Congress, Lobbying, NASA

Briefly: NASA lobbying, asteroid R&D, and a rocket scientist candidate

One of the members of last year’s Augustine Committee is urging his fellow panelists to support the Senate version of the NASA authorization bill. Space News reports that Chris Chyba emailed other members of the committee last month to ask them to support the bill. Chyba, a Princeton professor of astrophysics and international affairs, said in the email that the Senate version is more of a “game-evolver” than a “gamechanger”, but is better than the House version that endorses a “business as usual” approach. “Those who want to change the way things have been done as an important step forward to a human future beyond [low Earth orbit] should, in my opinion, strongly support the Senate version of the NASA authorization,” Chyba wrote in an excerpt published by Space News.

The Senate bill also gets support in an op-ed in The Hill by Marion Blakey, president and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association and a former FAA administrator. The Senate bill “provides a compromise solution” between the administration’s original proposal and “the preference of Congress” to keep some sort of government human spaceflight capability. Meanwhile, “The House version of the bill is still pending, floating tetherless in space and awaiting a final pull” that would lead to a final compromise between the two versions. “As time grows short in the legislative calendar, a final resolution seems less and less likely.”

Tom Jones (the former astronaut, not the singer) tells SecondAct.com he’s working on planning for future human missions to asteroids but worries about the R&D funding needed to support such missions. “Unfortunately, NASA’s R&D budget is the first place legislators go to cut costs or for their own priorities,” he said. “R&D gets zapped unless it’s tied to an objective, and there isn’t that right now.”

Does it take a rocket scientist to solve our nation’s problems? That’s what Ruth McClung thinks: she is the Republican nominee for Arizona’s 7th congressional district running against Democratic incumbent Rep. Raúl Grijalva. Among her other stances on various issues, she tells the Arizona Daily Wildcat that she supports scientific research, even for “garage scientists” not affiliated with universities and corporations. “You can’t ignore anybody when it comes to science,” the self-described rocket scientist (who works as an engineer for Raytheon) tells the paper. And what did the University of Arizona alumna learn from her time in college? “I learned a lot,” she tells the college paper. “College gets hard.”

63 comments to Briefly: NASA lobbying, asteroid R&D, and a rocket scientist candidate

  • I’m not real hip to the Senate Compromise, but I can live with it, especially if NASA can stick to the “DIRECTish” approach that’s being advocated.

    But I’m not too optimistic about a reconciliation between the Senate and House before the end of the year.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Yeah support seems to be coming together nicely for the Senate bill.

    Robert G. Oler

  • CharlesTheSpaceGuy

    The bad news is that the morons in the Administration threw the entire community into chaos – cancel Orion (for example), revive Orion as a rescue vehicle, now the probable budget has it back as a deep space vehicle?? Contractors are laying off people who will be needed early next calendar year. These bright people did not realize that you have to communicate with the Senate, did not realize that a big organization like NASA changes direction slowly. We have wasted enough time and need to get some program agreed to.

  • MrEarl

    “Yeah support seems to be coming together nicely for the Senate bill.
    Robert G. Oler”

    Just like I told you in July when you where in DEEP denial.
    You still owe me a Rib-Eye at TrueLucks.

  • Farley Mowat

    I disagree. I find it hard to agree with a bunch of uneducated Americans who still cling to the delusional idea that it is necessary to send Americans into deep space, land on the surface of the moon and Mars, at a huge expense. And being an American it is my right to disagree, and living in the 21st century I have the ability to publicly disagree, ferment dissent, bite your ankles, verbally harass you, throw wrenches in your gears, indeed insult you any way I feel appropriate or even inappropriately, and I have decided that for the next few weeks I’m going to do just that, in addition to my regular duties of providing rational solutions to your LEO ‘American’ space flight gap while pointing out to you the utter ridiculousness of your positions, and your inabilities to achieve your insane and unnecessary goals, and the lack of national value for anything you propose in deep space, and finally, your generally incompetence in doing the most basic propulsion and launch vehicle research and development that is the most fundamental prerequisite of the goals that you so delusionally dream of. Get used to it. More to follow.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl…we get together I dont have a problem buying you a steak.

    First my side has won and second I always buy the first round. It is the friendly thing to do..

    Robert G. Oler

  • Spacetraveller

    Farley Mowat wrote–
    I disagree. I find it hard to agree with a bunch of uneducated Americans who still cling to the delusional idea that it is necessary to send Americans into deep space, land on the surface of the moon and Mars, at a huge expense. And being an American it is my right to disagree, and living in the 21st century I have the ability to publicly disagree,

    Sure you do, Farley, but my question to you is: If you think the American space program and spending about one half of one percent of the federal expenditures is delusional, why are you spending time on degrading the space program? There are bigger “fish” to fry in the federal budget. In the meantime, get a life.

  • MrEarl

    Oler:
    Funny how you switched sides then.

  • Milliard Johnst

    “If you think the American space program and spending about one half of one percent of the federal expenditures is delusional, why are you spending time on degrading the space program?”

    I’m not opposed to the money, I’m opposed to the goal of deep space flight to the Moon and Mars BECAUSE IT HAS NO NATIONAL VALUE.

    An international space program is a basic requirement for planetary stewardship and protection, but I certainly don’t agree that humans in deep space in the near term are necessary to achieve those specific goals.

    “In the meantime, get a life.”

    I have a great life, thanks, as evidenced by my ability to comment here. It also happens to be a life that I live within my specific means and abilities, in contrast to the United States of America. You are 12 trillion dollars in debt and many orders of magnitude deeper into environmental debt. You aren’t going to create the ability to repay that debt by traipsing off to Mars. So you see, I’m not critical of space programs, I’m only critical of YOUR space program, and I’ve got all of economics, science and engineering to back up my positions. All you’ve got pushing your agenda is Jeff Bingham.

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://www.ruth4az.com/

    from the thread.

    I have no stake in this persons race and although she seems a bit right for me, she is just the kind of non career person I think we need in the government.

    Interesting to watch her video on the border (right hand side of screen)…other then nailing the fact that the skyboxes dont work…she has an interesting comment

    something like “anyone who understands basic wave physics”….I am always amused when people who are not politicians run for office because they always have some entertaining phrases. The group of Arizonians (is that right?) in District 7 who understand basic wave physics has to be a small metric….

    Was it Adali S who when told he would get every thinking persons vote for POTUS remarked “I need more votes then that”?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 10:54 am

    I guess I have not made myself clear…sorry

    I never mind losing on a couple of minor nits if I win on the big thing or things.

    The House bill is a loss, it defeats the notion of the Obama change of direction completely. It saves programs, it preserves the NASA bureacracy it differs only from the PoR in that it shrinks it.

    The Senate bill preserves the notion of the Obama change of direction. The program of record is dead in all respects, there is no shuttle, no Cx no Ares and I’ll bet you when its all done no shuttle derived vehicle.

    The only time in politics (and mostly not even then) things end cleanly is when the guillotine is in action…one always has to leave a few bread crumbs to let the losers scrabble while the rest of us move on.

    Bolden and Garver won this round and the new “vector” is quite nice (for me anyway)

    Robert G. Oler

  • Tom Jones (the former astronaut, not the singer) tells SecondAct.com he’s working on planning for future human missions to asteroids but worries about the R&D funding needed to support such missions. “Unfortunately, NASA’s R&D budget is the first place legislators go to cut costs or for their own priorities,” he said. “R&D gets zapped unless it’s tied to an objective, and there isn’t that right now.”

    After going to NASAWatch.com and perusing the released HEFT pdf file, I am at a loss about how all of this is going to get paid for.

    The only thing I find different IMHO is the commercial crew launch and a rendezvous with an NEO in 2031.

    As far as I can see with my amateur eye, the infrastructure and component costs are going to be the same as CxP.

    Yeah, there’s intermediate milestones and that’s cool, but in the end, it all costs the same. Only the timeframe and destination is changed. And not a mention of international partners.

    How is this different than CxP in the end?

    This plan won’t survive Obama’s administration, either in ’13 or ’17.

    If this is the case, we might as well adopt Bill White’s proposal and establish lunar franchises from EML-1/2. At least we can figure we have some H2O at the poles.

  • Robert G. Oler

    dad2059 wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 11:08 am

    “After going to NASAWatch.com and perusing the released HEFT pdf file, I am at a loss about how all of this is going to get paid for.”

    It wont.

    The first thing I always check on these things is the “cost” and when I saw that page I said to myself “Nice viewgraphs never going to happen”.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Spending $300 billion over the next 15 years for NASA with only a single manned trip to an asteroid to show for it would be a titanic waste of tax payer dollars! And the trip doesn’t even help you to get to Mars since the radiation experienced going to an asteroid would be substantially less than traveling to and from Mars orbit.

    Sending unmanned reusable light sails to grab small (50 to 100 tonne) asteroids to be placed at L4 or L5 would be much cheaper and would allow us to exploit NEO asteroids for their oxygen, carbon, and water resources so that we can reduce the cost of space travel.

  • Spending $300 billion over the next 15 years for NASA with only a single manned trip to an asteroid to show for it would be a titanic waste of tax payer dollars!

    I haven’t found too much to agree with you on for the past 7 months Marcel, but this, I have to agree with you.

    What the hell are these people thinking? They know godd@mn well this little NEO visit isn’t going to get funded, no matter how much stuff is reusable.

    For two decades? No effin’ way! :P

  • CharlesTheSpaceGuy

    Could we take a brief side trip to “Moderation Land”? Someone has come onto the site and announced their intention to attempt to disrupt the conversation. Not that we need more people like that!!

    Jeff asked about ideas for moderation. I would appeal to him to permit us anonymous (to the group) people to maintain our access. I am personally happy to identify myself to him – but do not want to be handed a cardboard box by the security guard here! Perhaps some sign in where us anonymous people could communicate with Jeff off line?

    And a thought about the Tom Jones and The Asteroid Mission – it is not gonna happen. Sadly. The cost is too high and the technology is not there. Maybe in 2030 we could actually visit an asteroid and return alive.

  • Dennis Berube

    Not only has Obama ruined NASA, now he wants to ruin the housing market. No more 30 year fixed, and money going into government built multifamily rentals. Wow is this guy going to take away the American dream of owning ones own home in one swoop.. This politician must go next time around. Sorry about the off subject, but all as I can say is WOWOWOWOWOWOW, to what this man is attempting to do.

  • The first thing I always check on these things is the “cost” and when I saw that page I said to myself “Nice viewgraphs never going to happen”.

    LOL, almost to the word Paul Spudis commented at NASAWatch Oler.

    The “new boss, same as the old boss” cliche was, well, classic!

    Too funny.

    I love irony.

  • Anne Spudis

    Majority of Americans Say Space Program Costs Justified
    Percentage has grown since 1979
    by Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup – July 17, 2009

    [Excerpt] Fifty-eight percent of Americans say NASA is doing an excellent (13%) or good (45%) job. The agency’s ratings have been stable over the last several years. The high point was 76% in late 1998 after 1960s astronaut John Glenn made a return trip to space, and the low point was in September 1993.
    Ratings of NASA vary by education. Sixty-three percent of college graduates say NASA is doing an excellent or good job, compared with 55% of Americans without a college degree.

    The educational differences are even greater in opinions on space program spending, with more than 7 in 10 college graduates saying the space program’s benefits justify its costs and that NASA spending should be kept the same or increased. Only a slim majority of college non-graduates share these views. [End Excerpt]

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    Not only has Obama ruined NASA

    As always, that’s your opinion.

    But there is no denying that Bush underfunded the Constellation program, and that Griffin’s Constellation design ended up being flawed in major ways (not to mention over-budget & schedule).

    Many of us saw the Obama budget for NASA as rescuing NASA from a train wreck.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Many of us saw the Obama budget for NASA as rescuing NASA from a train wreck.

    Would NASA survive yet another train wreck? Should we even want it to? Sometimes I wonder if we shouldn’t stop trying to reform NASA and give them enough rope to hang themselves.

  • Jason

    “Sometimes I wonder if we shouldn’t stop trying to reform NASA and give them enough rope to hang themselves.”

    Isn’t that what the Senate is doing? Giving them a rope that’s too short for the purpose (inadequate HLV/Orion funding,) tying one end to the STS infrastructure, and cutting off just enough short pieces from the free end to let Commercial Crew hang their “Open for Business” signs.

  • @ Anne Spudis wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    I think quite a few folks here would like to see NASA get more money Anne.

    But most of us know that isn’t going to happen.

    CxP = $200 Billion by 2032/34, four boots on the Moon.
    Canceled 2010.

    HEFT/NEO Plan = $300 Billion by 2031, four boots hanging off from one NEO.
    Canceled 201(?)

    Bet on it.

  • Robert G. Oler

    dad2059 wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    well that is funny.

    When the National Aerospace Act was written in mostly my mind (but there was some consensus) we wanted to abandon the notion of a space station and do a lunar return for two reasons; first the notions that Mr. Earl and Marcel frequently express and second because we were hoping to take this out of the realm of NASA and try doing it “better cheaper faster”.

    As it stands right now, unless that somehow can happen, ie the cost to go outside of GEO come down we will in my mind not go there for a very long time. I have yet to see “Plymouth” get a price tag but I suspect its pretty hefty all for five days.

    Robert G. Oler

  • I have yet to see “Plymouth” get a price tag but I suspect its pretty hefty all for five days.

    I’m sure it is Oler, but I have a feeling “Plymouth” is on the low end and would probably be more doable than the HEFT/DRM plan economic-wise.

    But like you say, we ain’t gonna get beyond GEO until the price comes down or more money materializes.

  • Coastal Ron

    OK, I just read the HEFT/DRM plan (re: Tom Jones asteroid plan). I guess you have to make certain assumptions when planning, but the one that sticks out at me is the HLV – it’s mandatory, and it looks to be about 1/3 of the entire budget.

    They plan to spend ~$22B in development for the HLV through 2020. Of the planned payloads they have identified (CTV, MMSEV, DSH, etc.), only the Deep
 Space 
Habitat

 (DSH) is technically too heavy for Delta IV Heavy (26 tons vs 25 ton capacity), but would still be doable. Atlas V & Falcon 9 Heavies could lift the DSH with no problem.

    So if they used Delta IV Heavy instead of an HLV, then they could lift 3.6M lbs of payload for $22B ($300M/50,000 lbs of payload). That should be more than enough for the mission, and would save the rest of the ~$30B they had planned for HLV.

    They eliminated any consideration of existing launchers because:

    In‐space 
propulsion 
technology 
advances 
and 
high 
system 
reusability 
did 
not
 obviate 
need 
for 
higher 
capacity 
launcher 
(excessive 
number 
of
 commercial
 launches, 
DRM 
Set 
1)


    What defines “excessive”, and what would be the cost tradeoffs? This to me needs to be looked into, because if the goal is to do the mission, then they need to at least explore lower cost approaches, especially since no one believes the cost for this mission (with HLV’s) is affordable anyways.

    Using Delta IV Heavy would require a little more in-space assembly, but the elements would be the same, you can do it quicker (no HLV R&D), and it would be less costly overall.

    But they keep banging their heads against the wall, expecting a different outcome…

  • Wodun

    It isn’t just the high launch costs but also the costs when we throw away everything but the capsule people return to Earth in.

  • brobof

    dad2059 wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
    “HEFT/NEO Plan = $300 Billion by 2031, four boots hanging off from one NEO.
    Canceled 201(?)

    Bet on it.”
    Agreed. What are these people thinking. Totally disposable architecture. No international cooperation. Seemingly unlimited funding. A complete antithesis of both the Flexible Path and ObamaVision.

    As DRMs go this is way, way out there. One hopes that this effort was produced on a very slim budget! Needs a drastic culling to bring it into the sensibilities of the post Apollo, indeed post Shuttle era.
    It is all the more dunderheaded when NASA has ALREADY produced a viable cis-Lunar architecture in the form of OASIS.
    #FAIL

  • MrEarl

    Looks like NASA has brought together ALL sides with the HEFT plan. :-)

    As Stewie would say; “What the duce?!”

  • Wodun

    Someone had a comment on the Space Show a week or so back about starting a journey of a thousand steps with the first step and that fuel depots might be the 100th step. Not to denigrate fuel depots or a NEO mission but that maybe there are other problems to solve first.

  • Totally disposable architecture.

    Not totally, the SEP and Hab can be reusable. But the rest is sh!t-canned.

    And yes, no international partners.

    Epic FAIL.

  • A fuel depot at EML-1 would facilitate travel to various destinations such as lunar surface to NEOS to Phobos/Deimos; it would give commercial companies a place to deliver fuel; and an EML-1 depot program could easily incorporate international partners.

    It would also be a place to stockpile lunar water harvested from various craters at both lunar poles, north and south.

  • Martijn Meijering

    What defines “excessive”, and what would be the cost tradeoffs?

    I’m afraid politics defines excessive. Anything that doesn’t require SDLV will be ruled out by judiciously choosing a new definition for excessive. I think they’ll trot out the 1-(1-p)^n myth again, or else the maximum launch rate of EELVs, conveniently forgetting that 20-40 launches a year (each I think) was what the EELVs were designed for.

    I don’t think they are even trying to do the right thing, merely trying to look as if they are doing the right thing while working towards a predetemined conclusion. In other words, ESAS all over again.

  • Coastal Ron

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    I’m afraid politics defines excessive.

    Unfortunately yes.

    What I would hope for is someone/some group would put together a plan that leverages the non-launcher architecture they outlined on the HEFT plan, and price it out using current launchers. THAT would be an interesting comparison, and it could be an eye opener for many of the politicians that don’t know the difference between an EELV and an HLV (i.e. most of them).

  • Martijn Meijering

    We have wasted enough time and need to get some program agreed to.

    “We” don’t need anything. Maybe you need (or want) some program. Space has not been important for a very long time. Maybe it never was important, not even during Apollo.

    Commercial space does not need any program agreed now. Exploration does not need any program agreed now. Space will still be there after a year or more of no agreement. SDLV and the Shuttle workforce on the other hand do need some program agreed now.

  • Martijn Meijering

    THAT would be an interesting comparison, and it could be an eye opener for many of the politicians that don’t know the difference between an EELV and an HLV (i.e. most of them).

    The IAS study, the work of the Decadal Planning Team and OASIS did that. The plans are out there. ULA’s plan is out there. NASA’s planners are either dishonest (perhaps not allowed to be honest) or they are incompetent. Or both.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Regarding eye openers: I don’t think that even if the rest of Congress cared enough to be aware of the fact that HLVs are not necessary, they still wouldn’t be willing to go against the special interests. The committees responsible for NASA have a certain amount of pork to spend. Many of the other committees have pork money of their own. As long as they don’t do anything that is so blatant that the general public is outraged, the rest of Congress probably doesn’t give a damn. And the general public doesn’t care either. If Obama had still been fighting for his plan (or if Reid were fighting for Bigelow or something) it might have been different, but in the end NASA apparently wasn’t all that important to him after all. I never understood his seemingly strong involvement anyway.

  • Coastal Ron

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    The IAS study, the work of the Decadal Planning Team and OASIS did that. The plans are out there. ULA’s plan is out there.

    I like the ULA proposal, but I haven’t seen any costs associated with it. The launch costs are easy to estimate, but everything else is a guess. But I do like their approach, especially their ACES architecture.

    The OASIS plan (thanks, brobof, for the link) is interesting, but I think it could be updated with a number of substitutions. For instance, they could use ACES instead of their propellant module, and instead of the Gateway as designed, use a Node 3 type element with other ISS add-ons (Quest, ERA, cuppola, etc.) plus a customized service module. Doing this would cut down on R&D costs, and they would be quicker to bring online. Not optimized weight-wise, but you make up for that with more fuel.

    It would be nice to actually cost out these proposals, which then could be used to compare with other plans (like the HEFT one). Without a basis of comparison, they are all just a bunch of ideas.

  • brobof

    dad2059 wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
    Nope there seems to be a separate launch for each SEP array. See page 51. Not clear about Hab tho’. Reusability relegated to “trade studies” and we know where those will lead.

    On the bright side NASA does seem to be taking SEP more seriously. One hopes that the 33KWe flagship gets a fast track in the form of a (non disposable) cis Lunar Tug! They can add the output of the multiple Van Allens pass (degraded) solar arrays to the proposed SPS ‘Death Ray’ Demo.
    Cryo PD tech is hugely transferrable::
    Argon: 87.30 K (−185.85 °C) LOX: 90.20 K (-182.95 °C) 

  • brobof

    Coastal Ron wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
    Pleasure. For the full smash::
    OASIS the Images
    http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/old_site/academics/484S03/oasis_docs/oasis_pics/
    OTHER FUNKY STUFF
    http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/old_site/academics/484S03/oasis_docs/oasis_docs.html
    OASIS the PDF
    http://malsp.larc.nasa.gov/malsp_website/documents/library/OASIS_FY01_Final.pdf
    Executive Summary
    http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design_lib/OASISEXEC_97.pdf

    ULA OASIS revisited
    http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/09/ula-claim-gap-reducing-solution-via-eelv-exploration-master-plan/
    Various links off here:
    http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/Education_PublishedPapers.shtml

    Personally, as I suggested to Augustine Committee, I would divvy up PD tech to various parties. Russians: Hypergols for obvious reasons; LOX/ Argon to Europeans and the tough nut: Hydrogen to the US. Ditto exploitation of Lunar/ Asteroidal Resources. Everybody is in the critical path and thus Space becomes a cooperative game. Sorted as we say over here!

    Agreed re ACES. The singular Hybrid Propellant Module would have been a ‘tricky’ proposition. Better still singular tankage optimised to the fuel and an internationalised plug in and play architecture.

    I note that the Hab module of the DRM has the look and feel of the Lunar Gateway. Park one of those at L1 and both Bill and I would be happy!

    What should be the plan for in-space depoting/refueling?
    (About half way down in answer to the various posed questions!)

  • DCSCA

    “Tom Jones (the former astronaut, not the singer [and Fox News contributor as well] ) tells SecondAct.com he’s working on planning for future human missions to asteroids but worries about the R&D funding needed to support such missions.”

    <– If there was ever a subset of missions ready-made for the application and exploitation of robotic technologies, it's asteroid exploration. The idea of wasting civilian space agency resources on 'mission planning' to send astronauts out to lasso space rubble is really far down the list of useful priorities. Clearly Chris Kraft's 'operational model' as briefly described in his recent op-ed is the best next step for a progressive manned space program. Of course, nothing is stopping commercial space from suiting up crews and rocketing out to asteroids, stake a few claims and start mining for minerals. No doubt there's a plethora of investors ready to fund such enterprises, eh.

  • libs0n

    Re: Conceptions of there being a limitation to commercial launch rate.

    I think there is a holdover mentality from the Space Shuttle program, where there is a certain fixed launch capacity that can’t be exceeded, because of infrastructure limitations and budget, and people in the Shuttle program mindset extrapolate that to other areas. You can’t realistically expect to build a second VAB for instance, and new Shuttle pads would be exorbitant, and the budget only supports so much Shuttle activity.

    But commercial launch capacity *is* expandable through targeted investments in increasing flight rate capability. Things like adding more crew shifts or a new integration facility or new factory space or even new launch pads. This new infrastructure can then be supported by the expansion in flight rate. This is the mentality of the commercial world, new business can support an expansion to serve that new business.

    Consider that this HEFT report thinks there is a limitation, yet ULA, the very makers of vehicles of the sort in question, was unafraid of such in their proposal that saw a ramp up in the flight rate of EELVs.

    Several new EELV launch pads and integration facilities.were built for less than what NASA spends on the Shuttle in a year. Elon Musk just built a new integration facility and refurbished a pad to support the Falcon 9 for a fraction of what NASA built on a mobile tower, as the favourite comparison goes.

    Commercial launch capacity can be increased in the face of further demand for that capacity. Expanding operations is the solution to launch rate limitations. This is a false barrier to commercial utilization.

    Even though they spare no expense on HLV, on investing in in-house NASA launch capacity, investing in the commercial arena to support NASA launch is a plague to this kind of continuing avoidance of commercial mentality.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    you start to see the reason I support Obama’s plan.

    If you go back 30 years every study NASA has made of doing anything outside of LEO looks the same because it has to use the same infrastructure, the infrastructure that keeps the agency in business. Now it is a SDHL.

    Doesnt matter if something else can lift it, something else could have lifted the station…they have to find work for what keeps the agency in business and the people in the agency.

    In the end that is why we are in this mess and every darn thing ends of looking about the same and costing that.

    Until that changes we are doing the Ellen Aim song from Streets of Fire; going nowhere going nowhere fast.

    well not so fast any more

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    Oler’s musings on manned space flight operations are essentially nulled by his own words: “Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 4:17 pm “First I really dont care that we (the US or humanity or whatever) goes to the Moon or Mars or an asteroid in the next 10-20 years. I dont think that there is any need to send people we have good robotics which can do the job at far lower cost.” ‘Nuff said.

  • DCSCA

    Anne Spudis wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 12:47 pm <- Anne, when the dust settles, this is how it's going to unfold: Per Kraft -"[R]egular and extended moon missions, utilizing the spacecraft designed for Mars missions, will be necessary to confirm the readiness of spacecraft, astronauts and flight procedures for future Mars missions. In fact, several dress-rehearsal-type missions, simulating a multiyear Mars mission, within the relative safe-return distance between the Earth and the moon, would be vital before attempting to risk the unforgiving demands of sending a manned spacecraft more than 100 million miles to Mars."

    Whether this 'operational model' is American led remains uncertain, but it is a sound, logical approach, presented by a successful, experienced individual in manned spaceflight addressing how we'll expand out to the Moon and onward to Mars.

  • @ libs0n

    At some point commercial space will need to decide to go around NASA.

    After all, if NASA can HEFT-Y up the DIRECT proposal into something unaffordable, they will be equally capable of bloating an EELV-centric program into something unaffordable.

    HEFT is very disappointing to me but it also reinforces my long stated belief that commercial space needs to go around NASA rather than through NASA.

  • Anne Spudis

    DCSCA wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 5:29 pm [Whether this ‘operational model’ is American led remains uncertain, but it is a sound, logical approach, presented by a successful, experienced individual in manned spaceflight addressing how we’ll expand out to the Moon and onward to Mars.]

    Ad Luna!

  • Martijn Meijering

    Ad Luna!

    I applaud the sentiment (though not the declension), but it’s going to be a while I’m afraid.

  • vulture4

    A fundamental difficulty is that NASA assumes a completely arbitrary mission will be handed to them by the White House since this is the way it has been since 1957 and Sputnik. But this isn’t the 60’s and no compelling national interest exists that is worth writing a blank check for a flight to an asteroid, or the Moon, or Mars. NASA needs to go back to 1915 and the noncompetitive position of the US commercial aircraft industry. We have had about 1 real commercial launch per year from US soil for the past 5 years. Helping commercial industry become more competitive was NACA’s mission, and should be NASA’s.

  • DCSCA

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 6:01 pm ‘… but it’s going to be a while I’m afraid.’ <- Perhaps. Perhaps not. Still, that didn't dissuade the likes of Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Tsiolkovsky, Oberth, Goddard, Korelev, Von Braun, Sagan… etc. We're lucky to have been alive to witness many of their dreams become reality.

  • Martijn Meijering

    I don’t think I’ve witnessed much of their dreams. I was born after the end of Apollo and I’ve witnessed the Shuttle and the ISS and that’s it.

  • DCSCA

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 6:32 pm <- Think again. You have. My late grandfather was one year old when the Wright's took flight and lived to witness man reach into space, begin to explore the Moon; images from the surface of Mars as well as images from Voyager beamed back from the distant planets. Not bad for one lifetime. Indeed, think again. You have.

  • Coastal Ron

    libs0n wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 5:04 pm

    Re: Conceptions of there being a limitation to commercial launch rate.

    Well said.

    No one goes to commercial launchers and says “if we gave you an order for 50 additional launches over a three year period, could you handle it?”. I know a lot of Industrial Engineers that would salivate over that kind of challenge. Not to mention that it’s easier to open a 2nd factory for an existing product, than a new factory for a new product.

  • Martijn Meijering

    None of us have the (positive) right to see man conquer space, but taxpayers do have the right to see their hard earned money spent wisely. That has clearly not happened for the past thirty to forty years. By the time Challenger was lost it was clear the Shuttle had failed in its primary mission of reducing launch costs by an order of magnitude. Compared to what could resonably have been done with so much money NASA has been a dismal failure for decades. That is the comparison we ought to make.

  • Ben Joshua

    If just the Cx $$ spent to date had been focused instead on R&D, lowering the cost of launch and ramped up robotics activity, where might we be at this juncture?

    The Senate proposal may be the best we can hope for now, though it satisfies the power centers and dreamkeepers, to a degree (to a fault), and says, “we’re not ready to get real quite yet.”

    By the way, I’d like to thank those of you who make factual arguments for changing my thinking on some things. Please keep your lines of communication open to non-techies, who are after all, most voters and taxpayers. And to the person who suggested I didn’t know much about politics, thank you for putting a smile on my face!

    If Chris Chyba is right about the “game evolver” the next few years should be interesting for those of us in the interested, taxpaying and onlooking public. It is tantalizing that a government agency could slowly evolve. I predict a bit of stress there, as priorities change.

    I suspect the commercial sector will gain a foothold with private customers and ISS cargo, until their participation in orbital activities become accepted, and NASA’s role, due to budget stress, “evolves” to a place that more closely resembles the founding document.

    The original role for NASA is not a come down, rather it is an opportunity to be an engine for R&D, powering the new economic sector of space biz.

  • Bennett

    Ben Joshua wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 9:11 pm

    Outstanding. I want to sit at your table (at any symposium or convention).

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    I’d like people to keep in mind the fact that NASA has several aspects to it. There seems to be a mindset that NASA per se is a failure however I’d like to point out that IMO it’s only the HSF side that seems to have problems.
    Most of the robotic exploration side have been successful and in some cases, outstandingly so. Sure there’s been cost overruns and some failures but they do continue to create hardware and fly missions, something HSF seems incapable of. That said, the missions seem to be getting bigger and also the cost blowouts. Hopefully they’re not going down the HSF route as well. M2cW.
    Cheers

  • Rhyolite

    vulture4 wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    Well said. The fundamental difficulty of doing business in space is the cost of getting there. NASA should concentrate its efforts on reducing the cost of space access – primarily by partnering with the private sector – until space access stops being the problem.

  • Rhyolite

    Beancounter from Downunder wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 11:30 pm

    “There seems to be a mindset that NASA per se is a failure however I’d like to point out that IMO it’s only the HSF side that seems to have problems.”

    JPL has been a much more successful exploration organization than JSC and for a lot less money.

    “Most of the robotic exploration side have been successful and in some cases, outstandingly so.”

    There have been a lot of failures too (MO, MCO, MPL) but there is a greater tolerance for risk taking and greater payoffs. HSF is very risk adverse – not that it has allowed them to successful avoid failure.

    “That said, the missions seem to be getting bigger and also the cost blowouts. Hopefully they’re not going down the HSF route as well.”

    There is a pendulum that swings between bigger missions and smaller missions. The last cycle peaked with Galileo and Cassini then it swung back towards Mars Pathfinder and “faster, better, cheeper”. The current cycle is peaking with MSL and JWST. It is probably time to start swinging back towards smaller missions.

  • @ brobof wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    Thanks brobof, I didn’t catch that. ;)

    HEFT is very disappointing to me but it also reinforces my long stated belief that commercial space needs to go around NASA rather than through NASA.

    My sentiments exactly Bill.

    But it’s my firm belief that NASA needs commercial launch to be viable in order for the agency, in any form, to survive. Because in the end, it is a projection of American soft power on the global stage, so even in this divided political environment, all agree that NASA is a necessary agency, no matter anyone’s political opinion.

    And in this political cycle, it looks like commercial crew and a SD-HLV is going to happen, no matter what CxP or HEFT plans are.

    Baby steps as far as NASA is concerned.

  • John Malkin

    I’m sure SpaceX, Scaled Composites, Orbital and others will be orbiting humans without NASA within the decade. However this will happen much faster if the Commercial approach to services is adopted at some level of funding by NASA.

    I think the chances of anything viable coming out of SD-HLV is slim. I wonder how much money we will waste before Congress gets it right. Baby steps describes the speed of government at least they have stopped the VA vs. NASA debates with the restructuring of the committees.

  • Coastal Ron

    I went through the HEFT plan “DRM
4:
100
t 
HLLV 
w/
Commercial 
Crew 
& 
CTV‐E Prime 
to 
Representative 
NEO
” (page 53), and here are a couple of salient observations:

    The projected needed budget is $144B (vs $129B projected available), which I guess shows how well they wanted to stick to reality.

    37.5%, or $54B is for the HLLV (probably R&D + operations)
    3.1%, or $4.5B is for developing commercial crew (no details)
    2.7%, or $4B is for commercial crew deliveries
    20%, or $29B is for Mission & Ground ops + infra. dev. & Program Integ.
    1.2%, or $1.7B is for robotic precursor
    35%, or $51B for spacecraft hardware

    Out of their spacecraft hardware list, the only item that doesn’t fit on a Delta IV Heavy (or smaller) launcher is the Deep Space Habitat at 23,600 kg (52,029 lbs), but if it shed 1,000 kg it would fit, or they could use Atlas V or Falcon 9 heavies.

    All of their spacecraft hardware looks to be custom, except for the CTV and kick stage. I wonder how much could be saved by using ISS hardware (Node 3, Quest, ERA, etc.), and how much by using ULA’s proposed ACES family of commercial tankers?

    Bottom line – except for fuel, there is no space hardware that existing families of launchers could not launch. An HLLV only reduces the amount of in-space assembly and fuel transfers.

    It would be interesting to have the team go back and see how they could reduce costs using ISS hardware, ACES and commercial launchers. Not all of that would be what we would take to Mars (part of the exercise), but I honestly don’t think we’re going to Mars anyways without a gravity-simulating (i.e. rotating) spacecraft – and that’s going to take a while.

  • Coastal Ron

    Referencing my HLLV number above, $54B pays for about 180 Delta IV Heavy launches (~$300M/flight per ULA if man-rated).

    That number of flights would put 9,000,000 lbs of mass into LEO. Let your imagine run wild here a second – what could you do with 1/9th of that in fuel, or 1,000,000 lbs of LOX/LH2? How large of a spacecraft could you push to L1 or an NEO?

    I just mention this to bring up what kind of alternatives are possible by NOT building an HLLV, and using existing launchers.

Leave a Reply to Robert G. Oler Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

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