Yesterday’s Huntsville Times has its own take on the current NASA legislation situation from the perspective of how the various bills would affect the Marshall Space Flight Center and the city. In the article, one area congressman, Robert Aderholt (R-AL), said there was “behind-the-scenes lobbying by special interest groups” to get the House to vote on the Senate’s version of the bill, as opposed to the version passed by the House Science and Technology Committee. “While I appreciate some aspects of the Senate authorization bill, the House of Representatives deserves a vote on its own committee bill, and I hope Democrat House leadership schedules that soon,” he said. Aderholt doesn’t appear to be a big fan of the Senate bill, supporting provisions in the House bill for the development of a government crew transportation system and requiring “commercial companies to prove their abilities before receiving billions of taxpayer dollars.”
Despite the lack of a clear resolution to the ongoing debate, Bob Mitchell, president of Houston’s Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership, believes a resolution will come soon after talking with officials, including local congressman Pete Olson. “We feel confident that we’re going to get a bill passed within the next two weeks,” he told Houston-area newspaper the Friendswood Journal, without providing additional details supporting that statement. A resolution in two weeks would almost certainly require the House to pass either the Senate bill or an amended House bill that emerges from the preconferencing process with the Senate. If the House passes a version that requires a formal conferencing process with the Senate, some have speculated that nothing will pass before the end of the current Congress.
Mitchell, in the same article, blamed impending layoffs at one JSC contractor, Jacobs Engineering, on NASA for “improperly redirecting funding for current programs.” That appears to be a reference to past reports that NASA had been asking contractors to withhold money for termination liabilities, although the cuts instead appear linked to the end of the fiscal year and an anticipation that a continuing resolution (a virtual certainty even if the differences in the House and Senate authorization bills are patched up in the next two weeks) would reduce funding going to contractors.
Mitchell, in the same article, blamed impending layoffs at one JSC contractor, Jacobs Engineering, on NASA for “improperly redirecting funding for current programs.†That appears to be a reference to past reports that NASA had been asking contractors to withhold money for termination liabilities, although the cuts instead appear linked to the end of the fiscal year and an anticipation that a continuing resolution (a virtual certainty even if the differences in the House and Senate authorization bills are patched up in the next two weeks) would reduce funding going to contractors.
This just proves that NASA funding has deteriorated to the level of just a pork funding jobs program for the individual NASA centers and not for the good of the American people.
In the meantime, NASA has to honor its contractual COTS cargo agreements with SpaceX, who is marching along despite of the caterwauling of the Elon Envyers, and Orbital Sciences’ Taurus 2 (American/Russian/Ukrainian hybrid).
The American people will see this and demand that NASA bid out more fixed cost contracts to the private sector.
History marches on.
Fixed contracts can be just as expensive as cost-plus. Never fool yourself that they are not. Fixed contracts demand that all requirements are set. Any changes to those requirements enable the contractor to ask for more money and can lead to higher costs in the end.
Any changes to those requirements enable the contractor to ask for more money and can lead to higher costs in the end.
That may be true in some cases, but I don’t see any evidence of that statement in regards with SpaceX’s or Orbital’s COTS contracts.
You’re beating a strawman here.
Sigh.. termination liability requirements are the law.. always have been. Just because Mike Griffin instructed you to break the law and you did so, for years and years, doesn’t change the law. Now, if you were sensible, you’d listen to legal when they tell you to SHUT UP ABOUT IT before someone on the Hill decides to launch a witch hunt.
SET IT STRAIGHT is correct. Legally, a contract is assumed to provide for a square deal between purchaser and supplier. If the purchaser wishes to make changes in the contract, the supplier has the right to demand corresonding changes in cost. It’s not necessary to specify this explicitly in the contract — state or federal law already spells things out.
SET IT STRAIGHT is correct. Legally, a contract is assumed to provide for a square deal between purchaser and supplier. If the purchaser wishes to make changes in the contract, the supplier has the right to demand corresonding changes in cost. It’s not necessary to specify this explicitly in the contract — state or federal law already spells things out.
Okey-dokey, I stand corrected.
Apologies to Set it Straight and thanks to Mike Shupp.
But cost plus contracts still benefit the contractor better, does it not?
Mr. Mitchell’s comment about a bill coming to the floor of the House within two weeks is interesting. Purely FWIW, I suspect that he is expressing his hope, based on his conversation with Rep. Olsen morethan anything else.
While NASA has always provided jobs, and that is a good thing, what has happened to our drive for exploration and science. SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE WE LOST IT! Commercial cannot provide it. They will only send the rich to orbit. I see now where they are planning trips to the ISS. Will a commercial investor buy the ISS when it goes off line from the government. Theres a thought! Keep ISS going with commercial investors. They can use the ISS for a vacation spot away from home and Earth respectively. Bigalow can dock his inflatables to her and increase her size. The Sheraton in space, everyone welcomed. Would NASA put the ISS up for sale to the highest bidder?????
dad2059 wrote:
The American people will see this and demand that NASA bid out more fixed cost contracts to the private sector.
The American people couldn’t care less. That’s the basic problem with human spaceflight.
Dennis Berube wrote:
Would NASA put the ISS up for sale to the highest bidder?????
NASA does not own the ISS. It’s owned by a consortium that includes Russia, ESA, Canada and Japan.
Fixed contracts can be just as expensive as cost-plus. Never fool yourself that they are not. Fixed contracts demand that all requirements are set. Any changes to those requirements enable the contractor to ask for more money and can lead to higher costs in the end.
So what this means is NASA has to operate the way any other corporate entity would when spending money. Know what you really want before you place the order or you waste resources.
Is there any reason NASA should be allowed to operate at a lower standard? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that they should get their act together before placing an order. Anything less is muddled thinking on the part of NASA.
The occasional “oops” is understandable, but to have EVERY contract swell to outrageous levels is unacceptable.
The American people couldn’t care less. That’s the basic problem with human spaceflight.
That could be true for the most part, but I think that’s because they don’t want to pay the taxes that support it.
Witness the enthusiasm for SpaceX, even if they’re retracing old ground.
Americans (around 40%) still like spaceflight. Only they don’t want to pay for it.
Dennis Berube wrote:
“They will only send the rich to orbit.”
Automobiles are a crazy fad only the rich can afford them.
Mobile telephones are a crazy fad only the rich can afford them.
Eyeglasses are a crazy fad only the rich can afford them.
Refridgerators are a crazy fad only the rich can afford them.
Telescopes are a crazy fad only the rich can afford them.
Airlines are a crazy fad only the rich can afford them.
Dennis .. do you know how crazy you sound?
I dont know, but many people today are complaining about the cost of a new automobile! They say only the rich can afford them and that is probably why the auto industries are in such dire straits financially. You think that sounds crazy?
Would that consortum put the ISS up for sale. How come then, congress decides when it comes down?
Congress only decides how to fund (or not) the American portion. Given that we have the largest allocation of resources in the US Operating Segment, that means we tend to set the bar by default.
dad2059 – “But cost plus contracts still benefit the contractor better, does it not?”
Not necessarily. There are a number of cost plus contracts that are award fee based, i.e., once mission requirements are met, and to the degree they are met, then the award fee is calculated and transferred to the contractor. Any additional costs incurred above the original contract value during the course of the contract are covered by the Govt. but the the contractor does not get any fee on top of that additional funding unless it is a Class 1 change to the contract (i.e, add a second satellite to a contract for one).
I recall on the Genesis mission, Lockheed’s award fee was withheld since the return capsule crashed into the desert in Utah. Not sure if it was ever resolved even after the scientists stated they got 99% of the science samples they were expecting.
Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 8:49 am
Mr. Mitchell’s comment about a bill coming to the floor of the House within two weeks is interesting. Purely FWIW, I suspect that he is expressing his hope, based on his conversation with Rep. Olsen morethan anything else..,…
Pete has been a disappointment but he is not a dolt and he has pretty clearly read the handwriting on the wall, which is basically that if the Senate bill doesnt pass then the CR is worse…and the House bill wont pass.
Slowly but surely the realization is setting in that the shuttle is gone and Cx is going out the door with it…one can tell this by the mad scramble that is taking place at JSC as all the civil servants who are looking for a place to land…circle the field and the contractors are glumly looking at the fact that pretty soon the landing fields will be full.
Contractors who thought that they were safe because “it is station work” are finding out that shortly NASA will start moving a lot of that work “internally” for the civil servants to do…
the most entertaining thing to watch is going to be once shuttle is gone to find out how much (or not) it takes to actually operate station…
Robert G. Oler
So, will the House bring their own bill to the floor, or the Senate’s?
I say the House will bring their own to the floor for a vote and no consensus with the Senate, resulting in a CR.
Dennis Berube wrote:
“I dont know, but many people today are complaining about the cost of a new automobile! They say only the rich can afford them and that is probably why the auto industries are in such dire straits financially. You think that sounds crazy?”
I am not talking about today Dennis, I am giving you examples of products and services that when they first were introduced the same thing was said about them as what you said about about space flight, namely, only the rich can afford them.
Granted only people with big checkbooks can take advantage of space flight TODAY, that doesnt mean it is going to stay that way. The only way to realize lower costs is to introduce competition and ways to increase the flight rates. Name me a product or service that doesn’t eventually get lower cost and broader mass appeal once a monopoly has to start competing with other providers.
@ Oler and dad2059
My fear for a CR is that the Constellation huggers could use that as an opportunity to oppose extending station beyond 2015.
Personally, I am very strongly supportive of extending station until 2020 (or 2028) but I do recall that ESAS envisioned re-directing ISS money after 2015 and that the current workforce and infrastructure were going to go away, anyway, under Mike Griffin’s plan.
Without ISS, there is no longer any need for ANY commercial crew or COTS and do we believe the next Congress will be more supportive of Obama’s FY2011 than the current Congress?
dad2059 wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 10:56 am
If the “space representatives” are smart, they will take the Senate bill and be happy for it.
If there is a lesson of the last few months it is that the notions of “exploration” of the solar system by humans is not something that in this economy can generate even “sustaining” support among Americans.
They have tried…everything from the Chinese are going to take over the Moon, to the notion of “American exceptionalism” to whatever…and nothing has generated any sort of serious support for the dollars it apparantly takes in the NASA model to explore anything.
There is a reason Lockheed came up with “Plymouth”…it was to try and explain what a minimal mission would look like …but not even that coupled with the dollar signs could generate a lot of “support”.
I dont know what the other folks are hearing but I know what is being heard in TX-22…and there is not even a lot of support in 22 for a lot of money pouring into NASA when people who work outside of the agency and in non space related efforts are losing their jobs. As one person asked “Pete” ….” Why are you not fighting to save my job?” (and this person worked for one of the cities in 22 which is cutting back).
If it goes to a CR then it gets caught up in the post election “cut the budget” scramble…and while Whittington might believe that the GOP is going to rush to spend funds on human spaceflight; he also believes that Sarah Palin’s foreign policy statements are coherent.
Robert G. Oler
Bill White wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 11:08 am
@ Oler and dad2059
My fear for a CR is that the Constellation huggers could use that as an opportunity to oppose extending station beyond 2015. ..
possible butif that is the best that they have, they are toast.
First off even ending station in 15 or the thought to end it in 15 wont save them now…and second ISS is going to end only when there is no money period for human spaceflight. meaning “not anytime soon”.
The politics are all wrong for ending ISS both foreign and domestic.
Plus very shortly you are going to see the troglodytes who are senior (but not political) management at NASA start to circle the wagons to protect the program. It is starting to dawn on even them that they have run their course in terms of programs that “eat but dont fly”…and they are all starting to do a mad dash to get on the one that is flying.
Robert G. Oler
@ Robert G. Oler
I received a letter yesterday from my Congresswoman (Judy Biggert (R) IL-13) in response to an email I sent encouraging her to support the Senate Authorization.
Her letter expressed continued support for Ares. Remember, this is Illinois not Alabama or Texas.
I fear that a GOP controlled House would fight to restore Constellation (Ares 1 & Ares V) and oppose ISS extension and that Bob Walker, Newt & Dana would be powerless to change that.
A CR now and a stalemate extending into 2011 would not be good for commercial advocates, even if the hated STS infrastructure were dismantled in the meantime.
The politics are all wrong for ending ISS both foreign and domestic.
Not for the Tea Party or the “get the US out of the UN” crowd.
That is my reading as well. Commercial space will focus on ISS resupply is GW intended. NASA will focus on Constellation. I would prefer a NEO mission before a return to the moon along the lines proposed by Lockmart, but as long as there is a durable consensus I don’t really care. Ares is central to both efforts. It won’t be cheap, but who cares? It will cement US dominance in HSF for the rest of the century.
“I fear that a GOP controlled House would fight to restore Constellation (Ares 1 & Ares V)”
No, they won’t. Constellation requires a NASA budget increase of $5 billion per year, or $25 billion over five years, just to keep the program on schedule, but the Republican leadership is trying to push discretionary spending, including NASA, in the other direction. For example:
“Republican opposition to the [FY 2011 defense appropriations] bill apparently is a signal of dissatisfaction with the overall level of spending in FY2011 supported by the Democrats. Republicans are trying to force Democrats to cut discretionary spending — which includes DOD, NASA and NOAA — and hold it to $1.108 trillion, less than the Senate’s $1.114 trillion or the House’s $1.121 trillion, according to Congress Daily.”
“Congress Daily quotes Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) as saying that Republicans have opposed all the FY2011 appropriations bills because they do not bring down the deficit or the debt…
“… As for the bill that funds NASA and NOAA (the Commerce-Justice-Science bill), it is anyone’s guess as to when that will pass, but whenever it does, it would not be surprising for it to include an across-the-board reduction. Such reductions typically are taken at the agency’s discretion and usually must be applied to all programs within an agency.”
See: spacepolicyonline.com/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1108:senate-appropriators-approve-defense-bill-on-party-line-vote&catid=75:news&Itemid=68.
FWIW…
amightywind wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 11:43 am
“It won’t be cheap, but who cares?”
Ah, a fiscal conservative.
“ Ares is central to both efforts…. It will cement US dominance in HSF for the rest of the century.”
I think what you mean is that Ares will cement a fiscal anchor around NASA’s budget that will keep them from doing any meaningful exploration for the rest of the century.
Coastal Ron wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
amightywind wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 11:43 am
I fear you are both correct. Simultaneously.
The result? Train wreck.
@ Major Tom
If a significant cut in NASA’s budget is inevitable (in the very near future) why is the House clinging to Constellation?
If a significant cut in NASA’s budget is inevitable (in the very near future) why is the House clinging to Constellation?
A budget cut is inevitable. The cuts will be made from ISS and other non-HSF programs. If conservatives allocate funding for NASA they will fund its core activities first. Climate science, life science, Elon Musk, and that bloated UN in the sky are not among them.
“Commercial space will focus on ISS resupply is GW intended.”
That’s not what the Bush II White House intended. The Bush II space exploration policy released with the VSE clearly states that NASA should “acquire crew transportation to and from the International Space Station, as required, after the Space Shuttle is retired from service” and that the “new crew exploration vehicle” is” to provide crew transportation for missions beyond low Earth orbit”, not ISS transport.
“I would prefer a NEO mission before a return to the moon…”
Then you support the Flexible Path options from the final report of the Augustine Committee.
“Ares is central to both efforts.”
Since when is any particular launch vehicle “central” to human missions to NEOs or the Moon? Transportation is a fungible commodity. It’s like saying that my SUV is “central” to my commuting efforts when I also have a compact car and live three blocks from a bus stop.
And in the case here, there are multiple studies showing that there are many alternative architectures with multiple launch vehicle options that can support these missions years, if not decades, faster and at billions to tens of billions of dollars less cost than Ares I/V.
“It won’t be cheap, but who cares? It will cement US dominance in HSF for the rest of the century.”
You should care because a system that is so expensive that it won’t field an HLV-equivalent capability until 2028 ensures that there will be no U.S. exploration missions until the late 2030s, giving many other nations decades to cement their dominance first.
The law of unintended consequences will come back to bite you on that, amightywind. The only viable destination for even Constellation in the near future is the ISS. Without that, a more conservative government may axe the whole HSF enterprise.
“Climate science, life science, Elon Musk, and that bloated UN in the sky are not among them.”
ISS is only $2-3 billion per year. COTS is ramping down to zero. Climate change and life science research are only measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
You’re off by a factor of two just to get the $5 billion budget increase needed to keep Contellation on schedule, nevertheless make up a cut to NASA’s budget as part of the larger Republican drive to reduce discretionary spending.
MT wrote:
You’re off by a factor of two just to get the $5 billion budget increase needed to keep Contellation on schedule
Wrong. Constellation will be funded primarily by the vacated shuttle budget. I don’t think ISS will not be immune. We’ll see who is right.
I swear some of you are so frigging myopic you can look through a hotel peep-hole with both eyes- mention Griffin, Cxp or Ares I and you simply go nuts. It amazes me how some normally intellegent people can so easily degrade into the 5th grade schoolyard at recess.
Augustine? Look at the data and time ALLOWED for their study, totally skewed. Ares I? It is not going to sneak into your house and spoil your milk. Short-comings? As stated by who? Oh, wait- it’s all a conspiracy- I forgot. Griffin? Not going to move in nextdoor and make your property values drop (any farther, that is). SpaceX? Really cool- at the moment. Don’t put all yer’ eggs in that basket folks. And then there are the ones who are still dreaming about the dream liner… sigh. Of course you also have the ones who think that any program that does not generate a paycheck for them, personally, or address their personal idea of how a program should work, it must be “PORK” Oh how they love that word. Of course there is also good old Robert G. the political puppet for Obama and whatever Der Leader says everyone should do (I’ve actually been just skipping his mindless posts- what dribble)
What you’ll get out of Congress will be an actual United States, NASA Human Spaceflight program- if you’ll all just wait for the “process” to work. It’s a damned lot better than the HSF void offered by the Obama FY2011 mess. We’ver dodged a bullet folks, and most of you are so tied up in your individual, personal desires for how you’d do things that you don’t even know it. Wake up and see what’s really important.
BTW… is Dancing With the Stars on next week?
Please now feel free to slam me (the standard for this site- Oler first then Major Tom, then everyone else who can look through that peephole in stereo)- you’ll feel good… just like in the 5th grade.
@ Bill White
Its probably going to take only a few launches of Bigelow space station modules for Congress to finally discover what a huge financial boondoggle the ISS program really is. And once again NASA will be blamed for the titanic cost for continuing this perpetual Congressional LEO on steroids program.
There’s nothing wrong with a truly international space station program if our partners were paying their fare share of the cost and US cost were a billion a year or less. But spending $2 billion a year and soon $3 billion a year for the ISS program (not including the transportation cost to get there) is a huge waste of tax payer dollars!
No, I’m not a Constellation hugger, I’m a beyond LEO hugger. $3 billion a year is a lot of money that Beyond LEO advocates at NASA have to give up for this perpetual LEO on steroids program.
We’ver dodged a bullet folks
Nice testosterone rant there starboy, Obiwan say feel the force, grasshopper.
I didn’t quite get your space policy point, I guess I just can’t see it. The point I see is that your saber rattling with STS and HEFT is a complete nonstarter. There is no way and hell you can pull anything off with that nonsense and the funds that will be permitted. You just don’t have the right stuff, you aren’t feeling the force. The force is towards small lightweight liquid fueled modular stage clusters using propulsion that basically has to be reverse engineered. I’m totally into NASA oops, I mean the citizens of the United States of America owning their own core stage launch vehicles, as long as that vehicle reaches orbit in a reusable manner, but at the very least they should be buying the boosters from the private sector. Let ATK compete with that and see where it gets them. I’m all for SSMEs on five meter tanks, but the 8.4 meter stuff and the once every other year ideas and 70 to 150 ton monster launch vehicles is really just more nonsense.
Luke,
It’s not just the Augustine report. Both the CBO and GAO found that NASA had not closed the business case for Constellation and, thus, exposed itself to severe programmatic risk. I’ve heard from colleagues on the Orion project myself that Ares I would not be ready before 2017. Performance shortfalls and schedule slip from going to the J-2X engine for the upper stage have been a nightmare for them.
I don’t think it is very becoming of you to summarily dismiss entirely valid concerns about the viability of the program in the same breath that you decry “schoolyard” behavior. You are free to express your opinions, but that does not mean you are immune to criticism of those opinions.
No, I’m not a Constellation hugger, I’m a beyond LEO hugger. $3 billion a year is a lot of money that Beyond LEO advocates at NASA have to give up for this perpetual LEO on steroids program.
If that is true, then why do you want an SDLV when EELVs are more than good enough?
I’m all for SSMEs on five meter tanks, but the 8.4 meter stuff and the once every other year ideas and 70 to 150 ton monster launch vehicles is really just more nonsense.
We said Bubba. Sometimes the outward appearance of ‘compromise’ is really silly.
If that is true, then why do you want an SDLV when EELVs are more than good enough?
That is a foolish assertion being rejected in congress.
Vladislaw, Tell me cars are cheaper today then 10 years ago and I will ask you, where have you been????? Originally Space X was saying 20 mil to launch people, now they along with Boeing have upped it a bit by doubling what they originally said to 40 mil. Whats going on here, low cost to orbit, I think not!
We said Bubba.
In that case I’ll see you around in five years, because I just can’t see any way to make that work on the funds available, without iterating through three and five meters first, and three and five meters are good enough for anything I want to do in the foreseeable future.
Sometimes the outward appearance of ‘compromise’ is really silly.
If the senate bill shows up on the presidents desk without any HLV weight or design restrictions, then I win, by default. The force is very strong there. The frontier is filled with rockets from many nations and individuals now, a five meter reusable federation rocket isn’t going to change the economy or break the bank, but a federation battle cruiser is just asking for trouble.
Feel the force, grasshopper.
Bill White wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 11:23 am
I fear that a GOP controlled House would fight to restore Constellation (Ares 1 & Ares V) and oppose ISS extension and that Bob Walker, Newt & Dana would be powerless to change that. …
anything is possible and with the current flux in the GOP the party just might be tearing itself apart…but …
first off nothing done to day changes the notion of ISS…2015 is a long way off and the politics are going to be that ISS keeps flying.
The letter you got indicates the current “political sheet” response for an issue outside of a Congresspersons district and is just a stock party position right now…
that wont survive. Cx cost to much and there is no more money nor enough money in the NASA budget to keep it alive…plus
if there is a GOP congress look for Obama to do what he hasnt had the balls to do and that is pick fights on issues that the GOP goes goofy on.
there are a lot of things I am worried about but one of them is not that we will hear much more of Cx or SDV…the end is near or as The Man in Black would say “the man is coming around”.
(with apologies to Generation Kill)
Robert G. Oler
“Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Haleyville, confirms there has been pressure for the House to simply adopt the Senate plan. “There is behind-the-scenes lobbying by special interest groups to force a vote on the Senate NASA authorization bill in the House…””
Welcome to Washington, Representative Aderholt. Is this the first time the premise of NASA’s HSF budget has been seriously challenged? Maybe so, with the exception of 40 years ago when the original (and sensible) mini J-2 shuttle was rejected, and NASA was forced to sign on to the DOD configured shuttle to retain an HSF program. Clinton tried with the station, and was out-maneuvered, albeit by a vote in the Senate that followed one of the few real debates the Senate has had in modern times.
Special interests are of course, in the eye of the beholder. Marshall and ATK are special interests, as well as heretofore comfortable status quo insiders.
NASA has lobbied, at times (contrary to its own charter to support commercial efforts) to kill private sector initiatives which held promise for widening access to space beyond the NASA few.
Perhaps Congressman Aderholt is astonished that, after decades of pretty much getting its own way, NASA is showing some cracks in its previously assumed wisdom on the best way forward.
@ Obiwan Kenobe wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Whatta hoot! LOL!
@ Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Dunno Oler, the Tea Partiers would probably love to splash the ISS to fund CxP, but I think I have to agree with you in that the politics just aren’t there. There just aren’t going to be enough of the Tea Gang to fill the House to swing things that hard to the right. And if they get too “goofy”, the squishy middle will run toward the hills.
I’m still saying CR and zombie CxP for 2011. I’d love to be wrong.
“Wrong. Constellation will be funded primarily by the vacated shuttle budget.”
Constellation was always planned to consume the Shuttle budget. But Constellation needs much more than that — $5 billion per year more — to get back to anything resembling a rational development and deployment schedule. Even if we wipe out the spending on the ISS, COTS, climate change, and life sciences, we’re $1-2 billion short of the $5 billion per year that’s needed. And if Boehner is the next speaker and gets his way on the non-defense discretionary budget, NASA is looking at another $1-2 billion cut to its topline on top of that.
It’s impossible to see how the the leadership of a party that’s run on a platform of fiscal reform in a time of historic deficits is going to cough up billions and billions of taxpayer dollars for a redundant, low-priority, government-run program that has experienced billions and billions of dollars of cost growth and is years behind schedule. It would hand the Democrats tons of ammunition and be a horrendously stupid political move for the Republicans.
“I don’t think ISS will not be immune.”
Even setting aside Constellation’s budget woes, it makes no sense to build an LV and capsule like Ares I/Orion by 2017-2019, but dump the only destination for that capsule for the next decade, the ISS, into the Pacific in 2016 or earlier.
“We’ll see who is right.”
Your prediction assumes an incredible amount of stupidity on the part of the Republicans. No one is that dumb.
Dennis Berube wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
“Originally Space X was saying 20 mil to launch people, now they along with Boeing have upped it a bit by doubling what they originally said to 40 mil.”
Cite your information source for SpaceX “raising” their prices.
@ Major Tom wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
“Your prediction assumes an incredible amount of stupidity on the part of the Republicans. No one is that dumb.”
cough, cough, hum, hum… So to speak.
Your prediction assumes an incredible amount of stupidity on the part of the Republicans. No one is that dumb.
Not even democrats and teabaggers? I disagree Ms. Tom, and I also disagree with your assessment of their behavior as ‘dumb’. The legislators are all on a level playing field with respect to special interests, and they’re just doing the job that they were elected to do, by the best money that lobbyists, industry and special interests can raise, donate and spend.
I reiterate, if the senate bill passes without the HLV design language, everybody and anybody who can perform and compete wins, and it would force NASA to perform and compete just like everyone is expected to do.
Why should NASA be any different from the commercial launch operators if they expect to own and operate a future federally funded launch vehicle?
If this congressional direction is interpreted as a ‘give NASA a free pass’ exercise in bureaucracy and job protection, it will end up another disaster.
dad2059 wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
if one enjoys political history; we are I think (on both sides of the Atlantic) living a very dynamic part of it…
the two party system is so ingrained (thanks to the 12th amendment) in the US that it is hard for me to see a scenario under which one cracks apart and is replaced by anew party…but more likely we are going to see both parties “delaminate” and then at some point reform.
the problem with the GOP right now is that other then “dont like Obama” it has no idea what it stands for. It is almost undergoing the death throes of the Whig party before the civil war…with the dividing issue not being the social issues; but spending. The radical elements of it are offering solutions (like privatizing social security) which are simply non starters to a growing number of its members (ie the old) and on a social issue level it is being rejected by the young.
The tea party illustrates that…they are all for cutting spending; but it is hard for them to give specific examples. Most GOP Senators and Congress people who have come on the news shows and asked specifically that question look like a fish out of water…they simply cannot name a program.
Add to that what little recovery Obama’s badly done stimulus bought is showing signs of stalling..the only thing that is propelling the GOP toward some election gains in the 10 election is the notion that the American people are losing faith in Obama and the Dems who have acted in the most bizzare manner since taking office.
But without a doubt the GOP shows signs of blowing that gift. The woman who just got the nomination for the Senate in Delaware is off all things concerned about “self sex acts” by boys and girls. “we must be pure” before marriage…yikes.
But what is stunning to me on a space policy note is how little enthusiasm that the POR and NASA drum banging has been able to generate. The notions of support are tepid and no one is advocating the money to fix the programs. One doesnt hear any of the tea party folks “rallying for the Moon”…
and even if the GOP takes the House (or the complete Congress and Delaware just made it harder) Obama is more then willing to pick a fight with them (in my view) and point out the nuttier things that they are proposing.
Both the GOP and the Dems have shown that they are captives of their bases when it comes to policy and my guess is that at least one of them does not survive in their present form the next two years.
Robert G. Oler
but more likely we are going to see both parties “delaminate†and then at some point reform.
Oler wrote:
The process is already underway. There are plenty of dems who will win reelection on what is essentially the Tea Party platform. They will run away from Obama spending and healthcare. Lots of independents have already flocked to the GOP. Party switches to the GOP by conservative democrats will occur at an increasing rate.The GOP of John McCain and George Bush is in the process of being hijacked by fiscal conservatives (DeMint, Palin, Ryan).
As for NASA, a traditional program will come out of this group. Don’t despair. The ISS that you all love came out of such a program.
RINOs and electioneers have problems with this, but it is normal political creative destruction. Our kids would better off in an environment or more restraint. And ya know Christine O’Donnell is not hard to look at either. The GOP is definitely the party of hot women.
OK first of all the Tea Party lady in Delaware is not running on banning masturbation for teenagers. If she thinks kids masturbate too much, who cares?
No one in the Tea Party is talking about ending NASA or HSF. Maybe our host on this blog will interview some of the Republicans who might be in leadership positions on relevant committees their views on NASA budget cuts, increases, and Constellation issues. Many you have a warped view of the Tea Partiers’ motives.
The problem with Ares I / Orion, besides the out of control development costs, is that using Orion as crew transport to the ISS is like using a backhoe when all you need is a shovel. The good thing, is that we would of had a rocket that could launch a CEV for deep space missions.
If they can’t scale down Orion to launch on a existing rocket, then we need a new CEV, pronto.
It seems that with the rise of commercial launchers through the Bush COTS program, NASA can now focus on going beyond LEO. Any room in NASA’s budget for exploration? Not much. Why worry about budget cuts when NASA can’t expand their operations with their current funding.
First, we need to have a coherent long term space exploration vision from our leaders. Second, we need a coherent long term strategy to achieve that vision. Third, NASA needs to have an Augustine type of commission to fundamentally restructure their budget to create the tactics to accomplish the strategy and realize the vision.
I know some of you will say we have some or all of those things now. I disagree. We lack vision, strategy, and tactics that will enable our country to dominate the Space Marathon for centuries to come.
Love ISS? Note the “I” is for International. ISS isn’t a failed program but only because we had help from other countries. The Freedom program failed. One option was to dump the US segment of ISS into the ocean. The Russians would never dump all their money into the ocean. Originally the Russian segment was detachable and I’m sure they could still modify it to be independent with few extra modules. Europe and Japan would end up with the short end of the stick and they would never do business with the US again in HSF. I doubt the US would have any human space program in space if not for ISS. I bet the Shuttle would have been canceled sooner without the space station and all the money into Constellation. Keeping ISS going is smart and obvious at this point.
“The GOP of John McCain and George Bush is in the process of being hijacked by fiscal conservatives (DeMint, Palin, Ryan).”
well more correctly people who say that they are fiscal conservatives…so far they have been quite shy about saying what they would cut…
the trick is going to be to get the public to go along with the “cuts” whatever they are that the folks try and spring. The stim bill is easy, but its almost all gone.
The vast majority of the spending is built in spending from the Bush years…and most of the House and Senate Republicans went along with every goofy notion Bush had (like: The war would pay for itself)
having said that I see no tendency in them to support massive space efforts of exploration.
finally
“The GOP is definitely the party of hot women.”
thoughtful. It is about like the idiots who post “the women of Fox News” videos…clearly not our rocket scientist
Robert G. Oler
well more correctly people who say that they are fiscal conservatives…so far they have been quite shy about saying what they would cut…
Ryan has been quite clear about what he would cut. Don’t confuse your ignorance for his lack of clarity.
Rand Simberg wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
I am not shy and if I wanted to discuss Ryan I would have but 1) that was not the topic of the post and 2) he is not one of the movers and shakers of the GOP, he is a spear chucker.
Robert G. Oler
Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Let’s not forget the Democrats have controlled congress since 2006 and prior to that the Republicans had slim majorities. Before to the housing bubble, the deficit was trending downward.
The age old problem with making budget cuts, is that when you go issue by issue people usually agree with the program but there are too many worthy causes to spend money on. Bush spent a lot of money fighting aids in Africa. Was that a good program or should it be cut?
I don’t see any evidence that either party will increase NASA’s funding to where it needs to be to accomplish Constellation or Obama’s plan and I don’t see any evidence for cuts either.
I’ll say it again, it really would be nice if Jeff Foust or someone else would track down some of these Republicans who might be in leadership positions and ask them some tough questions about what their space policy would be.
It will also be interesting to see if Obama works with congressional Democrats (or even Republicans) to craft a space policy or if he will outsource the creation of his vision to them like he did on health care.
I am not shy and if I wanted to discuss Ryan I would have
Your response was to a comment about Ryan. One of the many annoying/infuriating things about your mindless posts is that it is clear that you don’t even read them before hitting the “Submit” button.
but 1) that was not the topic of the post and 2) he is not one of the movers and shakers of the GOP, he is a spear chucker.
Don’t confuse your idiotic political opinions for reality. And what the hell does that even mean? What is a “spear chucker”?
Wodun wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 8:34 pm Neither of these parties hold space as a high priority and you’ll only get lip service. Brings to mind an old NOVA broadcast from 1988 during the preaidential campaign when then VP Bush and Gov.Dukakas were confronted on their positions on space with the same questions and both babbled on about its priorities and plans– bear in mind, the contex them was in post-Reagan days as the Cold War ended and the space station debate was heating up. Nothing is going to bump space policy up to a top ten priority until an external event occurs like another ‘sputnik’ moment– most likely from China. What you have now is what will be for years to come and is most likely the norm as opposed to the heady accelorated days of Apollo.
Rand Simberg wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
I think he’s using that term instead of “spear carrier”, which has a meaning that isn’t inherently racist like “spear chucker”.
I’m not a grammar nazi, but I notice when people use words incorrectly like then instead of than, or dribble instead of drivel, or dose instead of does. Where the heck did they go to elementary school?
Bennett wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Spear chucker is one of the terms John Dean uses to describe most of the people in the CREP (Committee to reelect the President)..it is a person who is so devoted to the “cause” that you can get them to do anything in politics even things that are meaningless in terms of the real debate…but it is disruptive to the opposition.
Another phrase for it is “bomb thrower”.
It is not a racist term Dean, Patrick J. Buchanan and even Morning Joe use it a lot.
Rand is just being argumentative. If I want to be racist I would be, but I dont have a racist bone in my body.
Robert G. Oler
Wodun wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
The deficit was only decreasing because Bush had learned the trick of keeping cost “off budget”. Like the war in Iraq.
The GOP is completely responsible for the mess Bush left us…and the coming really bad years. Obama has done nothing to make it better and might have made it worse…but its Bush’s baby.
As for major increases in space dollars. It is annoying to me that both the Congress people who represent space districts and the thunderheads who ran NASA, particularly at JSC are completely tone deaf to the realities of life.
There is not going to be any massive exploration push…so they should have been figuring out how to make use of hte space station and maximize what it did.
Robert G. Oler
Robert, google the term and then explain it again. I don’t think you are racist, it doesn’t fit with your demeanor, but whoever you’ve heard using that term didn’t grow up in Oakland during the 60’s-70’s like I did.
I didn’t pile on when Windy pointed out that to use this term, no matter your intended meaning, when referring to a person of color, is horribly insulting.
Find another term to use, this one has too much baggage.
Bennett wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Robert, google the term and then explain it again. I don’t think you are racist, it doesn’t fit with your demeanor, but whoever you’ve heard using that term didn’t grow up in Oakland during the 60′s-70′s like I did. …
oh I am sure that in the perspective you indicate its a bad term…and I can find another one…but it is in common use in the political world and the meaning is just as I indicated. It has I am told a basketball meaning as well.
but as noted I can find another term. it seems to detract here from the point.
I’ll try “bomb thrower” (grin)
Robert G. Oler
Apologies to all, we’ve strayed so far off topic.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Do you have a link to a youtube video or transcribed minutes of a meeting or a speech where “spearchucker” is used as you note?
It’s just that I have a hard time believing that anyone (especially in American politics) could casually call someone a spearchucker without the PC Police starting a riot.
P.S. How’s you baby daughter?
Spear chucker is one of the terms John Dean uses to describe most of the people in the CREP
Oh.
So now we’re supposed to not only care what the idiot Bob Oler thinks, but also what John Frick’n Dean thinks is important?
Beam me up, Scotty.
Bennett wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Next time I hear it on Morning Joe or when Keith O interviews John Dean if they use it I’ll try and remember and get the posted clip.
The odd thing, (and I’ll stop using it, it is not my intent to either use a term that has a racist meaning OR one that really detracts from the conversation…) I’ve used it in meetings that I’ve been on the board of… and no one jumped on me about it…and they would jump on just about any other remark (“technowelfare” excites people here). Anyrate I will change terms.
Lorelei is doing well thanks for asking. She is five months and already has outgrown 1 year old clothing…she is well proportioned but tall and that is putting a sort of crimp on things…in terms of ensembles. The baby “thing” is new to me but so far NOT A SINGLE bad moment. Enjoying it all.
Thanks again for asking Robert
Rand Simberg wrote @ September 17th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Beam me up, Scotty…
Traficant (spell probably) always did that line with such grace…
Robert
Traficant wore a raccoon on his head.
And you remain a political idiot.
Tut tut gentlemen, this glut of verbal perversion should be sent into GEO for eternity and what remains might just be worth reading.
A question quite long overdue
Does Barrack know just what to do
When astranauts both bold and true
Express dissmay at DCs zoo
Its Parliament of human apes
And cheetas at the city gates
Who in anticipation wait
To feed upon the budget stakes?
Maybe, probably not, err…
For God’s sake and ours whatever happened to vision and the human spirit?
Answer: It got mugged by an unregulated
“commercial” banking sector. (There’s that “C” word again.)
“WILLIAM SAFIRE: “I was looking for some criticism of people who were defeatist, who thought that we could never win in Vietnam. And so I came up with the nattering nabobs of negativism. That is known as red meat rhetoric. When you talk about ‘there is no red meat in this speech,’ that means there is no ammunition you can feed your supporters to use or throw into the cage of a lion that was hungry.”
http://www.voanews.com/learningenglish/home/a-23-2008-06-12-voa6-83138722.html
Robert, I believe you were refering to him tossing red meat to the crowd, not “spear chucker”.
When Palin went around the country telling us that the health care bill had death panels that was throwing red meat to the crowd. It doesn’t have to be even close to true, as long as it gets the crowd angry as hell and ready to kill.
“If they can’t scale down Orion to launch on a existing rocket, then we need a new CEV, pronto.”
Now that the Boeing CST is in work, and it is designed to fly on existing boosters, and will have a deep space return capability, Orion is completely unnecessary and just using up scarce resources that need to be applied elsewhere.
It is time to kill Constellation as it was, completely, and start on a sensible and affordable program.
@ Robert Oler,
Where do you get this idea that the public support for the human exploration would be any different at 0.1% of the federal budget than at 0.2 % ?
Only a tiny minority of the public have any idea what NASA’s budget is. The average guess is that NASA’s budget is 30%. And among all those millions of people who think NASA’s budget is 30%, about half think it is worth the 30% and the other half think human exploration is not worth even $1, at least not until after we’ve solved every problem here on Earth, poverty, starvation, disease, etc.
On this blog or anywhere else, you are the sole individual from whom I’ve ever heard the argument that human spaceflight is worthwhile at $X but not worthwhile at $Y. The general population of voters and taxpayers divide into into those who think it is worth much more, and those would not support any tax $ for human spaceflight.
Space Cadet wrote @ September 18th, 2010 at 11:08 am
@ Robert Oler,
“Where do you get this idea that the public support for the human exploration would be any different at 0.1% of the federal budget than at 0.2 % ? ”
there are two parts to reading. One is understanding the words and the other is context.
I never not once not a single time said human spaceflight is worthwhile at figure X.X but not at Y.Y…much less used some dollar number to put on it…
I’ve never said that in words nor have I ever said that in context.
I have said over and over again that what is done in human spaceflight must have value for the cost and if it does not then its not worth the cost at any price. And its clear that cost plays some role in value…not an exclusive one but a prominent one. These are tough calls but it is why we let adults who should have some sense of “cost/value” make them.
For instance…to keep it in a space mode. The notion in the 60’s of trying out a satellite in geo orbit was a good one…the notion had value…but the trick was to find a cost level that was appropriate to the effort. One answer to it was ADVENT which was going to take a new upper stage, was a very complex satellite and cost about 5 times what the ideas that Hughes had…which became Syncom. Both cost were small in terms of the federal budget/gnp whatever metric one was using.
but one had cost associated with the risk and the rewards and would in fact prove the concept, even if it took a few tries.
Syncom took two efforts to work…the first one was probably a success but at the final orbital insertion the satellite stopped working (it is in orbit at the right orbit)…so there was the ability to try again.
Human spaceflight is now just completely out of whack with cost/value and I would argue technology as well.
It takes far to many people (15000 or so) to fly the shuttle…thats goofy. That is to be put in perspective about the number of jobs that are currently at issue in the moratorium on deep sea drilling, it is about full complement of THREE CVN’s (including the air wing).
There is almost nothing that the shuttle can do that brings value in line with cost.
What has happened with persistant deficit spending is that value has vanished from the spending of both parties. This is why Bush lied about the war in Iraq “paying for itself”. They were not stupid they had to know that wouldnt work (or they were terminally dumb take your pick) but he couldnt say “It will cost a trillion dollars” (which it has) because the American people would balk…
This is why people like you toss up GNP or total budget or something like that…you cannot defend what is actually done…the effort is “so small” that it doesnt require any measurable value…it has value in itself…it “pays for itself” with spinoffs.
goofy
The people who do human spaceflight and are “space cadets” (sorry) dont care about cost/value. As I noted, we need adults
Robert G. Oler
Vladislaw wrote @ September 18th, 2010 at 8:11 am
no…there is difference between “red meat” and “Bomb throwing” and it is the difference between today’s Tea Party crowd and what Brother Safire use to do.
“Red meat” is baseline rhetoric. There is little or nothing unfactual about it…it might “stretch” things but it is not an outright lie or misstatement.
Reagan (and I admire no President in this or the last century more) was great at red meat…He could encapsulate a concept in a phrase that illustrated it perfectly. When he called The Soviet Union “the Evil Empire” he was “top dead center” or right on the Mark. It took who and what that nation was and put it in a phrase..but there was truth in it. There were facts.
Palin on the other hand is a bomb thrower. Her phrase “death panels” had no basis in fact…as she has admitted under some hard questioning. There was/is nothing in the health care bill as it was being debated and/or passed that came close to being defined by that phrase. She has used them a lot “domestic terrorist” is nothing but a rhetorical bomb there are no facts in it, it stretches the meaning of “terrorist” farther then any reasonable person would stretch it.
Such is the state of right wing (sorry Rand) politics these days …the left wing does it as well, but it has become the method dejure of the right wing.
The trick with “bomb throwing” is to get your forces reved up. Whittington and a few others do it here on space policy. “The chinese will make us show our passports on the Moon”…has nothing based in fact…but it is designed to appeal to the fear of a growing Chinese nation and to harken back to the fear in the 60’s with the Soviets. (Mark is not a racist and while some use the fear of the Chinese as a racist part…Mark does not).
But to inject the fear of the Chinese is “bomb throwing” …(or the other phrase)…it is designed to appeal to our fears.
Robert G. Oler
Now that the Boeing CST is in work, and it is designed to fly on existing boosters, and will have a deep space return capability, Orion is completely unnecessary and just using up scarce resources that need to be applied elsewhere.
The CST is not designed to either go to, or return from, deep space. It is a LEO-only vehicle.
A-String wrote @ September 18th, 2010 at 10:40 am
, and will have a deep space return capability,..
we will never, in my view mount a deep space expedition where the crew “takes a capsule” back directly from a deep space vehicle….no more then we will send a human crew to Mars and do a “direct” entry…
Robert G. Oler
The CST is not designed to either go to, or return from, deep space. It is a LEO-only vehicle.
A block 2 vehicle could still have substantial commonality at the technology, susbsystem and workforce level.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/space/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3Aa92ee47a-de3a-414f-9b33-b14baaf2e643&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
interesting (I hope this link works) Robert
Has Lori Garver actually come before Congress to sell her program? Pretty lame that she lets somebody who is, shall we say, quite a bit less than entirely on board with it (Bolden) try to do all the selling for her while she stays in the shadows.
All sorts of NASA flunkies at various levels of the hierarchy testify before Congress, so the fact that she’s not the Administrator herself is not a good excuse.
Perhaps she has and I’ve missed it, if so does anybody have the video? Garver and Congress going mano-a-mano is something I’d love to see.
Has Lori Garver actually come before Congress to sell her program?
Has she been invited? One doesn’t just “go before Congress.”
@ googaw,
Charles Bolden is the NASA Administrator. It is upon his desk that the metaphorical ‘The Buck Stops Here’ sign resides. Therefore, any official NASA plan is his plan, even if his Deputy Admin and the President’s science advisor originally cooked it up. Rightly, Congress expects the Administrator to defend his agency’s official plans, even if he is only the guy signing the memo.
That said, it might have been interesting if he had brought Ms. Garver along as part of his ‘brain-trust’.
googaw wrote @ September 18th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Has Lori Garver actually come before Congress to sell her program?..
what is amazing to “me” is if this is actually Garver’s program.
when she was head of NSS it was a program that she would have opposed…I know she told me so.
Robert G. Oler
It’s Garver’s, Shawcross’ and Kohlenberger’s program, one that is the height of impolite in biting the hand (NASA) that feeds it.
As to Major Tom’s contention that GOP controlled House will not restore Constellation because it would cost too much, that is just naive.
As to Obama Space’s future, let’s review:
The Obama human space flight initiative has already garnered majority opposition in the full House Science & Technology Committee and the winds are pointing to majority opposition in the full Chamber.
The current full House Science & Technology Committee was presented with a amendment to rename its proposed human space initiative “Constellation”.
Keep in mind that the President has gained this opposition while his own Party controls the House.
Should the GOP gain control of the House, the following Committee changes take effect:
– Hall chairs House Science & Technology Committee…the same Rep. Hall who, in a hearing with Orzag just after the release of the President’s proposed changes to the human space flight program, bellowed, “I’m so mad, I can’t even see straight.”
– Olson chairs the House Science & Technology Space Subcommittee, not Rohrabacher.
– Lewis, long opposing Rohrabacher’s “commercial” authorization initiatives, chairs the House Appropriations Committee.
– Wolf chairs the House Appropriations CJS&RA Subcommittee.
– Tepid Obama Space supporters such as Obey, Mollohan, and Kennedy leave for good.
It goes without saying that none of these committee leadership changes represent a “better” line up for the President’s space initiatives.
Can anyone imagine an easier vote for newly minted Speaker Boehner to hold than one for Hall’s new House Science & Technology NASA Reauthorization Act? Politically all profit and no loss.
And while its unlikely that the GOP will gain control of the Senate, it will gain members who are against anything Obama. Surviving Dems won’t exactly be falling all over themselves to help the President. Not a good development for Obama Space.
Can anyone imagine an easier vote for newly minted Speaker Boehner to hold than one for Hall’s new House Science & Technology NASA Reauthorization Act?
Yes, I can imagine many easier ones, once it is pointed out that when it comes to space, Republicans seem to remain big-government types, and porkers.
Szebehely wrote @ September 18th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
LOL
NASA restoration Act…goofy
Even if it passed the Congress (and it wont even get through the House, actually it wont even get introduced) Obama would veto is and savage the GOP for being goofy enough to “return to the Moon” while the nation has so many unemployed.
Second, if the Senate bill becomes law, by the time the next year cycle breaks out Ares and shuttle infrastructure will be toast.
Third, there is not enough money to fix Ares/Cx.
you have been reading to many of Mark Whittington’s fantasizing that passes for politics.
But thanks for the laugh
Robert G. Oler
Rand Simberg wrote @ September 18th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Has Lori Garver actually come before Congress to sell her program?
Has she been invited? One doesn’t just “go before Congress.â€
. . .
Actual testimony is usually theater. The real work gets done by visiting folks in their offices, or calling on the telephone.
The question should be re-phrased. Have Garver or Bolden been calling on members of the House or Senate to advocate for their proposal?
On the other hand, if Robert Oler’s link is correct top NASA brass might not even agree on what they want Congress to do.
The Senate bill has the one thing the House bill doesn’t – a back up plan. Let’s face it, in all likelihood Congress will probably start underfunding NASA in a couple years, regardless of which program they decide on.
The difference is that if you if you cut funding to the Senate plan – we don’t get a NASA HLV, but we still benefit from a couple years of well funded technological development and we lay the foundation for commercial spaceflight to pick up the slack. If you cut funding to the House plan – well there’s no commercial spaceflight in the House plan and all the tech development is focused on Constellation… so you’re pretty much up **** creek without a paddle.
The House bill bets the farm on Constellation going forward without any problems or funding issues… one look at NASA’s history should tell you that’s a bad move.
Bill White wrote @ September 18th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
I think (am told) by a lobbiest friend of mine that both Bolden and Garver have hit the bricks hard to sell the current plan (which has fallen back to the Senate version) for redirection…but I am also told, and I believe this to be accurate as well from what I hear, that old ponies die hard and the notion that NASA HSF has to be some exploration machine…is having a hard time going into the good night.
For what it is worth (and I believe it but….) I am told the notion by Lockmart of “Plymouth” was something that Charlie wanted, that he wants some sort of “quick and fast” exploration effort by humans that is in some fashion affordable…and yet he was pretty not happy with the effort because even though it is “quick and dirty” it wont happen for quite a bit…I am also told (and believe) that he (Charlie Bolden) was very frustrated with the NASA HSF “mega effort” that is 300 billion and a few decades.
All this is coupled with a money situation that is bad and getting worse…as the economy gets worse the federal spending problem is just going to deteroriate…
It is really hard for NASA HSF, because it never has really done what the charter of NASA says it should do, its always been this quasi military “project” oriented thing that bases results on not the project does but just that it goes forward…and Charlie is very upset with the cost/toll that it is taking on the individuals who make up the workforce. And who are going out the door in no small measure through no fault of their own.
The reality is however that there is no way to do Human space exploration right now. There is not enough money to do it the traditional NASA way…and NASA has no expertise about doing it any other way…and the Congress people dont seem to grasp the reality of it.
I am pretty certain Bolden wants a heavy lift, but recognizes that a SDV is a dog that will bankrupt the agency and doom it to another couple of decades of shuttle mediocrity.
I can imagine how steamy that meeting was. You can just read the boards here to see how many people are out of touch with the realities of today’s situation…and I have no doubt that most of NASA’s managers are the same way. The ones at JSC are about as out of touch as the folks who run the banks are.
In the end Bolden’s legacy (and I think he will serve a full Obama term) is probably going to be more like Admiral Tom Connolly then psycho Dan’s… And thats high praise.
Robert G. Oler
Robert, what do you believe the “current” plan is, from the perspective of NASA HQ?
(i.e. Garver/Bolden/Holdren/Obama)
@ Robert Oler
The reality is however that there is no way to do Human space exploration right now. There is not enough money to do it the traditional NASA way…and NASA has no expertise about doing it any other way…and the Congress people dont seem to grasp the reality of it.
Eh, this merely suggests someone OTHER than NASA should make the attempt to doi human spaceflight.
In other words, NASA needs a competitor. And if NewSpace gets assimilated into NASA, that will make it more difficult to develop a genuine competitor for NASA.
We all know how vigorously MirCorp was fought by NASA. That is the paradigm that most needs to change, IMHO.
And if NewSpace gets assimilated into NASA
I see no danger of that happening.
“It’s Garver’s, Shawcross’ and Kohlenberger’s program, one that is the height of impolite in biting the hand (NASA) that feeds it.”
This is an ignorant comment. Shawcross and Kohlenberger work at the White House, in the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, respectively. NASA doesn’t feed the White House. Shawcross and Kohlenberger help decisionmakers in the White House decide at what levels and in which programs NASA gets funded (or fed).
“As to Major Tom’s contention that GOP controlled House will not restore Constellation because it would cost too much, that is just naive.”
Pointing out that the multi-ten billion dollar budget increases necessary to sustain Constellation over the five-year budget runout are completely at odds with the Republican leadership’s push for major reductions in the non-defense discretionary budget is not naive. It’s just common sense.
“The Obama human space flight initiative has already garnered majority opposition in the full House Science & Technology Committee and the winds are pointing to majority opposition in the full Chamber.”
No, they’re not. Even members of the House committee are rejecting their own bill in favor of the Senate bill.
space.flatoday.net/2010/09/kosmas-hoping-for-house-shift-on-nasa.html
“Can anyone imagine an easier vote for newly minted Speaker Boehner to hold than one for Hall’s new House Science & Technology NASA Reauthorization Act? Politically all profit and no loss.”
What “new House Science & Technology NASA Reauthorization Act”? Nothing like that has been introduced. And if it was and it included large budget increases for NASA, Boehner would just have the appropriators, who actually determine NASA program funding levels, ignore it.
We all know how vigorously MirCorp was fought by NASA. That is the paradigm that most needs to change, IMHO.
If Garver continues to push the NASA charter in front of people to show why the FY2011 budget proposal is the right thing to do (as Stephen Smith has opined on numerous occasions), that paradigm might begin to shift, but not if Bolden resists.
I have no idea how hard it will be to bring the upper and middle management at NASA onto the same team working for the same goals. This, I believe, is probably the only way that NASA is likely to lead in a meaningful fashion.
If they can’t rally around a common vision for HSF progress that includes the best of the Flexible Path/VSE priorities, they might as well throw in the towel and let a new generation of scientists and engineers step up to the plate.
In the mean time we’ll have the NewSpace companies to watch and cheer.
“Has Lori Garver actually come before Congress to sell her program?”
As per the link Robert provided Garver is not selling anything, but mearly following what Congress has already mandated NASA to do:
Wonks Vs. Engineers
“Two areas in particular stood out in Garver’s talk. The Obama administration’s proposed shift to commercial space taxis to take U.S. astronauts to orbit, she said, draws on the 50-year-old congressional call for NASA to “seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.” And the big-bucks spending on open-ended “transformative technology development” in NASA’s Fiscal 2011 budget request had its origin in the Space Act declaration that NASA’s job is “the preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology.”
No where in the NASA mandate is there a call for NASA to be a leader in operational human space flight, but the exact opposite. They are to be a support role to commercial space, the sciences and technology development that is to be pushed into the commercial sector.
Bill White wrote @ September 18th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Robert, what do you believe the “current†plan is, from the perspective of NASA HQ?
(i.e. Garver/Bolden/Holdren/Obama)..
Bill.
the only one I can really make a stab at is Charlie Bolden. I dont talk to him (grin) but know some people who do…Garver is operating completely “wild’ if one takes as “normal” what she did in the last century and at NSS…Holdren?
In the military there are enablers, doers and then duds…Charlie is an enabler…he “fixes” things. My read on him (from what I know of him and what friends say) is that his belief of what NASA should do in HSF is a bit more expansive them mine. My theory is that it is a technology agency (NACA) and thats it…
But I think Bolden believes that it is also a “scout”, a “pathfinder” for American technology not only in developing it but putting it to some use to do things “for the national good” …and he seems to want to enable that.
He believes in the technology “things” but also believes in the notion of affordable “heavier lift” then what is now available…and seems (again from what I am told) that his legacy at NASA is going to be to shift it from “routine operations” and also give it a “heavier lift” vehicle that is affordable and that it doesnt have to operate.
That is why I have been saying for sometime that what the HLV is going to look like is a Delta IV super heavy…because that vehicle is one that shares cost/stuff/people with the Delta IV (which is going to fly for sometime) and is launched by those same folks perhaps with the government contributing the pad…and it doesnt break the bank in terms of development and operation AND could be used by other groups in the US government.
I think that is why they so quickly clustered around the Senate bill…I think it is what they want. or at least Charlie.
Say Obama only gets four (it is far to early to determine that…but say thats what he gets) in the end Bolden will have moved the agency off operations, moved rocket development more toward airplane development, and if a Delta Super Heavy comes in the 2015 time frame…it will enable a lot of things that are now simply to expensive.
I think we need a “moderate heavy lifter” as a national asset for two reasons…one there are larger payloads that the US government would like and eventually it might pave the way for larger commercial payloads.
Robert G. Oler
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1438
nothing spectacular (or new) but some nice pictures.
everytime I see the flag…I think of the line from one of mythical POTUS Bartlet…”and it carried nothing for protection other then the flag of The United States”.
Robert G. Oler
While the mess in the House and Senate and here at spacepolitics.com continues to go on, here is a link to pictures of the first fully flight ready Spacex cargo capsule and the second Falcon 9 rocket integrated at the cape. The future is unfolding. Keep arguing! From an article at spaceref.com http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1438
@Martijn Meijering
MW: No, I’m not a Constellation hugger, I’m a beyond LEO hugger. $3 billion a year is a lot of money that Beyond LEO advocates at NASA have to give up for this perpetual LEO on steroids program.
“If that is true, then why do you want an SDLV when EELVs are more than good enough?”
EELVs can’t land a massive and large volume lunar base modules with just a single launch. An SD-HLV can! They also can’t launch space stations into orbit or to a Lagrange point as massive an with volumes close to being as spacious as a SD-HLV with just a single launch. They can’t launch solar power satellites into GEO or L1 as large as an SD-HLV can with a single launch. EELVs can’t resupply space depots at LEO and the Lagrange points as efficiently as an SD-HLV can which can place massive amounts of cryogenic oxygen and hydrogen.
Also, the SD-CV (core vehicle without the SRBs) with an ACES 41 upper stage would be a simpler, safer, and cheaper crew vehicle to operate than a Delta IV heavy and could launch a larger variety of space capsules and space planes than the simplest and safest Atlas V while also being able to deliver significant amounts of hydrogen and oxygen to LEO based space depots with crew launches.
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2001/09/nasas-next-crew-launch-vehicle.html
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ September 18th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
But if you divide the cost of developing the SD HLV by the price of a EELV launch, you pay for enough up mass (now, not 7 years from now) to launch everything we can possibly design and build over the next 10 years. Plus you give the launch industry enough business to expand and perfect their systems for NASA and Commercial.
Or you can spend the billions on a NASA SD HLV (go huntsville) and then you can start launching missions 7 years from now. In the meantime, HSF goes nowhere.
Why would you want to do that?
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ September 18th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
“EELVs can’t land a massive and large volume lunar base modules with just a single launch. An SD-HLV can!”
Yes, and SD-HLV’s can’t land the even more massive & larger volume lunar base modules that XHLV’s can (eXtra-Heavy Launch Vehicles). Ha!
“EELVs can’t resupply space depots at LEO and the Lagrange points as efficiently as an SD-HLV”
That’s your proposition, but what are your cost assumptions for SD-HLV’s?
I’ll make this easy for you, and just ask how many SD-HLV launches would it take to equal the LEO $/kg of Delta IV Heavy ($13,228/kg) or Falcon 9 Heavy ($4,189/kg)? That means take the total R&D and add the operations + marginal costs. Let me know if you need help – supply me your assumptions, and I’ll run the numbers for you.
Inquiring minds want to know…
Bennett wrote @ September 18th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
“But if you divide the cost of developing the SD HLV by the price of a EELV launch…
Darn it Bennett, you beat me to the punch…
Let’s give Marcel a quick example of what we’re trying to point out. One of the low-ball R&D numbers I’ve heard for something like DIRECT Jupiter has been $11B.
For $11B, Delta IV Heavy could put 1,800,000 lbs (816,466 kg) to LEO.
For $11B, Falcon 9 Heavy could put 8,113,020 lbs (3,680,004 kg) to LEO.
And, as Bennett pointed out, that mass can be launched as soon as it’s built, instead of waiting for some unknown amount of time to get a new launcher operational.
A perfect gift idea for the Constellation huggers!
http://www.cafepress.com/spaceref.227658022
Bill, Robert, Rand: most of NewSpace has already been assimilated into NASA. I’d conservatively estimate that NASA is responsible for about 75% of the revenues of NewSpace companies (to the extent they have any revenues at all), and other government agencies are responsible for most of the rest.
NewSpace was mentally assimilated into NASA, regardless of how much it declared its hate for NASA, from the time it was inspired by the NASA Cold War economic fantasies of their childhoods to focus on HSF instead of real space commerce. It’s very sad to see my fellow libertarians pursuing s*cial*st fantasies and wondering where the private customers are.
P.S. the blog software seems to be filtering the word “s*cial*st” spelled out.
EELVs can’t land a massive and large volume lunar base modules with just a single launch.
They can’t go to Alpha Centauri either, but so what?
EELVs can’t land a massive and large volume lunar base modules with just a single launch. An SD-HLV can!
True, but why should we care? EELVs can land massive and large volume modules with multiple launches, without having to divide up the modules.
They also can’t launch space stations into orbit or to a Lagrange point as massive an with volumes close to being as spacious as a SD-HLV with just a single launch.
Again, true but pointless. Existing EELVs can launch monstrous space stations. Existing stations are big enough. We don’t have money for new space stations.
They can’t launch solar power satellites into GEO or L1 as large as an SD-HLV can with a single launch.
More “bigger is better reasoning”. Yes, it’s bigger, but you haven’t shown it’s better. Solar power satellites will have to be assembled anyway, so just launch them in pieces.
EELVs can’t resupply space depots at LEO and the Lagrange points as efficiently as an SD-HLV can which can place massive amounts of cryogenic oxygen and hydrogen.
That is doubtful. At low mission rates EELVs would be cheaper, and at high (unrealistically high) rates they are about the same cost. But more importantly, resupply of depots should be done with small cheap launchers (maybe RLVs, maybe cheap mass produced expendables) with EELVs only filling that role until cheap lift was available. This is the single most important reason we shouldn’t have an HLV!
In other words you are a Constellation/SDLV hugger, but like almost all of them you won’t admit it. Which suggests you know you’re wrong.
NewSpace was mentally assimilated into NASA, regardless of how much it declared its hate for NASA, from the time it was inspired by the NASA Cold War economic fantasies of their childhoods to focus on HSF instead of real space commerce.
Why is that mentally assimilated instead of sharing a common goal, or at least a stated goal? What’s wrong with having dreams of manned spaceflight? There’s nothing inherently socialist about that, unless you expect others to pay for it.
…regardless of how much it declared its hate for NASA,
I don’t know where you’re getting this from. I certainly don’t hate NASA, even though I have been disappointed at what little progress they’ve managed over the last 30 years.
From what I’ve read, folks from Masten, Armadillo, SpaceX and the like are thrilled to be able to access the incredible level of talent and expertise available at various NASA centers.
For most enthusiasts of my generation, NASA has mostly been some type of god, but we’ve come to the point where we’re asking the god to live up to its billing.
Bennett, it appears you are confirming googaw’s point
For most enthusiasts of my generation, NASA has mostly been some type of god, but we’ve come to the point where we’re asking the god to live up to its billing.
If space enthusiasts see NASA as some sort of god, mental assimilation would seem inevitable.
Avoiding that is why I advocate adopting the MirCorp model — seek to go around NASA rather than through NASA.
Bill,
I agree that to become dependent upon NASA for all things is dangerous, but conducting business independently while tapping into the knowledge base and test sites/equipment is a good use of the tax dollars that went into setting up and maintaining NASA.
I think we can have our cake and eat it too.
What’s wrong with having dreams of manned spaceflight? There’s nothing inherently s*c**l*st about that, unless you expect others to pay for it.
In this era of economic history, i.e. at our current levels of technology and wealth, others do indeed end up paying involuntarily for more than 99% of it to make the other fraction of 1% work. So yes when self-styled “libertarian” space activists advocate for rather than oppose government funding for HSF — even or especially when they grotesquely abuse the language of liberty-friendly economics by speaking of this government funding as “commerce” and “markets” — that is s*c**l*st by any real libertarian’s definition. Anyone who loves liberty loathes this disgusting hijacking of libertarian terminology to support s*c**l*st economic fantasies.
(Fascinating BTW that whoever programmed the blog software seems to be especially sensitive about the word “s*c**l*st”. Hits too close to home eh?)
I was talking about people like Beal and Bezos.
@googaw
That word includes within it a male potency drug brand name.
So – see al iz – t
As an aside that company sponsored the Western Open golf tournament and our middle school daughter wanted a shirt from the event and was angry we refused, until we explained what the sponsor was selling.
Then she agreed that she did not want to wear a “See Al Is” Western Open golf shirt to the 6th grade no matter how cool the color.
= = =
I still say we could fund a robust program of human spaceflight by selling it as entertainment. Few tax dollars but lots of corporate sponsors.
Again, I quote Mary Roach from “Packing for Mars”
See pages 251-252
Of course, NASA could not do this. But NewSpace could.
Fascinating BTW that whoever programmed the blog software seems to be especially sensitive about the word “s*c**l*stâ€. Hits too close to home eh?
Your paranoia aside, you can’t spell socialist without cialis.
FWIW, the current situation is that both factions are digging in and waiting for the other side to blink first. The usual outcome of this sort of contest is a head-on collision. Ego may yet be the deciding factor in the fate of NASA HSF.
Bill White wrote @ September 19th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
“I still say we could fund a robust program of human spaceflight by selling it as entertainment.”
Without someone fronting the large upfront costs to “man-rate” a crew system, no company has said they see a business case. Even the $20M/seat that Musk quotes assumes NASA paying the $300M to “man-rate” F9/Dragon.
It’s a matter of how fast we all want the capability to be available, and what safety standards will be used:
A. If you want commercial crew soon, and you want NASA “certification”, then NASA needs to provide a good chunk of the “man-rate” money.
B. If commercial crew sometime next decade is OK, and letting the market set it’s own safety standards if OK, then NASA does not need to be involved.
I would prefer “A”.
NASA was founded in 1915 because the US was already, only 12 years after Kitty Hawk, losing the race in both commercial and military aviation. NASA’s original mission was and IS to support the US aerospace industry and allow it to compete effectively on the world stage, whether on the ground, in the air, or in space. It was created to provide industry-requested R&D and fund critical commercially-vital development that industry alone could not afford, and thus accelerate progress. The moon race was the aberration, a purely symbolic geopolitical stunt to divert the ideological conflict between the US and USSR away from a perilous nuclear arms race that could have destroyed the world. Read history. Start with “Engineer in Charge” by Hansen. Those who do not remember the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them.