sense.

    Are you talking about NASA purchasing commercial crew development services? Why would the commercial providers need loan guarantees or subsidies for development of commercial crew services if they have already developed the services?

    Why do you think the idea has anything to do with loan guarantees or subsidies? That’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about NASA purchasing development services for something it needs. It’s no different from NASA purchasing road development services when it needs a road built, or NASA purchasing an orbital mechanics software development services for a module it needs in a commercial orbital mechanics software package. In this case it’s especially good for NASA because it doesn’t pay for a thing unless the commercial developers meet their milestones.

    You seem to be forgetting that it is NASA, not the commercial providers, that is being bailed out. This isn’t about commercial providers “wanting funding for their space projects”. Griffin put NASA in terrible shape, failing in his attempt to wipe of the essential parts of the Vision for Space Exploration, including the part about acquiring commercial crew services to enable it to be able to afford exploration, by replacing them with Ares I/Orion. Now the Shuttle is almost gone, and Ares I/Orion have failed like various similar government efforts in recent decades. NASA needs U.S. commercial services, or it’s going to be spending a lot of U.S. taxpayer money on non-U.S. crew services … which, after a few years, will start to seem a bit unseemly, as Griffin would say.

    Ares I/Orion need a bailout.

  • byeman

    “And don’t be surprised if legislation is introduced mandating NASA safety oversight, mission control, and recovery if the mission has NASA or NASA-sponsored astronauts aboard.”

    No, that would not be commercial crew, so it is a non starter and therefore will never happen.

  • Dennis Berube

    Ares/ Orion failed???? when did they fail. They may be behind in production, but just the other day a successful test run of the 5 seg. booster was carried out. Whether it is funded for further development remains to be seen. Orion is certainly on its way and will fly. I dont see where there has been any failures, with regards to the on going development by any means. Sad to say we will have to still await judgement by the house and Senate, until their recess if over. Their vacations are so important to them and we know they work so hard.

  • I don’t think this letter by so-many Nobel ‘laureates and seven former astronauts’ will make a bit of difference to the House Congress-critters; they have their various hunks of pork staked out and are determined to bring home the bacon IMHO.

    I have my doubts about them getting bent around to accept the Senate Compromise either, but you never know.

    We’ll see in a couple of weeks.

  • Dennis Berube

    http://www.jmcgowan.com/mars_reprint.PDF Here is certainly one thing that would drive us on to Mars. I even hear halliburton is interested in this!

  • amightywind

    or is your goal simply to drive people away from this website? cause you’re succeeding.

    I find DCSCA to be a most productive contributor to this forum.

    Major Tom wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 12:06 am

    Think before you post

    I am convinced Major Tom does not exist. Some months back his machine was rooted and now a bot posts the same lines periodically.

    Matt Wiser wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 12:29 am

    Those advocating Commercial Space keep forgetting one thing: They don’t have the votes in Congress to go along with what they want.

    How quickly the mantle of power fell from Newspace’s narrow shoulders. The congressional counter-attack was predictable. Prospects for Newspace will decline further under a GOP congress.

  • MrEarl

    Tommy said:
    “Again, in you very first post in this thread”
    Ebonics Tom?

    If you’re going to point out the inadvertent mistakes as others you should really check your posts more closely.

  • I find DCSCA to be a most productive contributor to this forum.

    So writes one of the other imbecilic trolls who’s driving people out.

  • MrEarl

    Bennett:
    “Accusing someone of being “a water carrier for Obama” just because they want to build a HSF program using available technology, HLVs, and funds is really stupid. ”
    Where to begin?
    First the reason I called Ferris a “water carrier for Obama” is the fact that he worked on the Obama presidential campaign and that anytime someone disagrees with the “plan” that the administration put forward he accuses them of being Obama haters.
    Secondly, it’s the administration that wants to scrap available technology and delay the start of development of an HLV till 2015 for “trasformative technologies”.

    Get your facts straight.

  • MrEarl

    As for the NACA:
    That agency did some great work for aircraft design in the early years but 1928 is not 2010. Spacecraft and launch vehicle design, while sharing some similarities, is a lot different than aircraft design.

    To paraphrase a famous line…
    traveling through space ain’t like dusting crops boy.

  • MrEarl

    oler:
    You have to give NASA some credit for having you fly the “Vomit Comet”. I’m sure anything you pilot becomes a vomit comet.

  • John G

    Dennis Berube wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 8:22 am
    “Ares/ Orion failed???? when did they fail. They may be behind in production”

    This is exactly my opinion. With Obama space we will go nowhere!!! The purpose of human space exploration must be to travel across space to go to new worlds and establish bases. And in the end – finally populate these new worlds. Our destiny is to spread life across the solar system and in the very far future – beyond.
    Constellation was a start to this vision, and even if it was behind in production it was still an ongoing mission.

    BTW – DCSCA, go on with your contributions on this forum – you do a great job!

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 10:05 am

    “As for the NACA:
    That agency did some great work for aircraft design in the early years but 1928 is not 2010. Spacecraft and launch vehicle design, while sharing some similarities, is a lot different than aircraft design. ”

    OK tell us how it differs.

    I see you have drank the NASA Koolaide that space is special because its hard (the excuse they use for every blooper) but really, as Musk and others have proven, its not that diffcult.

    Space is an areana that requires good engineering with solid management to produce things that work and work on a budget. NASA really hasnt had a clue of “work on a budget” for about three decades now…and is actually starting to flail (in HSF) at “things that work” period.

    But it can be done and technological development of things which have applications to society is the proper role of the federal government in a free enterprise system. NASA has even done it.

    The geo sync arc is populated now with satellites because NASA did several “applications” programs. Syncom was the classic. It took private/government dollars allowed private industry to try a concept and then when it worked it was turned over increasingly to private industry. Along the way NASA did more “applications” comm test…ATS, ACTS for instance…all to keep the technological ball rolling and test out things that private enterprise could reject or embrace.

    They still do this in airplanes. We are in commercial aviation on the way to the elimination of hydraulics in airplanes. NASA (mostly Langely but some Lewis) has lead the way in the development of electronic actuators for flight control surfaces. The Dreamliner would not have happened without the first A in NASA doing the NACA thing.

    Spaceflight is no different. Musk and a few others are proving it. The development of the Falcon 9 is well within industry norms for the development of new projects on a tight budget. If anything the entire effort is quite reminiscent of the Dash 80 program. A tight smart team working with clear lines of authority and responsibility doing measured test and evaluation along the way.

    Or the MRAP or the original personal computers…or…well most American projects have in the past worked this way. What has bogged the system down particularly in government acquisition is the “project with no budgets” mentality. Constellation and the F-35 are illustrative of this.

    The F-14, the worlds premier Naval fighter (and quite able to hold its own with land based fighters) went from concept to fleet service in 2 (TWO) years. How? Grumman had a tight team with clear lines of authority and responsibility. The tomcat is/was in all measures more complicated then a Dragon or even a Orion vehicle. There was enormous new technology in the vehicle and unlike the Orion, it had to fight.

    Technology is only hard when management flounders. At some point the entire effort goes down the tubes when the management cannot set the firm guidelines and make the hard choices which keep cost down. The flunkies at NASA HSF had no clue in this.

    In the end space will turn out to be more like aviation then you, NASA HSF and other stay the course flunkies can imagine. In your case the lack of knowledge is that you are commenting on things you know little about. In NASA HSF is just third rate people.

    Thats how they killed 14 people by negligence.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    John G wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 10:12 am

    Cx wasnt going anywhere either.

    The only voyages it was taking were NASA people in the mockups pretending to do spaceflight.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    John G wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 10:12 am

    “BTW – DCSCA, go on with your contributions on this forum – you do a great job!”

    my thoughts exactly.

    First it gives my fingers on both hands a modest workout as they work the scroll wheel…

    Second it doubtless keeps him from doing something somewhere else more destructive.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Dennis Berube

    Mr. Oler, where did Musk prove space is not that hard?????? Space is very hard! I have not seen a Dragon return with crew yet, have you? Plus you keep on jumping that NASA purposely killed 14 people. Give it a rest. NASA did no such thing. NASA flew with the tech. they had at the time. The other day new types of cold O-rings were tested. That is what you call improving on technologies. Even if the 5 s egment SRB doesnt carry people, it will still prove the new O-rings are a better and improved move, for the HLV. Just think what will happen if Space X fails with its next launch! I think then many will be looking at the new 5 seg. booster, dont you?

  • MrEarl

    oler:
    “Thats how they killed 14 people by negligence.”

    Another weak argument, filled with sound and furry, signifying nothing.

    Even you must see the weakness of your argument because you’ve brought out “the bloody shirt”.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Dennis Berube wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 10:55 am

    “Mr. Oler, where did Musk prove space is not that hard?????? Space is very hard! I have not seen a Dragon return with crew yet, have you? ”

    no but it will.

    Musk is proving space is not that hard almost on a monthly basis. Musk is using sound management and solid technology to develop things at cost which are affordable. So far on less then the cost of the Ares test flight (and that is a kind description), the Ares launch tower Musk has developed and flown the Falcon 1 and 9 into space and turned the 1 into an operational vehicle.

    That is an amazing accomplishment. He uses technology and methods which are solid technological stuff and its affordable.

    The Ares booster development by contrast has consumed about 6-10 billion depending on how you count, and to use your term “I have not seen it go to orbit yet”.

    “Plus you keep on jumping that NASA purposely killed 14 people. Give it a rest. NASA did no such thing. ”

    Yes it did. NASA knew that the Orings did not seat well in cold weather and yet it insisted on launching the coldest day of the year. As Thiokal (now ATK) engineers tried to protest NASA engineers/management brow beat them into signing off on the launch. That was either incompetence (IE they couldnt understand the issues with the O rings and knowing Jay Greene as I do thats completely possible) or willful negligence.

    As for Columbia. They knew pieces of foam were falling off the ET hitting the tiles. It was only a matter of “random chance’ (to use General Deal’s term) that one came off which was either fatal to the tiles or the RCC…

    They knew that the piece of foam came off. There were tiger teams which assessed the damage and some of them even called it correctly. As the lead manager for the mission said (a close paraphrase) “even if its accurate there is nothing we can do” and hence they did nothing not even bothering to tell the crew.

    Dont draw conclusions on things you dont know a thing about.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Dennis Berube wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 10:55 am

    “:Even if the 5 s egment SRB doesnt carry people, it will still prove the new O-rings are a better and improved move,”

    Btw you dont know that. While they did induce some damage into the rings and I assume saw the secondary seal…those test are less.

    A substantial component of the “unseal” was the cold but it was also the “twang” that the shuttle stack does as the solids light off. There had been several instances pre Challenger where the primary had unsealed on the twang and either the secondary had resealed or the primary had resealed or in one case they were less then 10 seconds from a burn through. On high speed footage you can see the “puffing” that went along with the twanging of the vehicle.

    The “twang” is a substantial part of the issue and there is no way to test that with the vehicle bolted to the Earth.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Dennis Berube

    Mr. Oler I truly, TRULY hope, your faith in Musk turns out to be justified. I hope success for him as well, just so the space frontier is pushed forward. I do believe in time, he will orbit people. Plus with NASAs guidance, it will happen. NASA however must not be hindered either. Why cant we have Orion along with Dragon? Orion is for mans push into deep space, Dragon so profits and LEO. Well as to the accidents concerning the shuttle, I always was against them building the shuttle, as it carried people without a launch escape system, which should never have been allowed in the first place. I talked with James Oberg, about it, and he stated that the shuttle at the time was considered to be so advanced, that it didnt need a launch escape system. Prior to that, we bad mouth the soviets for launching people without launch escape systems too, and then we turn around and do the same thing. While many wonderful things happened with the shuttle, to me it was still a whitel elephant. I think in the end, while we wont see Constellation as envisioned, no program to date ever was what was originally planned for. The shuttle was at first to have a fly back first stage, but due to cost was changed. So it will be with future spacecraft. I do not think however that NASA will be out of the HSF business.

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 8:22 am

    Ares/ Orion failed???? when did they fail.

    Take a look at this picture, and it pretty much tells the story:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ares_I_Evolution.jpg

    Of the three reasons that Griffin stated for Ares I, it was definitely not “Simple”, as it kept being redesigned for various important reasons. Because of the redesigns it no was no longer “Soon”. And the “Safe” was an assumption, which may or may not have been true, but had never been proven for an SRB-only 1st stage (and alternatives were just as safe, or even safer).

    The first two failures (Simple & Soon) caused the program budget & schedule to grow tremendously, which in the eyes of any taxpayer should be seen as a failure. Oh, and there are still unresolved technical issues, so that growth would continue.

    Poor Orion was just along for the ride. A capsule is a pretty simple design, but Ares I kept forcing changes in weight and mission, so it’s budget & schedule grew out of bounds too. Another taxpayer failure, though not it’s fault.

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 11:38 am

    This post seems to be some sort of “stream of consciousness” thing.

    Maybe you should use paragraph breaks more often, or refer back to what you’re responding to. My eyes blurred in the middle of it…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Dennis Berube wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 11:38 am

    “Mr. Oler I truly, TRULY hope, your faith in Musk turns out to be justified.”

    it is not faith in Musk…it is faith in well managed engineering programs that have well defined goals. Those work everywhere, they can work in space.

    As for Orion, I dont support either human deep space exploration at this time and when it is appropriate it should not be done with the capsule mentality.

    As for why not Orion? I guess you mean Cx but in any means we cannot afford both Orion or Cx and a new space agenda

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 8:22 am

    just the other day a successful test run of the 5 seg. booster was carried out.

    If it had been a real Ares I test, like the Falcon 9 test flight, the 5-segment booster would have been mounted upright, and would have flown.

    How was this test any different than any other 4-segment SRB horizontal test, and how was it unique to Ares I? A lot of wasted money for taxpayers, and good revenue for ATK.

  • Major Tom

    “Another weak argument, filled with sound and furry, signifying nothing.”

    “Sound and furry?”

    Who taught you English?

    Scooby-doo?

    Lawdy…

  • Major Tom

    “Ebonics Tom?”

    Now you’re engaging in racial references? On top of the namecalling and ad hominem attacks?

    Really?

    “If you’re going to point out the inadvertent mistakes as others you should really check your posts more closely.”

    Mine aren’t nearly as hilarious.

  • Major Tom

    “I am convinced Major Tom does not exist. Some months back his machine was rooted and now a bot posts the same lines periodically.”

    If you thought before you posted, my botware would have nothing to react to.

    Think before you post.

  • Major Tom

    “Who says, ‘indefinitely’…. only you.”

    And the CAIB, genius.

    Think before you post.

    “Yes it can – certainly for another half decade, as Dr. Kraft and others have stated.”

    Kraft’s editorial says no such thing.

    chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7164226.html

    Don’t make things up.

    “‘Think before you post …’ Indeed, Tommy.”

    Again with copying other folks’ posts?

    Can’t you do anything original?

    “Bone up on your lunar history, too.”

    This from the poster who doesn’t know the difference between human and robotic space exploration missions?

    Please…

    “Like much of the lower atmosphere.
    Our Tommy is quite dense, it’s clear.
    Wronged the moon; history spurned;
    A stubborn streak; he will not learn.”

    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    Your ad hominem attacks
    Have nothing to do with the argument on view

    “Tom-Tom, he just doesn’t get it;
    NASA’s earned respect and credit;
    For lofting crews five decades on;
    Earth orbit and to our moon beyond.”

    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    Your historical point is still stupidly non-relevant
    After Shuttle NASA has no option besides Dragon to fly crew

    “Musketeers have flown no one;
    And wont be for some time to come;
    Fix the roll; halt the spinnin’;
    Stop the talk and start the flyin’.”

    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    Dragon launches in October
    But Orion never flew

  • Major Tom

    “Major Tom, do you only talk to people who piss you off or what?”

    No. Unfortunatley, my time here of late is just mostly spent correcting false statements by various trolls.

    “Same question to you: don’t you think it’s a crying shame that the NASA robotic exploration program as sent 3 robotic rovers to Mars and zero to the Moon?”

    The Mars Exploration Program is driven by science and managed by the Science Mission Directorate (SMD). What’s left of the lunar robotic program was driven by human exploration needs and managed by the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD). I think it is a shame that ESMD has no lunar robotic program after LRO, but they only have themselves to blame — Ares I/Orion cost growth ate the lunar robotic program’s lunch. It has nothing to do with the Mars Exploration Program (which also got cut to feed Ares I/Orion) and I wouldn’t trade one off against the other. The two programs address different, but equally important, goals.

    My 2 cents… FWIW.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Mr. Berube – If you don’t mind me responding to your comment to Oler

    First, its not about having faith in Musk. Its about having faith in the commercial spaceflight industry, and that we can get more than one provider. This would include Boeing’s CST-100, ULA Atlas V & Delta IV, Sierra Nevada Corp’s Dreamchaser, OSC’s Cygnus/Taurus 2, and potentially Blue Origin’s unnamed bi-conic capsule (as well as Dragon/Falcon 9). So its not having faith in a single new kid.

    As for why we can’t have Orion, along with Commercial space vehicles (CST-100, Dragon, Dreamchaser, etc), I actually believe we can, with a couple of provisos, and think its the direction to go

    1. Orion purpose is deep-spaceflight. Its not to be used as a transport to the ISS. Commercial Space will provide all transport to ISS.

    2. Orion is not Ares I, or Ares V, or another rocket – it is the capsule. In otherwords, NASA & LM will continue to develop Orion, and can fly Orion, but it cannot fund Ares I, or Ares V, and should try and avoid funding another rocket program. Orion can fly on existing rockets. Now, this will result in it flying unmanned to LEO, but since we’ll have Commercial providing rides to ISS, and Orion will be in LEO, they can provide transport to Orion, and then Orion can go off to do Deep space missions

    3. Orion is going to form the basis for a deep space ship, that can do long range missions, but it, by itself, isn’t really enough. It can do missions to GEO, and to Lunar Orbit, but if you want to do things beyond that (Lunar surface, NEO, Mars flyby, Mars moon), you’ll need to develop some add-ons to that. And that is where tech development is to play a role. Some things to include that are to be added on to Orion, as we go further into deep space (not a complete list)
    – in space refueling
    – better radiation mitagation
    – larger volume areas add-on
    In effect, what we are doing is using Orion as the foundation for a vehicle that can grow, and visit various locations in deep space. With Orion as is, as I said, we can do GEO, and Lunar Orbit. While we are flying those missions, we are doing the tech investment needed to add in the pieces that are missing to be able to go beyond Lunar Orbit.

    In my mind, we do that, we can start doing BEO spaceflight well before the end of the decade.

  • DCSCA

    Major Tom wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 1:51 pm <–

    Tommy, Tommy, Tommy, you best go back and read your own comment: “The Moon has been “abandoned” since December 1972.”
    "Think before you post…." Indeed, Tommy.

    "Dragon launches in October" =yawn= Unmanned. Russian Progress' began supply flights in 1978. Congratulations in again posting another Muskie-movie-trailer-promise, not a fact, to do something the former Soviet Union accomplished over 32 years ago.

    "Kraft’s editorial says no such thing…." Oh,Tommy, Tommy, Tommy— per Kraft's editorial:

    "It would be prudent to keep the space shuttles flying with new missions to maintain a vital back-up contingency, until replacement spacecraft and commercial space transportation achieve reliable operations."

    Kraft added- "No other spacecraft has flown more flights in the last 30 years and carried more passengers into space than the space shuttle. It is the only reusable spacecraft in the world capable of carrying more than a half dozen passengers and school-bus-sized cargo into space. Although designed to fly at least 100 flights each, the three space shuttles have been flown on average only a quarter of their useful lives. Since the first flight in 1981, the space shuttle fleet has completed more than 100 missions and carried more than 600 passengers into space. The fleet has accumulated more than 2.5 years in orbit and yet has 75 percent of its design life remaining."

    Musk has flown NOBODY.

    Yes, Tommy, don't make things up.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    the space shuttle fleet has completed more than 100 missions and carried more than 600 passengers into space. The fleet has accumulated more than 2.5 years in orbit and yet has 75 percent of its design life remaining.

    So? It is no longer needed. Throw a party, congratulate everyone, and shut it down.

    Kraft has some nice statistics, but he also left off the not so great parts:

    – Out of a fleet of five Shuttles, two were destroyed during their missions, and only three are left.

    – The Shuttle does not have an LAS, and would not pass the requirements you and others try and foist on potential commercial crew entrants.

    – Whether the Shuttle flies or not, it costs NASA $200M/month to run the program. How much exploration are we missing because of this?

  • DCSCA

    Coastal Socialist Ron wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 5:16 pm “So?”

    So the response was to poor Tommy, not you.

    “It is no longer needed.” <– Who says, you? Commerical space has flown nobody. Kraft has a record of demonstrated success and experienced capacity to assess need. You don't. But you go on believing otherwise. It's amusing.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 9:03 pm

    “It is no longer needed.” <– Who says, you?

    Try and stay up with current events. Congress cancelled the Shuttle program years ago, and all they are talking about now is the election year politics of “I’m saving your job” for one more flight.

    Even the ISS manager said that he really didn’t need one more flight, but he obviously would take it. Otherwise the ISS partners (including the CRS program) have cargo and crew covered. There is no job left for the Shuttle.

    You can go back to your basement now and finish watching “Destination Moon”…

  • DCSCA

    @ Coastal Socialist Ron wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 9:18 pm <- "Try and gwet with it." Kraft's position is logical and sound. A stroke of a pen can reverse any decision and as long as assets are in place, support can be initiated. Suggest you get Destination Moon and try to comprehend how capitalists employ private enterprise and the tools it gives them to initiate a moon shot– without government subsidies. You might learn something.

  • Major Tom

    “Major Tom wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 1:51 pm <–

    "Tommy, Tommy, Tommy, you best go back and read your own comment: 'The Moon has been abandoned since December 1972.'"

    Yes, December 1972 was the last Apollo lunar landing. If you know anything about the history of space exploration, it's clearly a reference to a human space exploration mission, consistent with the prior discussion about human space exploration.

    You apparently don't know it, but the missions you listed are robotic space exploration missions. I don't know how anyone could mistake robotic space exploration missions for human space exploration missions, but apparently you do. You need to learn the difference if you want to be more than a laughing stock in a forum like this one.

    "'Think before you post….' Indeed, Tommy."

    And you need to come up with some original content, instead of just plagiarizing other posters.

    "=yawn= Unmanned. Russian Progress' began supply flights in 1978. Congratulations in again posting another Muskie-movie-trailer-promise, not a fact, to do something the former Soviet Union accomplished over 32 years ago."

    And Orion is scheduled to performed its first unmanned test flight when?

    On what launch vehicle?

    "Kraft’s editorial says no such thing…." Oh,Tommy, Tommy, Tommy— per Kraft's editorial"

    Nowhere in your quote from Kraft's editorial does he state that the Shuttle program can fly "certainly for another half decade" or recommend such.

    Read, comprehend, and think before you post.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 10:43 pm

    Kraft’s position is logical and sound.

    So what? Given enough money, I have no doubt that the Shuttle program could continue, but there is no mission for it anymore, and Congress has spoken.

    Even if the current Congress wanted to overturn the last 5 years worth of law, the Shuttle could not become operational for at least another 2 years. Then they would need to fund missions, and that would detract from the SLS, which has more momentum in Congress than Shuttle.

    That tick, tock, tick, tock you hear is really the Shuttle program winding down…

  • vuture4b

    Rhyolite wrote @ September 1st, 2010 at 9:03 pm

    “Reusable systems are probably going to have to start out small and hence unmanned. ”

    Agree completely. We need unmanned RLVs first. That’s why we had the RLV program, the X-33, X-34, X-37, and DC-X. These were all cancelled by NASA, apparently because NASA management (are you listening?) no longer understood the meaning of the letter “X”.

    “To make investment sense they are going to need a market that requires lots of small deliveries to orbit – something like large communications satellite constellations or propellant deliveries – which doesn’t exist today.”

    Private industry can’t. That was the idea behind NACA. The early aircraft manufacturers, even the Wright Brothers, had no market and could not get investments. Government help to allow industry to get practical technology and lower costs created the new markets.

  • vuture4b

    Sorry, I meant to ask if NASA management was listening, not if “you” were listening, I wish we could edit after posting. Also should mention that some brave souls at Langley, JPL and DOD have tried to reignite the RLV program, don’t know how successful they will be.

  • DCSCA

    Major Tom wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 11:21 pm <- This writer knows a great deal about space history and easily demonstrated you don't. Your statment: ‘The Moon has been abandoned since December 1972.’ is inaccurate and proved so. Now you want to add qualifiers. Quaint. And the only laughing stock is chuckleheads like you who can't man up and stubbornly refuse to acknowledge errors. Kraft's editorial speaks for itself which you attempted to diss and extended shuttle is clear- 5 years or so a logical number given his proposal to use it assist deorbit the ISS. If you want to add more years to it, fine. "Read, comprehend, and think before you post…" Indeed, Tommy. When you're in a hole, stop diggin'.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 5:16 am

    This writer knows a great deal about space history and easily demonstrated you don’t. Your statment: ‘The Moon has been abandoned since December 1972.’ is inaccurate and proved so.

    All you proved is the “this writer” doesn’t really understand the English language or the intent of conversations.

    Normal humans would have understood that “abandoned” meant lack of humans, not lack of mechanical things, especially when we’ve been talking about Constellation (i.e. humans to the Moon). That’s called “context”, and apparently you sorely lack the ability to understand it.

    You need to get out of your basement more often and talk with humans…

  • Major Tom

    “This writer knows a great deal about space history…”

    Either you don’t know the difference between human and robotic space missions, or you don’t know the date of the last human mission to the Moon. Either way, I wouldn’t be thumping my chest about my knowledge of “space history” if I were you.

    The alternative, as pointed out by Coastal Ron, is that you can’t follow the simplest context in which a discussion is taking place. If that’s your problem, then you’ve got much bigger issues than a lack of “space history” knowledge. You may need to take some remedial reading comprehension classes or seek treatment for autism if you want to follow basic human conversations.

    Given that your preferred medium of communication is repeating the same weird poetry ad nauseum, I’m betting on autism mixed with some OCD.

    Regardless, go away, think about it really hard, and get back to us when you’ve figured out and fixed whatever your major malfunction is. Until then, most of the participants in forums like this one are going to treat you like a joke.

    “and easily demonstrated you don’t.”

    Where? Specifically?

    “Your statment: ‘The Moon has been abandoned since December 1972.’ is inaccurate and proved so.”

    To “abandon” is to “leave” or to “desert”. No human has been present on the lunar surface or even orbited the Moon since Apollo 17. Eugene Cernan, Ronald Evans, and Harrison Schmitt left the Moon in December 1972. The Moon has been deserted ever since. It’s very accurate to state that the Moon was abandoned in December 1972 and has remained so to the present day.

    “Now you want to add qualifiers.”

    I didn’t add any qualifiers. The discussion, like the vast majority of the threads in this forum, was about human space exploration.

    Don’t blame me if you can’t understand the context of a conversation. I’m not the cause of your autism.

    “Quaint.”

    Even if I did “add qualifiers”, what’s “quaint” or old-fashioned about “qualifiers”? This is a line of argument, not Victorian furniture.

    If you do take some remedial reading comprehension course, ask them to work on your vocabularly, too. You’re wasting the forum’s time with words that are way too big for you.

    “Kraft’s editorial speaks for itself which you attempted to diss and extended shuttle is clear- 5 years or so a logical number given his proposal to use it assist deorbit the ISS.”

    That’s an idiotic argument to hang your hat on. Even NASAWatch knows better:

    nasawatch.com/archives/2010/08/confusing-ratio.html

    Don’t rely on fanboy hero worship to make your argument. Learn something about the topic you’re posting on (how space stations are deorbited, in this case) before wasting this forum’s time with stupid statements out of ignorance.

    “Indeed, Tommy. When you’re in a hole, stop diggin’.”

    Again, when is Orion scheduled to fly?

    And on what launch vehicle?

    Let us know when you’ve got Orion dug out of that hole.

    Ugh…

  • DCSCA

    Major Tom wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 12:47 pm Tommy, you were tagged out days ago on this thread. Hit the showers fella.

  • DCSCA

    I didn’t add any qualifiers. <- Of course you did, Tommy. Shower time.

  • DCSCA

    ^Oh– and fellas… how’s that Bowersox suborbital idea coming along…. your silence speaks volumes as does Musk’s aversion to flying crew.

  • how’s that Bowersox suborbital idea coming along.

    Why would it “come along” at all? It was your idiotic idea. SpaceX has no suborbital vehicles.

  • Major Tom

    “Hit the showers fella.”

    How do you know that I’m a “fella”?

    Don’t make assumptions on things you know nothing about.

    “Shower time.”

    Now your latest OCD ideation pictures me in a men’s locker room? Great…

    Please take your pills or get some treatment.

    “how’s that Bowersox suborbital idea coming along”

    What “idea”? Do you make this stupid suggestion in the posts above? If so, it’s rejected because:

    a) Falcon has launched to LEO. Who wants to take a step backwards to Ares I-X? Duh…

    b) It was suggested by a poster who can’t tell the difference between human and robotic mission or doesn’t know the date of the last Apollo mission (or both). Who wants to take advice in a technical subject from someone so illiterate in topic at hand?

    Sigh…

  • DCSCA

    @MajorTommy- In other words, Musketeers fear flying a crew aboard a Falcon9/Dragon stack at this time because of the uncertainity of crew survivability. As suspected.
    ” …a poster who can’t tell the difference between human and robotic mission” And yes, Tommy, you are… as clearly shown earlier in this thread.

  • DCSCA

    @Rand Simberg wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 3:57 pm <- In other words, SpaceX has nothing but hype and press releases. The suspicion that Musk may be hesitant to fly anybody because at the present time, the chances of a crew surviving a Falcon9/Dragon launch are uncertain remains valid. Get someone up.

  • Major Tom

    “In other words, Musketeers fear flying a crew aboard a Falcon9/Dragon stack at this time because of the uncertainity of crew survivability. As suspected.”

    That’s not what I wrote.

    Take the earlier advice about a remedial course on reading comprehension.

    You really, really need it.

    “And yes, Tommy, you are… as clearly shown earlier in this thread.”

    I’m not the one who responded to a discussion about human space exploration and a specific reference to Apollo 17 with a list of robotic missions.

    You are.

    “<- In other words, SpaceX has nothing but hype and press releases. The suspicion that Musk may be hesitant to fly anybody because at the present time, the chances of a crew surviving a Falcon9/Dragon launch are uncertain remains valid. Get someone up."

    Speaking of hype and getting up…

    When is Orion scheduled to fly?

    Will it be suborbital? Orbital?

    What's the launch vehicle?

    These are simple questions.

    Why can't you answer them after so many threads?

  • Trent Waddington wrote (on Sep 2nd): “How will putting an ISS on the Moon get us into deep space?” My response: The Moon IS IN DEEP SPACE! Once we are there, we have already broken the bonds of Earth. The rocket energy required to leave LEO for even further deep space, is very nearly the same. From the encampment of a Moonbase, NASA gets into the frame-point of supplying a crew for multi-months-long spans of self-reliance off Earth, in terms of provisions. NASA gets to dealing with regular transport of crew vehicles & unmanned transport drones, from one major gravity well to another. Psychologically & physically, the Earth is remote and detached from the base camp. Remember that scene & moment in the movie “Apollo 13″, right after TLI, when the crew goes for the LM-extraction Transposition & Docking Maneuver, and from each and every direction around the space-craft, there is NOTHING BUT THE DARK STELLAR, DEEP SPACE VOID, surrounding them?? There is no up nor down nor sideways, around the CM, just pitch black space, with the myriad of stars in the background. (From that distance, the entire home-planet becomes a far-remote blue-ish, shrinking sphere. Like a Christmas tree ornament.) These are the capabilities that NASA needs to restore. These are the vistas of true otherworldly exploration. (NO Shuttle NOR ISS astronaut has EVER seen the entire Earth as a complete globe, in the middle of space!)

  • vuture4b

    Musk will launch at least 8-10 unmanned payloads with Falcon before attempting a manned launch. This is a much more sensible approach than the one NASA took with Shuttle of putting people on it the first time. This approach will also make it simple for Musk to evolve the design, testing any major change first on an unmanned flight.

    NASA has now decided that they may try to launch the Orion on the Delta IV because the Ares is not sufficiently powerful. The Orion is a capsule that carries 4 people and a tiny payload, but costs more to launch than the Shuttle. What practical benefits does Constellation provide that is worth the money we are borrowing from China to pay for it? How does it improve our trade deficit? Our standard of living? In times like these, every dime NASA spends must provide practical benefits for America.

  • DCSCA

    Musk will launch at least 8-10 unmanned payloads with Falcon before attempting a manned launch. <- In other words, another bogus 'things to come' press release. It only serves to reaffirn the suspicion that to launch a manned Falcon9/Dragon stack now would likely have an unfortunate outcome for vehicle and crew.

    NASA had to demonstrate it was capable of lofting and return Shepard safely before JFK committed the country to Apollo, the moon and began funnelling billions to it. Musk should be capable of conducting a similar suborbital flight and in this economic environment it would be a wise move. That kind of accomplishment, perhaps as early (and appropriately) as next May, would go along way- figuratively and literally- in validating his systems and hardware for manned flight to Congressional skeptics, wary investors as well as validate support for loan guarantees and government subsidies. Otherwise, he's just hyping space services as if it was another movie, complete with teaser trailers and lots of press releases as suckerbait for customers… and. like a movie, when the product doesnt live up to the hype, the audience has already paid for the disappointment and can't get a refund.

  • DCSCA

    @Tommy…” The Moon has been “abandoned” since December 1972.”
    “Don’t make idiotic statements out of ignorance.” <- Indeed. Your post… quite early in this thread and easily corrected and sourced. Have a safe holiday, Tommy. Meanwhile…

    Another day moves from dawn to dusk,
    And still no humans flown by Musk;
    The weeks move on; the calendar flies;
    Yet no manned Dragons cross our skies.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Neither do manned Orions

    And another day Commercial Crew is delayed,
    is another day the Russians must be paid.

  • DCSCA

    Ferris Valyn wrote @ September 4th, 2010 at 3:27 am <- So? Soyuz has been flying for over 40 years and it works. Commerical hasn't flown anybody. And extending shuttle for a while per Kraft's editorial comments and Glenn's recent remarks makes sense. And there are some foreign policy benefits which weigh favorably toward continuing w/Soyuz for supply and some ISS crewing while pressing on w/Orion. But SpaceX conducting a suborbital commercial manned spaceflight in this economic environment it would be a smart move. That kind of accomplishment would go along way- figuratively and literally- in validating the hardware with skeptics both in Congress and with wary investors as well as foster strong support for putting loan guarantees and government subsidies on the table for commercial space. This writer would support those guarantees but first, they've got to get somebody up and down safely and earn some crediblity.

  • brobof

    Chris Castro wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 9:50 pm
    “My response: The Moon IS IN DEEP SPACE!”
    Panto voice:”Oh no it isn’t!”
    The Moon is at the bottom of a Well; has: regolith, crater walls and its entire mass as handy radiation proofing; omnipresent dust and electrified craters. It also isn’t DEEP SPACE: 2 odd seconds lag time? Phooey! Voyager 2: 12 hrs 50 mins 17 secs now that’s DEEP SPACE!
    If the Earth is our ‘Cradle’ then the Moon and L points: 1-5 are still our ‘Nursery’ and SEL1 to 2 ‘Upstairs’ with a Stair Gate. The Oort Cometary Halo our ‘Backyard’… Any decent DSV should be capable of 32 lunar distances with all that entails. (KUDOS LockMart! Like the ‘stretched’ Orion!)

    However in the interim, in case you hadn’t noticed, NASA could get “into the frame-point of supplying a crew for multi-months-long spans of self-reliance off Earth” using the ISS. But they won’t as MicroManagement is in the blood. Unlike the Russians: Mars 500?
    But baby steps…

    Oh and w.r.t. Cosmic Perspective: Bruce McCandless and any other Astro out on CanadaArm or Strela for that matter. (Human vision is wider than a photo or NASATV. We also have necks!)
    http://www.boingboing.net/200707250710.jpg

  • Chris, as you well know, an “ISS on the Moon” was all the VSE was going to achieve, had it been funded at the requested level, had NASA not been filled with can’t do backstabbers who can’t follow orders, etc. Now certainly there would be a lot to learn. Perhaps there would be *some* ISRU, but at 2-light-second roundtrip the micromanagement of a lunar base would be much the same as the ISS. As to colonization, it’s simply never going to happen so long as NASA is at the helm. Commercialization has to be a part of the plan from the beginning and NASA needs to take a different role.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Of course they have – USA has flown people to space. Space Adventures has flown people to space. MirCorp has flown people to space.

    And the real isn’t isn’t Orion – its Ares I/Direct/Ares V

    Another day Commercial Crew is delayed,
    is another day the Russians must be paid.
    Meanwhile the fraud that is Constellation
    continues a long standing tradition of NASA space cadet powerpoint fascination,
    instead of really going places

  • Major Tom

    “NASA had to demonstrate it was capable of lofting and return Shepard safely before JFK committed the country to Apollo, the moon and began funnelling billions to it.”

    Totally and utterly wrong.

    President Kennedy responded to Gagarin’s April 12, 1961 flight by sending a memo on April 20 to Vice President Johnson asking his Space Council to review “a rocket to go to the Moon and back with a man”, among other options.

    history.nasa.gov/Apollomon/apollo1.pdf

    Johnson got back to Kennedy on April 28 and recommended a manned lunar landing.

    history.nasa.gov/Apollomon/apollo2.pdf

    Von Braun also endorsed a manned lunar landing in a letter to Kennedy on April 29.

    history.nasa.gov/Apollomon/apollo3.pdf

    Even key members of Congress, like the chair of the House Committee on Science and Aeronautics, had agreed to the manned lunar landing goal by May 4.

    history.nasa.gov/Apollomon/apollo4.pdf

    Friendship 7 didn’t launch until May 5, 1961, days and weeks after the events and decisions in this correspondence had taken place.

    No one — from Von Braun to key members of Congress to Vice President Johnson to President Kennedy was waiting for Shepherd’s flight before making the decision that led to the Apollo Program. And actually, if you read the historical analysis, the fact that the U.S. decisionmakers knew that they only had a _suborbital_ flight (Friendship 7) in the pipeline to respond to Gagarin’s _orbital_ flight only added pressure to and accelerated the decisionmaking process.

    Don’t make stuff up and waste this forum’s time with idiotic statements made out of ignorance.

    “And there are some foreign policy benefits which weigh favorably toward continuing w/Soyuz for supply and some ISS crewing…”

    And those would be what? Specifically? How does sending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to Russia to be beholden to a foreign capability that NASA should have been able to field domestically create “foreign policy benefits”?

    “But SpaceX conducting a suborbital commercial manned spaceflight in this economic environment it would be a smart move. That kind of accomplishment would go along way- figuratively and literally- in validating the hardware with skeptics both in Congress”

    Falcon 9 has launched to orbit. A step backwards to an Ares I-X style suborbital flight isn’t going to convince anyone of anything.

    Think before you post.

    “and with wary investors”

    There are no “wary investors”. SpaceX has already received two rounds of VC funding through the Founders Fund and Draper, Fisher, Jurvetson. Each of the other COTS (OSC) and CCDev performers (Blue Origin, Boeing, Sierra Nevada, etc.) is also putting their investors’ skin the game on those agreements.

    Stop making idiotic statements out of ignorance.

    By contrast, there is no private investment, VC, internal, or otherwise, in Constellation. If you’re so worried about the importance of having private skin in the game, then you’re pointed in the wrong direction.

    “as well as foster strong support for putting loan guarantees and government subsidies on the table for commercial space.”

    They’re already on the table, genius, in the House authorization bill (loan guarantees) and the three NASA bills (commercial crew).

    Try to keep up.

    “Your post… quite early in this thread and easily corrected and sourced.”

    Where did you (or anyone else) show that there has been a human presence on or around the Moon since December 1972?

    Unless you can demonstrate such, the Moon has been abandoned and deserted since that time.

    “Another day moves from dawn to dusk,
    And still no humans flown by Musk;
    The weeks move on; the calendar flies;
    Yet no manned Dragons cross our skies.”

    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    You point is idiotic
    After Shuttle NASA has no options besides Dragon for crew

    When is Orion scheduled to fly?

    Will it be suborbital? Orbital?

    What’s the launch vehicle?

    These are simple questions.

    I can answer them for Dragon.

    Why can’t you answer them for Orion?

  • In other words, SpaceX has nothing but hype and press releases.

    No, SpaceX has orbital vehicles, sitting at the Cape, you moron.

  • brobof

    Major Tom wrote @ September 4th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
    I always thought that the success with the F-1 program, March 1959 onwards… that had a lot to do with it.
    http://history.nasa.gov/MHR-5/part-1.htm
    (Lots of pictures too!)

  • Major Tom

    “I always thought that the success with the F-1 program, March 1959 onwards… that had a lot to do with it.”

    If you read the Kennedy and Johnson memos at the links above, there’s no evidence that F-1 progress, or progress in any other existing U.S. rocket or human space flight development program, played a role in the decision. In fact, in response to a question from Kennedy about whether “we are working 24 hours a day on existing programs”, Johnson replies that NASA was not working round the clock on the “Saturn-C-1 [sic] booster” (among other programs) except “during critical test periods” that required such hours. Johnson goes on to state that “the Russians have more experience with large boosters”.

    So, if anything, it was a lack of progress on the C-1 rocket and its F-1 engine, especially relative to Soviets, that was another factor leading to Apollo. The nation’s political and technical leadership felt that we were falling behind the Soviets in space. If they were satisfied with progress on F-1, C-1, and other programs, there would have been no need for Apollo.

    Hope this helps.

    FWIW…

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 4th, 2010 at 1:06 am

    Major Tom already eviscerated you on all the relevant points, but I’ll just add the following:

    Otherwise, he’s just hyping space services as if it was another movie, complete with teaser trailers and lots of press releases as suckerbait for customers

    You really need to get our of your basement and experience real life.

    In real life, companies like Lockheed Martin promote possible things their products and services can do, like the Orion “Plymouth Rock” asteroid mission Boeing and their CST-100, Bigelow’s space station modules, as well as everyone else promoting what they could do in the future if only given the chance (and the funding).

    But out of all the companies in the world that promote future visions of their products and services, you think only SpaceX is “hyping space services”. That’s called obsession, and you should seek medical help.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ September 4th, 2010 at 1:42 pm <- SpaceX has expensive floor decorations. None of then have flown, manned or unmanned…. none of them have orbited. You have a lot in common with Venus- rocky, dense, acidic and hot all the time. Chill. Pop a beer. Weekend.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 4th, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    SpaceX has expensive floor decorations. None of then have flown, manned or unmanned…. none of them have orbited.

    The same could be said for ULA – the hardware on their factory floor, technically, has not yet flown yet, because their launchers are not reusable (i.e. one time use, so all launchers use new hardware).

    Of course both companies have prior “floor decoration” units that have flown, so your comment is either ignorant or stupid – I’ll let you choose…

    Any other word games?

  • Ferris Valyn

    Coastal Ron – don’t ask that question.

    He’ll probably try and recite more poetry.

  • DCSCA

    Memo to: Elon Musk
    Subject: Suborbital flights

    Shepard’s Freedom 7 suborbital flight [on May 5, 1961] had cost the American people (180 million citizens in 1961) $400 million– about $2.25 a piece. But its success caused an immediate boost in the stock market, especially among space-age stocks…”- source, Light This Candle by N. Thompson

    Fly Bowersox. Next May. Like Shepard, fifty years earlier.The validation of your hardware and systems will do wonders for the space community, with Congress, with investors and skeptics worldwide.

  • Fly Bowersox.

    Stop being an idiot.

    Sadly, it would be much easier for SpaceX to fly Bowersox than for you to stop being an idiot.

    Why are you so stupid as to not understand that SpaceX’ vehicles are orbital, and not suborbital?

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ September 5th, 2010 at 2:17 am <- Always with the excuses. In other words, they can't do it.

    Unlike Space X's Dragon hanger queens you champion, NASA actually flew both suborbital and orbital Mercury flights to verify systems but you whine SpaceX Falcon/Dragon test vehicles are incapable of reconfiguration for suborbital manned test flights– which should be easier to accomplish today than it was fifty years ago. Per Kraft, when NASA launched Shepard fifty years ago, the reliability of a rocket-propelled system in 1961 was not much better than 60%. A manned flight today- suborbital or orbital-should be much easier today for SpaceX than it was for NASA 50 years ago. The benefits for SpaceX, the commercial space community and the investor class at this point in time given the economic pressures of this period are self-evident.

    But thank you for playing and reaffirming the suspicion that the odds facing a successful manned launch, orbital or sub-orbital- by SpaceX are on a par with– or worse- than those facing Kraft and NASA in '61. A catastrophic loss of vehicle and crew by SpaceX would most likely set back commerical space two decades. But it remains enjoyable to see you keep demonstating how inflexibly rigid 'SpaceX' proponents such as yourself can be. Your vocabulary is weak as well. Myopic thinking patterns are a poor characteristic for a manager- or engineer to display.

  • you whine SpaceX Falcon/Dragon test vehicles are incapable of reconfiguration for suborbital manned test flights

    I do nothing of the kind, you moron. There is no need to “reconfigure” the vehicles (which are not “test vehicles,” but actual flight vehicles) to do a suborbital flight — all that one would need do is underfill the tanks. I simply point out that using an orbital-capable vehicle for a suborbital flight would be pointless and idiotic, since it would save no money, and reduce no risk.

    But idiotic is apparently your specialty.

  • DCSCA

    @Simberg- “I simply point out that using an orbital-capable vehicle for a suborbital flight would be pointless and idiotic, since it would save no money, and reduce no risk.” Pointless?? The benefits for SpaceX, the commercial space community and the investor class at this point in time given the economic pressures of this period are self-evident. By reiterating your position, you only reaffirm the suspicion that the odds facing a successful manned launch, orbital or sub-orbital- by SpaceX are on a par with– or worse- than those facing Kraft and NASA in ’61- 60% or less. A catastrophic loss of vehicle and crew by SpaceX would most likely set back commerical space two decades b ut a success, a suborbital manned flight, would verify the system, ‘man-rate’ it on SpaceX’s terms; validate any loan guarantees or subsidy requests from the Treasury and broaden public support. The cost of a successful manned suborbital launch would be returned many times over by those guarantees. Musk’s a good marketer and a ‘loss-leader’ launch like that would bolster confidence within the general space community as well as the investor class– and go a long way in silencing skeptics in Congress, too. It’s a smart idea. But by your statements, your asssessment is SpaceX can’t do it– or is afraid to try. NASA and Kraft weren’t in ’61, even with a 60% success rate.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 5th, 2010 at 6:00 pm

    You know, just as an observation, you (DCSCA) have changed in tone and substance recently. Now you seem to desperately try and trick people with word games, and then use that as proof of the fallacy of their position.

    Are you aware that you have changed?

    For instance, now you’re all gung-ho on SpaceX flying a sub-orbital flight, when no one in the world would choose to do a sub-orbital flight when they can just as easily do an orbital one (and land much closer to shore). Don’t you recognize how odd that is?

    And you keep obsessing on certain things like Kraft and Shepard, and phrases like “commercial space community and the investor class” and “loan guarantees or subsidy requests from the Treasury and broaden public support”. SpaceX marches to their own drummer, and they are not affected by any of that stuff – all they need are customers, not “public support” or the “investor class”.

    Maybe something is going on in your life right now, but whatever it is, maybe you should step back and take break. You’re starting to sound like the Admiral from the STNG episode “The Drumhead”.

  • By reiterating your position, you only reaffirm the suspicion that the odds facing a successful manned launch, orbital or sub-orbital- by SpaceX are on a par with– or worse- than those facing Kraft and NASA in ’61- 60% or less.

    Such a suspicion is “reaffirmed” only to idiots.

  • Byeman

    Kraft’s role in Mercury was minor. All he did was be in charge of people setting up flight test ops facilities. He had nothing to do with the design of the spacecraft or launch vehicle.

  • DCSCA

    Byeman wrote @ September 5th, 2010 at 7:20 pm “Kraft’s role in Mercury was minor.” <– astonishingle inaccurate.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ September 5th, 2010 at 6:56 pm <- In other words, SpaceX can't do it.

  • In other words, SpaceX can’t do it.

    Your reading comprehension, never high, seems to be plummeting by the comment. The issue is not whether or not they could do it — obviously they could — but how monumentally stupid a thing it would be to do. We can gauge that pretty well by the fact that it was your suggestion.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ September 5th, 2010 at 8:00 pm <- Your vocabulary remains limited. It's no 'obvious' they 'could at all. Just the opposite- and their avoidance of doing so sumply reaffirms the suspicion that they cannot. The benefits for SpaceX, the commercial space community and the investor class at this point in time given the economic pressures of this period are self-evident. By reiterating your position and using terms like 'morin' idiotic; etc,, you only reaffirm the suspicion that the odds facing a successful manned launch, orbital or sub-orbital- by SpaceX are on a par with– or worse- than those confronting NASA in ’61. A catastrophic loss of vehicle and crew by SpaceX would most likely set back commerical space two decades. And you know it. But a success, a suborbital manned flight, would verify SpaceX systems, ‘man-rate’ them on SpaceX’s terms; validate any loan guarantees or subsidy requests from the Treasury for commercial space and broaden public support for those requests. The cost of a successful manned suborbital launch would be returned many times over by those guarantees. A ‘loss-leader’ launch would bolster confidence within the general space community as well as the investor class– and go a long way in silencing skeptics in Congress, too. It’s a smart idea. But by your own statements, your asssessment is SpaceX can’t do it– or fears a disasterous outcome if they try.

  • DCSCA

    @Simberg- This issue IS if they can do it.

  • But by your own statements, your asssessment is SpaceX can’t do it– or fears a disasterous outcome if they try.

    You mind-reading abilities are as abysmal as your reading comprehension.

  • DCSCA

    @Simberg: A success, a suborbital manned flight, would verify SpaceX systems, ‘man-rate’ them on SpaceX’s terms; validate any loan guarantees or subsidy requests from the Treasury for commercial space and broaden public support for those requests. The cost of a successful manned suborbital launch would be returned many times over by those guarantees. And go a long way in silencing skeptics in Congress as well as bolster confidence w/t investor community. It’s a smart idea. And by repeatedly stating otherwise, you reinforce the suspicion that they cannot accomplish what NASA did w/Shepard 50 years ago.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 5th, 2010 at 8:09 pm

    OK, now you are degenerating into a cut & paster like Gaetano Marano. And about the same level of original ideas.

    Maybe you need to take a breather – do some yoga, take a walk or something.

    In any case, the conversation has moved on, but your ideas have not…

  • The moron has been reduced to repetitive babbling.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ September 5th, 2010 at 10:50 pm <- You have much in common with Venus– rocky to the core, acidic and full of hot air. Sad. Stop talking. Stark flying.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Hi DCSCA.
    Just in case you’ve missed the news, SpaceX plans on launching a fully operational F9 / Dragon Cargo vehicle around the end of October 2010 as the first COTS-C Demo flight. When (notice not IF) they complete the COTS demo’s they’re certified to fly cargo to the ISS and return cargo as well as they move to their CRS contract. That’ll probably be around the end of 2011.
    Guess what. They only need to add seats and upgrade their Dragon environmentals (if they haven’t already) and they have a Dragon Lifeboat which will be capable of returning crew in an emergency from the ISS. SpaceX can on-sell to NASA as a fully developed product. No need for Soyuz or Orion Lifeboat anymore.
    NASA’s COTS contracts will have produced more than was specificed thanks to some commercial innovation and smart thinking.
    Once that happens, all the arguments relating to Commercial Crew capability disappear, gone, just like the Shuttle infrastructure.
    Cheers.

  • Matt Wiser

    Unless, of course, Congress dictates Orion use as a lifeboat as well as on an existing rocket as a backup to Commercial crew. They can do that, you know. Just like the AF trying to end C-17 purchases, but the SoCal Congressional delegation keeps getting the aircraft funded each fiscal year. (the planes are built in Long Beach) You can bet that Lockheed-Martin will get their Congressional delegation from Colorado (where Orion is designed and built) to do things in a similar fashion. If Congress tells NASA to put Orion on a human-rated version of an existing rocket, NASA must comply. No ifs, ands, or buts. Even if you personally don’t like it, that is how it goes. Remember that Congress controls the purse strings, so you must please the Congresscritters. Especially those on the appropriate committees that oversee NASA.

  • DCSCA

    Beancounter from Downunder wrote @ September 6th, 2010 at 1:37 am Aside from issuing yet another ‘promise to perform’ press release, you may have missed the news yourself, the Soviet Union began lofting Progress supply craft over 32 years ago.

  • DCSCA

    Coastal Ron wrote @ September 4th, 2010 at 4:15 pm < Disproved. Repeatedly– and easily documented in multiple sources… check your facts, starting w/Friendship 7. Good grief.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 6th, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    It’s so sad to see how your ability to communicate has degenerated recently.

    I advocate for companies and approaches that lower the cost to access space – SpaceX, OSC, and even companies like ULA and Boeing if they are motivated properly.

    You seem to obsess over SpaceX and things they are not even doing yet, and you have this fixation to re-live things from the distant past (Conestoga I, sub-orbital flights, Friendship 7, etc., etc., etc.). And what’s up with the Gaetano-like cut & paste comments? You’re negativity has really gone to the extreme recently. Change of diet?

  • DCSCA

    Coastal Ron wrote @ September 6th, 2010 at 10:01 pm <- Past is prologue. Kraft's op-ed described how the next phase of manned space exploration will be carried out. Whether it's American led is less certain, but it will most likely be a government funded and managed space exploration effort. Space exploitation is the playground for commercial space. But space exploitation is not space exploration.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 7th, 2010 at 1:20 am

    but it will most likely be a government funded and managed space exploration effort. Space exploitation is the playground for commercial space. But space exploitation is not space exploration.

    You do realize that you’re arguing with yourself here. Commercial crew advocates want NASA to turn over the routine tasks (like crew to LEO) to the private sector, not the non-routine (i.e. exploration). Maybe if you actually read the posts before responding you would know that…

    But you’re also arguing with the Moon First advocates, who think that NASA should do exploitation, so now you add another group to your snark list.

    – – – – – – – – –

    So, not change of diet? Some other life event?

  • So, not change of diet? Some other life event?

    I don’t understand why you think that there’s anything at all new about this. This creature has been an illogical, repetitive troll since the day it showed up.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ September 7th, 2010 at 11:34 am <- Acidic, rocky to the core and hot air. Yep. Akin to Venus.

  • Coastal Ron

    Rand Simberg wrote @ September 7th, 2010 at 11:34 am

    This creature has been an illogical, repetitive troll since the day it showed up.

    Agreed. And he continues to be that way, despite knowing that – the saddest part of all of it…

  • DCSCA

    Coastal Ron wrote @ September 7th, 2010 at 11:18 am <- Commercial crew advocates have flown nobody. There's nothing to turn anything over to. Get somebody up, around and down safely. You're presenting a position based on a bogus premise. Commerical space has not launched, orbited and returned anybody safely. Validate your argument– get somebody up.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 11th, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    There’s nothing to turn anything over to.

    Duh, Mister Obvious. They haven’t held a “Commercial Crew Transportation” competition yet.

    But while NASA & Congress fiddle, SpaceX and OSC are building NASA supervised hardware that will be certified by NASA for ISS human operations. For SpaceX, that means their Dragon capsule is just missing seats, beefed up environmental systems, and crew displays in order to serve as an ISS lifeboat. Add an LAS and launchpad upgrades, and they will have a complete crew system.

    Since all of that is going to take at least 3 years to happen, SpaceX will have proven their Dragon capsule in real-life conditions at least 7 times – up and down.

    Now I’m not saying SpaceX will win one of the spots on a future commercial crew contract, but they are the only company with flight quality hardware, and by the time the contract is awarded, they will also have flown many up/down missions. If that doesn’t rank as a low-risk, then I don’t know what does.

    Commerical space has not launched, orbited and returned anybody safely.

    So what? If you’re barrier is that no one can do it until someone does it, then nothing is going to get done. Your circular logic does not work in the real world.

    Under your reasoning, Orbital Sciences and SpaceX should not have been given the COTS/CRS contract, because no commercial company has ever delivered cargo to the ISS. That’s not just weird, it’s stupid. It’s perpetuating the status quo, which as we all know, does nothing inexpensively or competitively – and that’s also why NASA has not fielded a single flyable spacecraft since the Shuttle, despite many attempts.

    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

    It’s time to stop the insanity.

  • DCSCA

    Coastal Ron wrote @ September 11th, 2010 at 8:28 pm <– Duh, stop talking, start flying.

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>