Congress, Lobbying, NASA

One more lobbying push on the NASA bill

The House is in session right now, but there’s no timetable for consideration of the Senate NASA authorization bill. This morning there’s been one final wave of statements about the bill and requests for people to contact their representative regarding it. Late this morning NASA released a statement from administrator Charles Bolden expressing his support for S. 3729. Bolden said he was “hopeful” that the bill “will receive strong support in the House and be sent onto the President for his signature.” He adds at the end of the statement: “There is still a lot of work ahead, especially as the 2011 appropriations process moves forward, but the continuing support for NASA ensures America’s space program will remain at the forefront of pioneering new frontiers in science, technology, and exploration.”

A pithier request came from former Congressman Nick Lampson on Twitter: “Please call your congressman and ask him/her to vote FOR the space bill today in the House of Reps. Contact friends for same. Urgent!” What’s noteworthy is that Lampson posted the request on Twitter: his last tweet was more than seven and a half months ago.

Space advocate Rick Tumlinson isn’t one to mince words, and he doesn’t in an essay on The Huffington Post Wednesday morning about why people should support the Senate bill, as imperfect as it might be. “The Senate, on the other hand, although filling its own bill with as much pork as possible and keeping many of the obviously dead end programs started in the last administration alive, at least allows our NewSpace industry a shot at proving itself, and gives NASA marching orders at a time when many of its people are facing uncertainty and chaos,” he writes. And, because this is a relatively low profile issue, he says, a small number of people can make a big difference. “Because so little attention is being paid to this issue, those who do lift a finger can make a difference. And because the stakes are so large, the difference you make is greater than those issues so many see as important today and you can do little about.”

Recently retired Planetary Society executive director Lou Friedman would agree with Tumlinson that the Senate bill has its share of pork, but argues that’s a reason not to vote for it. “The NASA Authorization bills proposed in Congress barely mention exploration. They contain heavy prescriptions for how to build things, pointing to specific contractors. Having politicians design our rockets, propulsion systems, crew vehicles and payloads is a prescription for spending lots of money and accomplishing little,” he writes in a piece on The Planetary Society’s web site. “That’s why I personally oppose both Authorization bills. I am putting my hopes in the Appropriations Committees. Maybe they will authorize the funding and tell NASA to get beyond the Moon, leaving how to the scientists and engineers. Or maybe I am too naive.” Maybe.

114 comments to One more lobbying push on the NASA bill

  • Robert G. Oler

    the Senate bill is the future of American space industry.

    Robert G. Oler

  • CharlesHouston

    The Senate bill is as good we can hope to get! It doesn’t keep the US anywhere near the forefront of anything but does keep us somewhere in the trailing edges. Then we have to get well in the outyears :-(

  • DCSCA

    Until commercial space can demonstrate it is capable of launching a suborbital or orbital manned spaceflight and recovery the spacecraft and crew safely, not a penny of ‘borrowed’ funding from the United States Treasury should go to underwrite, or subsidize any loan guarantees for commerical ‘newspace’ activities in the Age of Austerity. Private capital markets are the proper place for commercial space companies to source financing for their space ventures. Prove you can do it, and the subsidy floodgates will open.

  • Scott Bass

    I agree with that….the senate bill is probably the best we could hope for, everyone worried about the senate language being to explicit really should be worried that it is not explicit enough though, Boldens press release bothered me today that he did not mention heavy lift at all…ie ……..maybe already found a loophole in the language to not build it.

  • Scott Bass

    I can hear him before congress now…”we can build that huge rocket, we don’t have the technology”

  • Ferris Valyn

    Mr. Bass – actually, the reality is this – we have the technology for it – what we don’t have is the money to build (or operate it), nor do we have a payload for it.

    And, I’d argue more importantly, we don’t have a need for it. We don’t need Super HLVs right now.

  • byeman

    No, the correct statement is “”we can build that huge rocket, we don’t have the need”. An HLV is not needed in the near future.

  • Scott Bass

    I am serious, this guy uses double negatives in his speeches like I have never heard before ……can’t won’t couldn’t I realize not everyone has the gift but jeez…a NASA administrator has to convey vision, enthusiasm, can do no matter what the obstacles and as someone said before an administrator has to have the ability to get congress excited too. Bolden sounded like he was already defeated during his confirmation. It’s may not be his fault…just the way he is.

  • Scott Bass

    Farris, I am not saying you have to be a cheerleader to be here but if that’s the way you feel then why are you here? It can’t be fun discussing the demise of NASA versus the promise of it, not trying to be critical of you just don’t understand why you would care to be in this forum if you don’t believe in exploration

  • Ferris Valyn

    And you are thinking we aren’t serious?

    I do agree – Bolden does not have the gift of great rhetoric.

  • Ferris Valyn

    I didn’t say I didn’t believe in exploration. I said I don’t see a need for Super-HLVs right now. Because we DON’T need Super-HLVs to do space exploration, even BEO space exploration.

    (and can we please get the e – its Ferris like the ride)

  • just don’t understand why you would care to be in this forum if you don’t believe in exploration

    One doesn’t have to believe in the heavy-lift myth to believe in exploration.

  • Bennett

    In fact, it’s a lot easier for me to believe in BEO exploration if you don’t expect me to believe in a new HLV first.

  • John G

    byeman wrote @ September 29th, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    “No, the correct statement is “”we can build that huge rocket, we don’t have the need”. An HLV is not needed in the near future.”

    So when do you think is the right time for a HLV? 2060? If we are about to set goals beyond LEO and go to other worlds (i.e. Moon and Mars) then we need HLV. Going beyond LEO to explore other worlds is the only exploration worth the name, and then HLV is crucial (and I don’t think an asteroid is that goal, or take a trip to Mars without landing)

    If you are so pessimistic about exploration and human spaceflight BEO – why are you here posting at all?

  • Of course we don’t “need” HLV for BEO exploration.

    On the other hand, persuading Congress to abolish HLV appears to be quite the challenging task. Rather than fight Congress, why not just get on with it, BEO exploration that is.

  • Major Tom

    “On the other hand, persuading Congress to abolish HLV appears to be quite the challenging task. Rather than fight Congress, why not just get on with it, BEO exploration that is.”

    Because Congress isn’t proposing to adequately fund their HLV, and in the process, they’re also starving all the other programs that are actually on the critical path to sustainable BEO exploration.

    FWIW…

  • @ Major Tom

    And therefore . . .

    Maybe we need to go around NASA & Congress. Take them off the critical path, so to speak.

  • Ferris Valyn

    John G

    So when do you think is the right time for a HLV? 2060? If we are about to set goals beyond LEO and go to other worlds (i.e. Moon and Mars) then we need HLV.

    No, actually we don’t need HLV to do BEO exploration. Frequent, reliable, space access is what is needed, as is orbital construction/assembly techniques.

    Are you really going to launch a Jupiter mission with 1 big rocket?

    Bill White

    On the other hand, persuading Congress to abolish HLV appears to be quite the challenging task. Rather than fight Congress, why not just get on with it, BEO exploration that is.

    Because I don’t think the money is there for doing missions once you have a very expensive to operate HLV. And I don’t believe that the numbers cited for Direct are going to work.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Maybe we need to go around NASA & Congress. Take them off the critical path, so to speak.

    The problem is they’ll stay on the critical path until there is enough non-governmental funding. And right now, there isn’t that.

    And so we are back to the chicken and egg thing.

  • Scott Bass

    Enjoyed the discussion, time to go help my girl with her hw, I’ll be back tonight to watch the vote though

  • Maybe NewSpace should support that Russian tourist station plan announced today. Lobby for ITAR reform to let Bigelow sell them habitats.

  • Bennett

    @ John G and Bill White

    If you’d been here over the last 6 months you would have seen countless posts by byeman and Ferris fully supporting BEO exploration. Indeed, we DO want to “get on with it”, using the vehicles that we have right now, LVs that are fully capable of building up the infrastructure in orbit we could use to mount missions to just about anywhere we decide to go.

    Fuel depots, a real space ship that stays in orbit, planetary landers, space tugs, additional ISS modules for crew layover, you name it! Atlas V and Delta IV Heavy are ready to launch whatever we build. SpaceX and Boeing can take over crew launch to LEO.

    Why spend half our budget on a new rocket when we can get on with it using what we have at our disposal?

  • Ferris Valyn

    Bill White

    We’ve been over this – I think ITAR reform is desperately needed (as does the Administration). And I think Orbital Technologies is a great development.

    Now, that said, I don’t think they’ll be interested in buying Bigelow habitats, since they are developing their own space stations.

  • Bennett

    Take a look at Congress, today.

    The Senate bill might very well be pulled from the House floor without a vote because ATK sympathetic Congress-folk continue to advocate for Ares 1 and Ares V.

    A few years ago Steidle & O’Keefe proposed all EELV and were soundly rejected. This year Obama’s FY2011 was DOA until the Senate added a DIRECT-like SDLV to the mix.

    Congress does not want to do an EELV-centric space program.

  • This is what kills me – “We need HLV to do BEO exploration.”

    I can’t believe after all of the studies done during the O’Keefe/Stiedle regime 10 years ago, Augustine, ULA, ad nauseum, people still are sucked up into that propaganda.

    Well, the SDHLV is coming (maybe) so sayeth the Congress.

    And thank the Universe, a boost to a sector of the economy that’s high tech!

  • Coastal Ron

    In the next decade, I don’t see NASA doing any exploration if they have to wait for an HLV.

    However, using Delta IV Heavy and the other existing launchers, we could use ISS-derived components and mount not only orbital visits to the Moon, but side trips to NEO’s. We have the technology today, so any funds directed towards heavy lift is money that is directed AWAY FROM exploration.

    A quick example of this:

    If we wanted to build a new ISS (~800,000 lbs), then figuring 40,000 lbs per flight Delta IV Heavy (50,000 actual capacity) could delivery everything in about 20 flights. ULA has stated that a man-rated Delta IV Heavy would cost $300M/flight, so using that conservative figure for cargo, 20 flights would cost $6B. That would be 800,000 lbs of space hardware delivered to LEO for a fixed price.

    As a byproduct, we already have lots of ISS hardware designed, tested and in use, so building more will be even cheaper for follow-on units like Node3, Quest Airlock or the European Robotic Arm. 5m diameter space structures are also plenty big enough for humans to live and work in.

    What could NASA do with $6B? That same $6B would come up short for building any HLV, even an SD-HLV like Direct. And operational costs would be piled on top of that for maintaining the NASA HLV workforce, regardless of how much it flies.

    And once an HLV is built, someone needs to pay for the development of new larger-diameter payloads to fly on them. These are currently hidden/unaddressed cost factors, but they will have the effect of allowing only the highest priority programs to use the HLV’s, since the cost of developing such payloads can only be carried by the highest priority programs. How many of those do you think will survive future budget fights? Not many, especially with the long leadtimes it takes to build and test them.

    Bottom line, HLV’s create more problems right now than they solve. Only when the limits of the current launchers are reached do we need to consider bigger launchers, and at that point the market should have a good idea what the capacity is needed for, and how much it’s willing to pay.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Bill – the flip side is Congress doesn’t want to fund a SDLV-centric space program (not one that has any meaning).

    At somepoint, its s*** or get off the pot time.

  • Coastal Ron

    Bill White wrote @ September 29th, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    Maybe we need to go around NASA & Congress. Take them off the critical path, so to speak.

    Keep tilting at windmills Bill.

    Until there is human spaceflight industry that can stand on it’s own, no one is going to foot the bill to “go around” NASA and Congress. Why would they?

    NASA is the only real customer for human spaceflight at this point, and any non-NASA uses will just be leveraging off the capabilities that support NASA.

    Unless you’re seeing something that no one else does. Do you want to lay out a scenario that supports your premise?

  • Major Tom

    “@ Major Tom

    And therefore . . .

    Maybe we need to go around NASA & Congress. Take them off the critical path, so to speak.”

    Honestly, when it’s all boiled down, it’s just a simple question of what you want your NASA workforce doing versus what you want your industry workforce doing.

    Do you really want your NASA workforce doing things that industry is already doing, is very capable of doing, and doing more efficiently than NASA and that have been done for decades? Things like ETO transport?

    Or do you want to leave routine tasks to industry and focus your NASA workforce on the research, technology, and hardware needed for those tasks that have never been done before or were only done decades ago? Things like BEO exploration?

    It’s not a hard choice.

    FWIW…

  • Scott Bass

    I do think your skipping over the grandeur a large rocket like the Saturn v does for public perception. I mean I am at a age to where I was very young but remember the Saturn V. It was inspiring just in itself, much more so than the shuttle ever was. You gotta throw John public a bone, ultimately the more you capture the publics imagination the more money will be made available through congress. The Hubble space telescope paid for itself if you can put a price on inspiration. An Ares V rocket would do the same.? Perhaps more so if they had designated 180mt vs 130mt

    Anyway I hope you see my point, peole want to be inspired and feel like they are a part if it. I ran a portable space museum that I took around to elementary schools for a while, the Saturn v was always number one

  • I believe we have argued all of this out before, without resolution. Maybe we should just wait and see what Congress actually does later today.

    Cheers to all!

  • Ferris Valyn

    Mr. Bass

    First, I personally think the inspiration argument is WAY overblown. But we’ll leave that to the side, for the moment.

    Second – here is the question you have to ask yourself – if you have to choose between a large rocket, and actually putting humans on the moon (or at the moment BEO spaceflight), which do you think is more inspiring? Because the simple fact is, we don’t have the budget to do both right now. So – big rocket, or BEO spaceflight/going to the moon?

    People will be “inspired” by actually going places, rather than big rockets.

  • Scott Bass

    Btw what will be really interesting is American reaction when the Chinese video starts beaming in taikonauts romping on the moon surface. Perhaps we have reached a point in this country to where we don’t care. Did it hurt anybodys feeling when Obama said “cmon what’s the big deal, we did that 40 years ago.” I know my heart sank but will it effect anyone else that way when other nations go?

  • Scott Bass

    Ferris, if you could give me the moon back in 2020 launched on delta iv’s I would jump on it and say to hell with hlv. That us not the choice being presented. The Obama plan has no vision, no target , no vision

    Nothing gets done with out a deadline, nothing
    I am taking Hlv because that is all I could get, I did my part, I wrote my congressman and senator, I even wrote others , They offered hlv over nothing and so I said yes

  • Ferris Valyn

    Mr. Bass – I highly doubt it’ll impact America that much, if/when the Chinese start walking on the moon (and given they aren’t going to do it till the 2020s, I don’t see the immediate concern), because unlikely the 1960s, there isn’t the kind of abject fear/terror that was associated with space & rockets as there was with Sputnik (because of its association with the cold war, nuclear deterrence, and nuclear war). I suspect most people will take the “ok, cool, so what?”

    Because it doesn’t impact them that much. Most Americans are more concerned with having jobs, and providing for their families, than how the Chinese are spending discretionary money.

  • vluture4

    If you want thrills, go to the movies. NASA has not one thin dime to waste on anything without practical value. Read “Engineer in Charge” by Hansen. 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 still 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. NASA was originally created to provide industry-requested R&D and fund critical commercially-vital development that industry alone could not afford, and thus accelerate progress. In the NACA days there was an annual meeting at which industry would tell NACA its priorities. 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.

    The only modern change that can be justified is a modest increase in mission scope to also provide practical benefits to America in related fields from materials to medicine when NASA has the capability, not as an accidental byproduct (the supposedly “free” spinoff of expensive human spaceflight) but as a primary goal..

  • John Malkin

    I don’t think John public or Joe the plumber care about the size or method used to get BEO. I’m sure if engineers were left with xxmt, they could fit most early BEO missions into it. I think initial size is less important than scalability of a system. We can’t walk in an affordable way to LEO so how can we run to BEO. In general John public cares about the first or second time things are done in space but not in long term space infrastructure. Ben the scientist, Eddie the space advocate, Patty the computer programmer and Carl the engineer love infrastructure and know something about it.

  • vluture4

    “Btw what will be really interesting is American reaction when the Chinese video starts beaming in taikonauts romping on the moon surface.”

    China is not engaged in a moon race. If they lost they would look incompetent; if they won they would irritate their biggest customer. They would lose either way. Obviously, if they WERE involved in a race they would be launching people more than once a year, just often enough to stay in the news. Their goals in human spaceflight are to build national pride in their domestic audience and to advertise their commercial aerospace capability to the rest of the world. They would like to be invited to join the ISS program, not to steal our technology but to demonstrate that they are a member of the club of elite nations.

  • More important to define Low Earth Orbit is a “public commons” for the benefit of the entire world through US guidance and development there than to compete to be “the” moon lander.

    Scarier still for America to see Chinese military satellites exercising their potential in near/low earth orbit and using it to influence and coerce world events and American ambitions.

    Let them shoot for the moon, for now.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Ferris, if you could give me the moon back in 2020 launched on delta iv’s I would jump on it and say to hell with hlv. That us not the choice being presented. The Obama plan has no vision, no target , no vision

    Actually, here is one plan that is consistent with Obama’s proposal that is likely to get us to the moon by 2020

    http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf

    What was presented in Feb was NOT a complete vision – that I’ll grant. But I don’t believe that was the end all, by any stretch. Because with the technology that was getting developed, by the 2016 date (when the proposed budget came to an end), plans like the above (and others) that use advance tech would be entirely doable within the 2020 timeframe.

    The key thing is to look at what becomes doable and practical when you have the technology available, with the budget available. If you don’t do that, you miss an important point about the Obama proposal/plan

    Nothing gets done with out a deadline, nothing
    I am taking Hlv because that is all I could get, I did my part, I wrote my congressman and senator, I even wrote others , They offered hlv over nothing and so I said yes

    Actually, I don’t agree that things don’t get done without a deadline (at least when we are talking about something this large). I am less concerned about a deadline that is 15 years down the road (which it was when Constellation & VSE were announced) that has to survive multiple administrations & congresses. For something like this, sustainable budgets & capabilities enabled are much more important than having a specific return by date.

    Because that isn’t doable if you don’t have the budget, and historically, its very hard to sustain a budget for a big complex program like Constellation.

  • Bennett

    The key thing is to look at what becomes doable and practical when you have the technology available, with the budget available.

    …and that’s why the FY2011 budget proposal made so much sense.

  • Scott Bass

    Just for the record I never said anything about a space race with china, just that they are going anyway and pondering the public perception. I am still confused why constellation proponents are coming out against this bill today. It seems to me that this wold be the best they would hope to get. Does Griffen really think that by congress not voting for this that everyone will just through there arms up and say let’s just continue with constellation?
    Seriously answer if you know, it does not make sense to me… If the house touches this bill then the senate and the white house still have to sign off

  • On the actual subject of the day, I just saw this on Twitter:

    jeff_foust

    RT @BrettSilcox House to take up S.3729, NASA Auth at 8pm.

    Cheers! :)

  • Major Tom

    “The Obama plan has no vision, no target… Nothing gets done with out a deadline”

    This is simply untrue. The schedule included, among others, the following missions in the following years:

    Technology Demonstrations:
    AR&D FTD-1: 2014
    30kW SEP Stage: 2014
    CryoStaT: 2015
    Inflatable ISS Module: 2015
    AEDL: 2016 (Earth-based) or 2018 (Mars-based)

    Robotic Precursors:
    NERO (NEO Rendezvous): 2014
    Teleoperated Lunar Polar Lander: 2015
    Mars Resource Explorer: 2016 (Orbiter), 2018 (Lander)
    Additional NEO Rendezvous: 2019

    Human BEO:
    NEO: NLT 2025

    These are just the major, planned missions. There are additional, competed tech demo and robotic precursor mission opportunities, as well as the initiation of at least two commercial crew services by 2015. See the presentations at:

    nasa.gov/exploration/new_space_enterprise/home/workshop_home.html

    You may or may not agree with these deadlines, targets, and content, but it’s an ignorant statement (or outright lie) to claim or imply that “the Obama plan has… no target [or] deadline”.

    “I am taking Hlv because that is all I could get”

    I’m not trying to be insulting, but to be blunt, that’s a stupid move. As Saturn V/Apollo and now Ares V/Constellation prove, a large, expensive HLV does not enable an affordable BEO exploration program or sustain it for more than an handful of operational missions. In fact, it guarantees that the BEO program will never see fruition or be terminated after a few missions due to issues of affordability. In fact, it robs funding from the other research, technologies, and hardware — specifically the ones in the Administration’s FY 2011 budget proposal for NASA above — that are actually on the critical path to sustained BEO exploration.

    FWIW…

  • Vladislaw

    “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.”

    NACA was founded in 1915, it was dissolved in 1958 and then NASA was created.

  • Scott Bass

    Major Tom, all comments were in reference to project constellation, I was not referring to the non manned stuff outlined in your post. I simply disagree with your thinking, I believe a Hlv coming on line close to Obamss departure will be a great thing. the next administration will flesh it all out. I know many believe the way you do and many believe the way I do. I am glad my side is prevailing and I am sure time will tell if We are right or wrong.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Mr. Bass – but half of that is manned

    Thats the point

  • Major Tom

    “Major Tom, all comments were in reference to project constellation, I was not referring to the non manned stuff outlined in your post.”

    Two points:

    1) That list includes a manned NEO mission in 2025.

    2) All the “non manned [sic] stuff” is in support of manned BEO missions. Apollo didn’t happen without a number of critical unmanned research and demonstration missions. It’s out-of-touch with technical reality to pretend otherwise this time around.

    “I believe a Hlv coming on line close to Obamss departure will be a great thing. the next administration will flesh it all out.”

    How do you know that an HLV is a “great thing” if it’s not “fleshed out”.

    What’s the mass of this HLV’s most common payload?

    What’s the volume of this HLV’s most common payload?

    Based on those payloads, how often will this HLV fly?

    Based on those payloads, how big does this HLV need to be?

    How much is this HLV going to cost to develop?

    How much is this HLV going to cost to operate?

    Do those costs leave any funding in NASA’s human space flight budget to develop and operate the payloads (transit stages, landers, etc.) that are actually required for BEO exploration?

    Especially given the 20%+ cut that the Republican leadership wants to make in the non-defense discretionary budget if they take control of Congress this fall?

    If you (or we) can’t answer these simple questions, then you (or we) shouldn’t support spending many billions of taxpayer dollars on one. It’s very premature.

    “I am sure time will tell if We are right or wrong.”

    There’s no need to wait. History has already shown time and time again — from Saturn V/Apollo to Ares V/Constellation — that BEO exploration programs built around expensive HLVs either never get off the drawing board or are terminated after a handful of missions, precisesly because they are not affordable.

    FWIW…

  • Michael Kent

    Scott Bass wrote:

    I simply disagree with your thinking, I believe a Hlv coming on line close to Obamss departure will be a great thing.

    What on earth or in space makes you believe that the HLV will come online by 2016? That would require the same organization that failed to develop Ares 1 to develop a launch vehicle more complex and three times the size of Ares 1, using the same people, facilities, and contracts as Ares 1, in 1/3 the time and for 1/3 the budget of Ares 1.

    I mean, it could happen, but why would you count on it?

    The odds against it are, as they say, astronomical.

    Mike

  • Crazy fake U.S.leaders want to kill great lift system Constellation & Ares X-1 & future viable HLV. Morons control U.S. and NASA now!

    ATK-NASA-Dr. Griffin Thank you for all your great work.

    I appreciate all the work done advancing space and the aerospace industry.

  • Ferris Valyn

    l great lift system Constellation & Ares X-1 & future viable HLV.

    Yea, so great it may end up destroying NASA

  • Major Tom

    “Crazy fake U.S.leaders want to kill great lift system Constellation & Ares X-1 & future viable HLV. Morons control U.S. and NASA now!”

    Only “morons” would refer to Ares I-X as “Ares X-1″ and claim that this test flight, which ended in October 2009, could be “killed” by FY 2011 budget legislation.

    C’mon, people.

  • I realize anyone that can defecate can express their opinion on this blog.
    But this does not mean they are correct or architects of best space policy.

    As has historically been the case no amount of poop has been spared to express opinion on this blog.

  • Ferris Valyn

    As has historically been the case no amount of poop has been spared to express opinion on this blog.

    Certainly true in your case

  • NASA TEST LAUNCH ARES X-1
    (from NASA constellation website)
    “The 327-foot-tall Ares I-X test vehicle produced 2.6 million pounds of thrust to accelerate the rocket to nearly 3 g’s and Mach 4.76, just shy of hypersonic speed. It capped its easterly flight at a suborbital altitude of 150,000 feet after the separation of its first stage, a four-segment solid rocket booster.”

    For all practical purposes the ARES X-1 test WAS SUCCESSFUL !!
    ATK has tested 5th segment and this works fine all segments of this SRB are in working order.

    Contrary to the fake engineers on this blog ARES works.

  • Scott Bass

    Lol….I would not presume my opinions are the correct ones, that’s why you discuss stuff….to learn, having said that, my suggestion earlier today that Bolden and Garver might be or should be replaced may have gotten my posting privilege revoked on another site so I guess you got to watch what you say about someones buddy.
    I seriously don’t mind when people express different opinions than my own, the idea that everyone thinks the same would make for a very boring discussion bored, I only bail when it gets ugly

  • Major Tom

    “For all practical purposes the ARES X-1…”

    For the second time, it’s Ares I-X, not “X-1″. It’s fine if you want to play fanboy, but at least get the name of the test vehicle right.

    “… test WAS SUCCESSFUL !!”

    No, it wasn’t:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ares_I-X_booster_damage_2009-5997.jpg

    “ATK has tested 5th segment and this works fine all segments of this SRB are in working order.”

    That was a ground test. No flight test of a five-segment SRB has ever taken place.

    “Contrary to the fake engineers on this blog ARES works.”

    Only “fake engineers” ignore multiple parachute failures, damaged SRB casings that are critical to operational reuse for reasons of safety and cost, and a lack of technically relevant test flights.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Bruce – Other people no doubt can give the details of all the problems Ares I-X had. However, we do know they included
    1. Significantly more pad damage than expected.
    2. Parachute deployment failure
    3. First stage damage
    4. Upper Stage flat spin

    All of those came up as serious issues.

    But actually, thats really not the issue.

    The real issue is that Ares I-X had no similarities to an actual Ares I to produce usable testing data.

  • Scott Bass

    Only “fake engineers” ignore multiple parachute failures, damaged SRB casings that are critical to operational reuse for reasons of safety and cost, and a lack of technically relevant test flights.

    True..watched it…..they were under alot of pressure to call it successful though and if you believe they learned from those failures…..well that is what they were suppose to do.

  • Scott Bass

    Anymore tweets…..still no action in the house, did it get canceled?

  • Bennett

    I last bill is being debated before the NASA bill, but the CR was passed in the Senate and may come up before NASA:\

    http://houselive.gov/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&event_id=2

  • Scott Bass

    Thanks Bennett

  • Bennett

    My pleasure Scott.

  • Scott Bass

    It going on now!

  • amightywind

    Ferris Valyn wrote:

    1. Significantly more pad damage than expected.

    The launch pad is design for the shuttles near vertical ascent from the pad. Ares I necessarily initiates a yaw maneuver, just like the olde Saturn V.

    2. Parachute deployment failure

    http://www.spacetravel.com/reports/What_Caused_The_Ares_IX_Parachute_To_Fail_999.html

    Fully explained.

    3. First stage damage

    Due to bucking at impact.

    4. Upper Stage flat spin

    Ares I-X was was not equipped with separation motors, nor was it guided. Under dynamic pressure the upper stage has negative stability, hence the spin, fully expected.

    The real issue is that Ares I-X had no similarities to an actual Ares I to produce usable testing data.

    The vehicle had the same mass, profile, and inertial characteristics of the flight vehicle. NASA wanted to test unknowns of lift off behavior, basic guidance and aerodynamics. The test was a great success. Time magazine called Ares I-X the invention of the year for 2009. Perhaps they should have consulted the Bolsheviks in the Whitehouse before they showed such enthusiasm.

    All of your points have been easily refuted. You shouldn’t be dishonest if you expect to be taken seriously.

    Ares I is ready to fly!

  • Pete Olson (R-TX) just said:

    “The low point was Obama’s FY2011 & the plan was so bad, so miguided, it united all parties . . . ”

    Whoa! Those are tough words.

  • NASA Fan

    All this chatter about HLV or not. Senate bill steers pork to constituents and isn’t an expression of a ‘will’ to committed vision or direction for NASA. Same holds for House expression.

    HLV w no mission, no payload no reason is evidence enough.

    Where there is will there is a way. No will, then no way.

    NASA as we have come to know it is dead this congressional cycle, no matter what bill eventually reaches the Presidents desk.

    A bankrupt democracy is not a bold risk taking democracy and won”t be committed to a costly HSF program beyond ‘jobs in my district’.

    Deorbit the ISS in 2020 and let Merchant 7 make a business case to stockholders on profit making HSF endeavors – Not.

  • Representative Dana Rohrabacher is supporting S. 3729.

  • Bennett

    Go Congressman Rohrabacher! The best (and most germane) words uttered in the chamber this evening.

  • Representative Rohrabacher, “This compromise does justice to all sides.”

    Yup. That is what I’ve been saying.

  • Scott Bass

    It really is a breath of fresh air to see the bipartisan support for a change

  • Bennett

    Ahhhh, the wisdom of spreading the pork factories evenly through red and blue states.

  • Bennett

    What I love is the “I hate the Obama Plan, so I’m voting FOR this Senate Bill”…

    What a frickin’ hoot!

  • Hey, we need to go to space with the Congress we have, not the Congress we wished we had.

  • Scott Bass

    well Bennett , even if Obama had a good plan which I don’t think he did, it has to be the worse job of trying to sell it I ever saw…..he deserves the roasting he is getting over this

  • Justin Kugler

    “You shouldn’t be dishonest if you expect to be taken seriously.

    Ares I is ready to fly!”

    The irony is strong with this one. So, pray tell, where are that second stage and J-2X engine? What about the inability of Ares I to put the intended payload in a circular orbit?

    Ares I is not ready to fly and Ares I-X was not a validation of an operational system. It was a very expensive opportunity to gather flight data for later use.

  • Bennett

    I agree, Bill. The Congress we wish we had isn’t in session this year.

    Here’s Giffords pouring some ATK into the debate…

  • Bennett

    Bill, I go with the theory that his proposal was reaching beyond what he knew would be acceptable, thus he knew it would be whittled down to SO MUCH MORE than anyone could have ever hoped for…

  • Just remember, this debate is between the Senate bill (Obama’s FY2011 merged with DIRECT) and Giffords beloved Constellation.

    NO ONE in Congress is supportive of FY2011 as presented back in February.

  • Bennett

    Wellllll, other than MY Vermont reps.

  • Bennett, I’m good with that. And I’ve thought the same thing.

    Had Obama introduced the current Senate bill in February, we would have ended up a lot closer to Constellation than we are, today.

    Its that 11 dimensional chess that Obama likes to do.

  • Scott Bass

    I agree with that statement Bill, man that girl from Arizona talked fast lol

  • Bennett

    Bill, I’m not happy with most of what has happened in the last 10 years, but I am happy that I will finally see some progress in developing the infrastructure we need to move out to beyond LEO. Frankly, the specific destinations don’t matter. If we can do Mars Rovers, we can do fantastic things with this new direction.

  • The Senate bill mentions infrastructure at LaGrange points. Deploy a fuel depot at EML-1 and we can have all the destinations

  • Bennett

    FUUUUUCK! Giffords should DIE!

  • Eh, she just wants a roll call vote. It is her right.

  • Scott Bass

    Ok ….so Bennett, what’s next, are they going to talk about everything else and then vote on all of them at the same time.?

  • Bennett

    Bill & Scott,

    Oh well, we wait (up to 48 hours) for the official electronic vote (so I’ve read on nasa space flight).

    I know it’s her right, but the gavel was SO close to dropping…

    You both have a great night’s sleep, we have good dreams ahead!

  • 20 minutes, they are saying now.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Bennet – She just needs to lose re-election (and remember, I am a Democrat saying that in a bad year)

    That should tell you something

  • Bennett

    Whhhoooaaaa! Hold on folks! Vote in 20 minutes?

  • Jeff Foust

    There will be a recorded vote tonight, but probably later than 20 minutes from now.

  • Bennett

    Hi Jeff, I was up at 5:30 EDT (my 4 year old woke up early) but am good till midnight for something like this.

  • Scott Bass

    Well I am staying up for it…..I’ve been watching since 10 am haha

  • DCSCA

    Major Tom wrote @ September 29th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
    “The Obama plan has no vision, no target… Nothing gets done with out a deadline”

    This is simply untrue. Inaccurate. It’s a paper space program. As the Age of Austerity clouds the horizons of all things government financed, NASA needs one goal w/a targeted deadline, not several make-work projectson uninspiring projects in out years. Asteroids probes are perfect space projects for universities and private corportions to practice perfecting their ‘craft’… return to thhe moon is what NASA needs to target, even at the cosr of shedding its aeronautical elements to competing government agencies. Let NASA be NASA. A civilian space agency for the 21st century.

  • Scott Bass

    It is exciting, I read Lori Garvers comments on this too, she did mention heavy lift in her spill but was kinda dismissive of the senate design language, saying she thought the senators could be worked with to design the best rocket they needed….. So I still expect an on going fight between congress and the administrators. I guess the question now is can a committee change the design language without another full vote by congress? I need to read the whole bill and have read more of the house version so I may be confusing verbiage

  • Scott Bass

    Just a few more minutes I think

  • David C

    Theres more members in the house now, over half, so votes take longer; but getting down to the wire; afterwards the CR gets voted on; going to be a long night;

    Cheers

  • Bennett

    Well, it’s a good day for the folks that want to see more than a pork holiday.

    My thanks to all of you who called your Congressmen.

    Constellation is dead at last. Long live Commercial Space!

  • Scott Bass

    It was a squeaker…but yeaa

  • Coastal Ron

    Not a squeaker – they had good margins, just like Delta IV Heavy does for Orion… ;-)

    Just had to give Windy a little dig, since his hopes of Ares I have now been dashed.

  • Needed 290 under the rules. (2/3rds needed to win)

    Closer than we might think.

  • Major Tom

    “The launch pad is design for the shuttles near vertical ascent from the pad. Ares I necessarily initiates a yaw maneuver, just like the olde Saturn V.”

    Ares I doesn’t “necessarily initiate a yaw maneuver”. Ares I _has_ to undertake a pad avoidance maneuver to avoid a catastrophic collision with its own launch structure. The Ares I-X pad avoidance maneuver caused anticipated damage to the existing Shuttle launch pad and avoiding the damage caused by the pad avoidance maneuver in operational Ares I launches is a major reason why the Shuttle pads were being redesigned and rebuilt at great cost before Constellation’s termination.

    It’s bad engineering — like having to repave your driveway because you built your car to be so slow and unmaneuverable in low gear that its exhaust melts the driveway while the car slowly tries to avoid running into the flower bed. Just buy an existing car with enough speed and steerability to avoid the flower bed in the first place.

    And even setting aside the costs of rebuilding the Shuttle pads, there are still unknowns associated with what weather conditions Ares I could have safely executed the pad avoidance maneuver.

    “Fully explained.”

    Not for Ares I, which was designing beyond the limits of existing parachute dimensions.

    “Due to bucking at impact.”

    The SRB casings experienced buckling at ocean impact, not “bucking”.

    And that buckling was due to the SRB hitting the ocean at too high a velocity after the parachute failures.

    And that’s unacceptable because the safety and cost promises of Ares I were predicated on the recoverability and reusability of those SRB casings. If Ares I-X can’t demonstrate parachute recovery with a four-segment SRB, then Ares I recovery beyond the limits of existing parachute dimensions for a larger five-segment SRB is highly suspect. And if Ares I SRBs couldn’t be recovered, then Ares I safety trends couldn’t be tracked. And if Ares I SRBs couldn’t be reused, then Ares I operational costs would increase dramatically when new steel casing production or composite casing development had to be undertaken.

    “Ares I-X was was not equipped with separation motors, nor was it guided.”

    This is patently false. Ares I-X employed Atlas V avionics, including a Fault Tolerant Inertial Navigation Unit (FTINU) on both the first and second stages and Redundant Rate Gyro Units on the first stage. The first stage also included a new Ascent Thrust Vector Controller (ATVC) and the second stage included a new active roll control system (RoCS).

    Don’t make stuff up.

    “The vehicle had the same mass, profile, and inertial characteristics of the flight vehicle.”

    No, it didn’t. A four-segment SRB does not simulate the flight profile or inertial characteristics of a five-segment SRB, not by a long shot.

    “Time magazine called Ares I-X the invention of the year for 2009.”

    Only because Horowitz knew one of the editors.

    And since when do journalists at a nontechnical photomag written at the junior high school level qualify as good judges of aerospace engineering?

    And since when do you subscribe to leftist mainstream press?

    “You shouldn’t be dishonest if you expect to be taken seriously.”

    Doctor, heal thyself.

    “Ares I is ready to fly!”

    Yes, five-segment first-stage and J-2X upper-stage issues ranging from the weather envelope for pad avoidance to thrust oscillation to SRB recovery beyond existing parachute design limits to Orion debris interaction on flight termination have all been fully vetted in flight tests.

    Not.

    Even if they had been, it doesn’t matter. Ares I’s last, scant hope died in tonight’s vote.

    Now the question becomes whether NASA can afford the already underfunded, Senate-designed SDHLV if the Republicans take control and cut the non-defense discretionary budget as much as they’ve promised to.

  • Bennett

    Actually, 286 was enough for 2/3 by my count. But it really doesn’t matter. Congrats Bill, Vladislaw, Scott, Coastal Ron, et al.

    Have a great day tomorrow.

    Bennett

  • Bennett

    …and Major Tom? I admire you to no end.

  • Major Tom

    “I guess the question now is can a committee change the design language without another full vote by congress?”

    They can’t, but technically it probably doesn’t matter. The Senate HLV design language with respect to using the Shuttle/Constellation workforce and contracts and other design features is contingent on “where possible” clauses. This means that, at least by the authorization bill, it’s really up to the NASA Administrator (and White House to the extent they want to get involved) to decide what the design parameters and technical basis of the HLV will be.

    No doubt congressmen in certain districts and states will continue to complain and obstruct when the HLV is not as Shuttle- or Constellation-derived as they would like it to be. But I wouldn’t be surprised if NASA continues to push down the LOX/kerosene and EELV/commercial path for HLV laid out in the FY11 budget. (I also wouldn’t be surprised if the Administration’s FY12 budget proposes to reduce/slow HLV in favor of boosting underfunded commercial crew and exploration technology programs, consistent with the FY11 budget.)

    The real HLV test will come if the Republicans take control of Congress and cut the non-defense discretionary budget by the ~20% figures they’re tossing around. The Senate language already underfunds its SDHLV. That kind of cut to NASA’s topline would certainly make an SDHLV, and maybe even an EELV- or commercially-derived HLV, totally untenable.

    FWIW…

  • Scott Bass

    praying you are wrong Tom, I would not worry to much about the republicans , they love to spend money as much as the dems do and they like Nasa, during the debate tonight one of them refered to Nasa as being part of defense :) not sire which side said it but I noted it.

  • Rhyolite

    Major Tom wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 12:01 am

    The question now is whether the Administrator and the Administration have the courage of their own conviction. I certainly see enough leeway in the bill’s language to implement the FY11 plan largely as intended but it is not the path of least resistance. The implementation is going to be interesting to watch.

  • David C

    Rhyolite, that is why we have to be vigilant and not let our guard down; we did it once, 5 years ago, and look where it got us, 9 Billion wasted on a bird that couldn’t carry the weight of the space craft it was suppose to carry; this time, there will be a lot more eyes on NASA, both in Congress and in the Space Flight Community; the only thing we can’t control, is the funding;

  • Coastal Ron

    David C wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 1:16 am

    Word

  • Mythical Magician

    praying you are wrong Tom

    Do you think that will work? I myself prefer hope and magic, even though they never seem to produce any reproducible results.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

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